Sitting of 8 March 2004

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

  EQUITABLE LIFE INQUIRY
  Resolved
  That there should be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Equitable Life Inquiry conducted by the Right Honourable Lord Penrose.—[Mr. Karp.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Sports Facilities (Funding)
    Mr. David Amess: If she will make a statement on the funding of sports facilities from lottery funds. [158916]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): Lottery funding continues to transform sports provision, but, as everybody knows, receipts are falling, so the Government are reforming Sport England to ensure that lottery money is most effectively used. Facilities and other funding will be based on sport's own priorities and have a true regional focus. The driving force for that will be greater sustainable participation in sport and physical activities.
    Mr. Amess: For too long, my constituency of Southend, West has languished in the bottom group of beneficiaries from lottery funds despite the excellent quality of the many applications that have been made. Will the Minister explain why, two years ago, the Government indicated that £750 million from the New Opportunities Fund would be fast-tracked to sport, yet only £230 million has found its Nay to our schools, of which only £8.5 million has actually been spent?
    Mr. Caborn: Under the six-year programme, £581 million of the £750 million is to be invested, through local education authorities, in sports facilities. We are the first to admit that, had Sport England been up to it —unfortunately, it was not—we should have invested through that medium. Over the past two years, I have been engaged in the reform programme for Sport England. which will work through the governing bodies and the new regional sports boards; the 75 local and regional funding streams have been transformed and the
    1224
    process will be much more bottom-up, influenced by sport, as well as by people in the regions and in the governing bodies.
    John Cryer: The Minister may be aware that my Hornchurch constituency has done extremely badly from lottery funding for the kind of facilities referred to in the question. Will he give an assurance that future bids from Hornchurch and from the London borough of Havering will be looked at fairly and, preferably, approved?
    Mr. Caborn: Overall, the Department and the distributors have been trying to ensure that lottery funding is much more sensitive to local needs and that distribution is fairer. As I said in my previous answer, sports governing bodies and the regional sports boards will be the major distributors of the money, to ensure that we respond to the needs of sport and of community development Sport England will be the community platform from which schemes will be developed.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that the Government have removed sport's legitimate expectations from the lottery? When they took office, they reduced the proportion of lottery money going to sport, but made sure that lottery money went to many unpopular causes, including the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. As a result, there has been much less lottery money for sport, and the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who pointed out that only £8 million of the £750 million promised three years ago has been spent, shows that the Government have no idea about joined-up thinking. The money that sport was led to expect it would get is tied up in red tape in the Department for Education and Skills. It should have been given to Sport England and delivered to sport—the Government have broken their promise.
    Mr. Caborn: When the hon. Gentleman reflects on his question, he will find that it has many contradictions. Sport England receives 16.7 per cent. of lottery funds and the New Opportunities Fund receives about 33 per cent. A considerable amount of that money has been invested in sport. The £750 million for local education authorities to which the hon. Gentleman refers is actually going into sports facilities—
    Mr. Hawkins: It is not getting there.
    Mr. Caborn: It certainly is getting there. The hon. Gentleman should have been in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) last Friday and seen the all-weather pitches and the developments for tennis and basketball in Dronfield, just outside Sheffield. Over the next 18 months to two years, 1,700 schemes will be coming on stream as a result of New Opportunities Fund investment in new sports facilities.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that better funding is spread throughout the north-west? In Chorley, we have a very

    1225
    good athletics club but a running track is much needed. How much funding can be made available through Sport England for that scheme?
    Mr. Caborn: When I took this job, we had 75 different funding streams. We have acted in an adult way and taken a systematic approach, involving those responsible for sportx2014;the governing bodies—and the new sports boards, which have a much wider constituency than had previously been the case, and the funding will be invested strategically and systematically. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make strong representations to Andy Worthington, the chair of the new north-west regional sports board, who will listen to the case so as to ensure that the scheme is delivered within the time scale that my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. James Gray: At the Labour party conference in September 2000—some four years ago—the Prime Minister said:
    "Today we set out plans to invest £750 million"
    in
    "three years".
    By anyone's standards, the Labour party conference in 2000, plus three, gives 2003 and £750 million. In 2002, the Minister said in a very fine speech that he once made:
    "I want"
    it to happen
    "by the summer."—[Official Report, 1 March 2002; Vol. 380, c. 999.]
    However, in a written answer in the House of Lords on 8 January this year, the Government were forced to admit that they had allocated £750 million, that they had so far committed £230 million, but that only £8 million had been spent, despite the Prime Minister's promise in 2000. When will he start putting his money where his mouth is?
    Mr. Caborn: I am not taking lectures from that lot opposite, who were closing 40 playing fields a month when we came to power and had no sports strategy at all. We are spending £750 million, but we happen to be just a little bit behind schedule, so it is a bit rich of Conservative Members to criticise us.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister should not worry too much about the Tories, who gave £13 million towards the Churchill papers. I want to draw his attention back to the baths at Bolsover. I know that he is dealing with Chorley, Sheffield and all those other places, but will he give me an assurance about the proposal to save the baths at Bolsover—a declining area following the pit closures? The last bath was closed because of subsidence. We have got a first-class case. Do not bother about that lot over there—bother about Bolsover.
    Mr. Caborn: I assure my hon. Friend that the east midlands sport board will take on board his interesting point. Many of the sports facilities in his constituency and, indeed, in those of many of my other hon. Friends were developed through the pits and the big steelworks. Many of those facilities were lost, but, as my hon. Friend suggests, we are trying to bring them back into community use. In fact, that investment in the
    1226
    community is governed by the community. I will take what he says to the east midlands sports board, and we will discuss it again.

    Football
    Colin Burgon: What plans she has to meet football representative bodies to discuss player behaviour. [158917]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I have no such plans at present. Players' behaviour is primarily a matter for the football authorities, but the Government invest substantially in football's development and do not wish poor behaviour to be imitated. I have discussed the issue in the past with those in the sport. Indeed, I wrote to all football clubs at the beginning of the 2002 season, drawing their attention to what teachers have been telling me as I have gone around the country: that what happens on the pitch on a Saturday is copied in the playgrounds on the Monday. I believe that professional players of all sport, but particularly of football—our national game—should take that advice from this country's teachers.
    Colin Burgon: I thank the Minister for that reply. I know that he shares my sadness about the regular reports of the behaviour of a significant number of professional footballers over the past year or so, but I want to be positive about the game. When he meets the football authorities will he use his influence to promote the idea of a John Charles fair play award at either national or European level? The Minister, as a Sheffield United supporter, knows a bit about football. John Charles of Leeds United and Wales was never sent off or booked in his career. In many respects, he represents the age of innocence for our national game. What support can the Minister give to all those of us who want John Charles's memory to be honoured properly?
    Mr. Caborn: All hon. Members recognise the contribution that John Charles made to football. I know that my hon. Friend is a Leeds supporter and that John Charles played for the team for eight or nine years and was an outstanding footballer who graced many pitches at national and international level. My hon. Friend's suggestion about a fair play award is made at an appropriate time in the development of football in this country. A fair play award, using John Charles's name, is a good proposition—it could probably do a lot—and I will take it up with the national and international football authorities, as John Charles was noted internationally for the way he played the game.
    Derek Conway: Will the Minister also take time to encourage clubs, such as Charlton Athletic, that do a great deal for schools and whose younger players do a great deal of community work to offset the image of those who are more interested in nightclubbing and floosies? They do a great deal to encourage young children in community schools to take a proper interest in the sport.
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with those sentiments. Unfortunately, a minority—it is a minority—of footballers misbehave, but every football

    1227
    club in the premier league and the first division is part of the playing for success initiative, which brings young people into centres to learn about information technology and uses the power of football to attract young people to learning and being good citizens. We must commend what football has been doing; it is unfortunate that it gets only bad publicity, as it has in the recent past.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sport is a channel for positive behaviour and that we need facilities for sport to take place? If so, he will understand my dismay at the fact that the £15 million scout centre at Bucknall Park in my constituency is still closed. Will he use his good offices—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman on Question 1. He cannot try again on Question 2.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What rights of entry the TV Licensing Authority has into households that do not have a TV licence. [158918]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): TV Licensing officers may enter a person's home only with their consent or under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, or, in Scotland, a sheriff. Such a warrant may be issued only if there is reasonable ground for suspecting an offence related to the installation or use of a television receiver.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I wonder whether she would be good enough to remind TV Licensing; of the extent of its powers, because I am sure that I cannot be the only hon. Member to receive complaints from constituents who do not have a television set, but who feel bullied and harassed by its actions and feel that they are being made to prove the negative?
    Tessa Jowell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which he has pursued with my Department on behalf of his constituents. TV Licensing is independent of Government and is run by the BBC, but I am aware of the concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members about the tone of some of its correspondence and think it right to draw that to the attention of the BBC. It is, of course, yet another issue that will be considered in the context of the charter review.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend call on the BBC to desist from the odious licensing campaign that it is conducting, in which it implies, regardless of the Data Protection Act 1998, that it is able to snoop on every household in the country and threatens people with. the repulsive slogan, "Get one or get done" and the prospect of a huge fine or a prison sentence? Will she make it clear to the BBC that if it conducts a campaign with menaces and threats of that kind, using licence payers' money to do so, more and more people will believe that there ought not to be a licence at all?
    Tessa Jowell: I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's interest in that matter. He has raised it with me
    1228
    before, but I will not intervene in the way he proposes. TV licence evasion costs about £200 million a year. I understand that not just this campaign but previous campaigns have more than paid for themselves in catching offenders but, of course, it is right that any such campaign is proportionate and is operated within the law and acts sensitively in relation to people who are most vulnerable. Although only 2 per cent. of the population have no television sets, I know that the cases that have been pursued—arguably too vigorously—have caused distress. That is wrong.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does not the Secretary of State feel just a twinge of social conscience when, despite the carefully planned and considered progressive escalation in the stridency of communications from the licensing authority, the outcome is still a significant loss of revenue, to which she referred, and about 150,000 prosecutions a year for licensing offences at considerable public expense, with a high proportion of those summoned being single parents?
    Tessa Jowell: The number of people pursued for licence evasion has fallen over the past 10 or 12 years. That is good, because failure to pay for television licences has a direct cost on the BBC and its quality of programming. The hon. Gentleman must accept that he cannot, on the one hand, accuse the Government of unwarranted interference in the BBC, yet, on the other, make the kind of claims that he does. It is incumbent on the BBC to run the operation in a way that is sensitive, consistent with the law and effective in ensuring that people discharge their responsibilities and pay for their TV licences.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is the TV licence fee not just in effect a poll tax-flat rate and unfair? In a digital age with hundreds of channels, is it not looking increasingly like an anachronism? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way forward would be to abolish the licence fee and fund the genuine public service broadcasting provided by the BBC that is not on other channels through progressive taxation?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting contribution to the broader charter review debate, and full account of it will be taken at that time.
    Mr. John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the obvious anguish among Labour Members caused by the continued hated poll tax, it would be wise of her seriously to consider other ways of financing the BBC and show that the Government, on this occasion, want a sensible modernisation of something that is causing such distress to those without televisions, those on low incomes and those on her Back Benches?
    Tessa Jowell: Responsibility for the hated poll tax sits on that side of the Chamber, not on this one. As I have said on many occasions, the debate about the future of the licence fee is part of the full and vigorous debate being held as part of the charter review. I have also made it clear that a better alternative to the licence fee must be devised before it can be replaced.

    Film Industry
    John Barrett: If she will make a statement on the level of support for the British film industry. [158919]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): In 2003–04, the Department provided grant-in-aid funding of £24.11 million to the UK Film Council. By the end of January, the council had also received £21.53 million of lottery funding this financial year. In addition, the Government continue to make available significant tax relief for film makers, in practice providing them with up to 15 per cent. of the budget of individual films.
    John Barrett: I thank the Minister for that answer, but what can be done to encourage film production in this country, especially following the announcement on 10 February that threw into confusion the funding of several films in the pipeline? Will she put pressure on the Treasury to introduce transitional arrangements to ensure that those films are funded in the UK and not abroad?
    Estelle Morris: Significant help—up to 15 per cent. of the cost of the film—remains available through the tax system for people producing films in this country. That represents a significant investment of taxpayers' money, and it will continue. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that, because much has been written about the demise of support through the tax system, but that is not the case. The Treasury is absolutely right to close tax loopholes. It sends a message to film makers that, as the Chancellor made clear, the Government will continue to support them, but that we will act in the interest of taxpayers and ensure that tax loopholes are closed.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The film industry accepts what my right hon. Friend says about the Treasury closing loopholes and about the exploitation that was occurring when it took the decision on 10 February. Notwithstanding that, does she agree that it is important that she shows every support for film production studios and post-production infrastructure—before any statement that the Chancellor might make next week—to confirm the Government's commitment to the renaissance of the British film industry, which has been such a success so far?
    Estelle Morris: I acknowledge the part played by my right hon. Friend in the Government's contribution to the film industry since 1997. He is right to say what he does. I have not met one person in the industry who has said that the Government were wrong to close that loophole. There is widespread approval of that. I accept that, if contracts had not been signed and filming had not begun, some people were put in a difficult position, but it was right to close the loophole.
    The investment that the UK Film Council is making to ensure that we have the necessary range of skills, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is also important for the future of the British film industry. Record investment was made in UK films last year. I believe that that will continue, and the Government are taking action to ensure that it does.
    Mr. Mark Field: Members have referred to the tax loophole closed
    1230
    on 10 February. The concern of the film business is the suddenness of the change. What representations did the Minister make to the Treasury in advance of 10 February, or can we assume that it was as much of a surprise for her as it was for everyone in the British film business?
    Estelle Morris: The minute a Government start giving notice that they are about to close a tax loophole is the minute everyone who wants to shelter income takes advantage of the loophole. There is nothing unusual about the way in which the Inland Revenue acted. If there is a tax loophole, it closes it without warning to safeguard British taxpayers' money. More than £100 million was saved by closing that tax loophole. Hon. Members should congratulate the Government on ensuring that that money was saved. Some people at the edges got hurt, but film makers who had signed contracts and films that had started filming were allowed to continue, receiving the money from the UK taxpayer. Indeed, the legitimate tax breaks in sections 42 and 48 apply and they will continue to do so.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister is well aware of the tax reliefs available to the film industry, not least section 42, introduced by the last Conservative Government, which has been enormously successful in boosting the British film industry. She is also aware of the tax reliefs introduced by her Government, which were withdrawn overnight on 10 February in a Treasury press release. Does she recognise the crisis of confidence that has been created for international investors in the British film industry by the overnight withdrawal of those tax reliefs? What representations is she making to the Treasury to ensure that new tax reliefs will be introduced in next week's Budget that are stable, long term and do something to boost investor confidence in the great British success story of the British film industry?
    Estelle Morris: That was the most disgraceful statement I have heard from anyone who claims to have an interest in the UK film industry. There was no overnight closure of the tax support to films. Both sections 42 and 48 apply and they will continue to do so. Some £300 million a year is given as relief through section 48. The tax relief that her Government introduced is worth £70 million: good though it is, it is nothing like the section 48 relief, which supports UK film to the tune of £300 million a year.
    For the hon. Lady to stand at the Dispatch Box and criticise the Inland Revenue for closing a tax loophole overnight shows a total disregard for taxpayers' money. Again, I make it clear that the tax relief continues and, again, I make it clear that the Government will continue to act to ensure that money is preserved. The hon. Lady is shadow spokesman for a party that has promised to freeze my Department's budget. Were it to gain power and implement its £78 million cut in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport budget, I wonder how long the film industry would continue to be supported.

    Sport/Fitness Training
    Linda Perham: What steps her Department is taking to promote better health through sport and fitness training. [158921]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): The key objective of the Government's investment in sport and physical activity is, indeed, to improve the health of the nation The activity coordination team, which I chair jointly with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is responsible for public health, is also preparing a three-year delivery plan on sport and physical activity. I hope that the paper will be published shortly.
    Linda Perham: I thank the Minister for that information. Given that participation in sport and fitness activity in the UK is low among the adult population, does he agree that right hon. and hon. Members should lead by example, perhaps by joining the excellent Westminster Gym, which has helpful, professional and friendly staff who can assist Members in getting fit to fight for their constituents?
    Mr. Caborn: I saw you, Mr.Speaker, smile at that question. Many of us could do with a good dose of the gym. My hon. Friend is right: we have an excellent gym in the House of Commons, and it can be recommended to many in the House who might wish to join it. About 10 weeks ago, my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced in the gym facilities and equipment for disabled people. More disabled people are using fitness suites and there is acceptance of disabled people in that area of operations. That has happened in the House of Commons gym. I commend what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): Given the look that the Minister gave me only a few seconds ago, I should tell him that at 7 o'clock this morning I was in the gym.
    The Minister tells us that the delivery plan is due shortly. Will it be based on the current active participation target of 70 per cent to be achieved by 2020? The figures show clearly that it will not be achieved until 2042. The Wanless report said that it was nonsense and Sport England has effectively dismissed it. What action will the Government take? Will they scrap the target, as they have done with the child participation in sports target, or will we see real action to achieve a target that currently there is no sign of the Department meeting?
    Mr. Caborn: The target still stands. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are trying to ensure that our nation becomes much more active. About 30 years ago, a child took part in 70 per cent. more physical activity than a child does today. That illustrates the real problem. Wanless clearly said that it is not that we are absorbing more calories but that we are engaging in considerably less activity. That poses a challenge to many. Architects, for example, should ensure that they incorporate stairways in their designs. Town planners should understand that it is desirable for pedestrian walkways to be a feature of their designs. Investment of
    1232
    about £2 billion in sports facilities and coaching, for example, is a move in the right direction. It remains to be seen whether we shall achieve the 70 per cent. target, but we can make inroads into that if everybody starts to attend gyms such as that in the House of Commons.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we cannot meet targets for sports and leisure training without swimming pools and leisure facilities? Three swimming pools in Hackney have closed recently, culminating in the closure, apparently indefinitely, of the Clissold Hall leisure centre. It was one of 12 millennium projects and it opened two years late and was four times over budget. Will my right hon. Friend see what hope he can offer my constituents, who instead of seeing more facilities are seeing fewer?
    Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment on the detail of my hon. Friend's question. I can say only that there are more swimming pools in this country than ever before. Although there are fewer pools in the public sector than there are in the private sector, there has been a massive increase in facilities in both sectors. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me giving the details of her points, I shall try to answer them. It is disappointing when facilities are closed, but if that was done as part of a modernisation programme, which many local authorities are going through, that must be weighed against what my hon. Friend has said.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that back in 2001 his Department had a so-called public service agreement to increase the time that schoolchildren spend on sport or physical exercise. Will he confirm that his Department's annual report last year confirmed that the time spent on such activity had declined? Is it not a matter of urgency that the Government get a grip on this issue and come forward with a programme to ensure that our children spend more time on sport or physical exercise?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the level of activity that we found in our schools when we came to power in 1997 was deplorably low. We have now committed ourselves to providing, in the period up to 2006, two hours a week of quality physical activity for every child aged five to 16. The investment programme for that is under way, and we will have 400 sports colleges and 3,000 school sports co-ordinators. At the moment, 225 of those sports colleges are up and running and some 1,300 co-ordinators are in place. Money is in the budget for that, and we are rolling out the programme according to plan.

    Olympic Games
    Eric Joyce: What assessment she has made of the impact on Scotland of a successful UK bid for the 2012 Olympic games. [158922]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I am grateful for the support of the First Minister, Jack McConnell, for the London Olympic bid. He recognises the excitement and energy that the Olympics would bring to every part of the United Kingdom. In testing public opinion before the decision to bid, we found that the level of support for bidding was higher in Scotland than almost anywhere else in the UK. Scottish athletes will enjoy the great boost to sport that the Olympics will bring. Hampden will be used as one of the football venues, and training facilities will be needed for the many visiting athletes. Of course, the tourism profile of the whole UK will be higher, which can only be good for Scotland.
    Mr. Joyce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware that there are a number of super, high-level facilities in Scotland, such as the national swimming academy in Stirling, the judo centre of excellence in Edinburgh and the rowing centre of excellence at Strathclyde university. Does she agree that a successful Olympic bid, or even simply an Olympic bid, would enhance the possibility of the success of a Scottish bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games?
    Tessa Jowell: I agree with my hon. Friend, who will know that the four home countries are working closely together through the sports cabinet to plan and support bids for major international events such as the Commonwealth games, when the time comes. I know that Scotland is interested in the Commonwealth games, and we welcome Scotland's support for bringing the Olympics to London.
    Mr. Andrew Love: The best way to have an impact in Scotland is to give Scotland a voice. The Secretary of State is currently setting up a forum in London to give people in London a voice. Why not extend that to other parts of the country so that the whole country can have a say in the way in which the bid is put together? In that way, people can be reassured that their part of the country will be included.
    Tessa Jowell: That is a very important point, and Barbara Cassani and other members of the bid team have been travelling all round the UK to have precisely those discussions. She had a good, constructive meeting with the First Minister in Scotland. The key to the success of our Olympic bid will be to achieve a high level of enthusiasm not just in London, but radiating right round the United Kingdom.

    National Gallery
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: When she last met the director of the National Gallery to discuss the work of the gallery. [158923]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the director of the National Gallery on 9 February 2004.
    Mr. Dalyell: Goodison recommended tax relief on lifetime donations of works of art to national museums. What is Government thinking on that recommendation?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to Goodison and the Goodison
    1234
    committee for their work in the report that they have put before us. The current situation is that the committee's recommendations are being discussed and consulted on by the Treasury, the DCMS and other interested parties. I am afraid that we will have to wait for a future date to take a decision on that matter, possibly as part of the spending review. However, the report has certainly informed our thinking on that important issue.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: I declare an interest as the person who founded the development office at the National Gallery. I am therefore fully cognisant of the reluctance among National Gallery staff and trustees to have deaccession rights. Has the Minister had discussions recently with the gallery's director—and with other museums—on the possibility of the trustees being invested with such powers? Although the director is aware of the demands of potential donors such as Sir Denis Mahon, with his Guercinos, he feels very strongly that they should not have those rights. That should be looked into. Has the Minister had those discussions?
    Estelle Morris: No, I have not.
    Chris Bryant: Further to the question asked by the Father of the House, may I press the Minister a bit more? When she last visited the National Gallery did she look at the little labels beside the paintings and notice that many of them are on private loan, which means that they could be put up for sale at any time and leave the country? If our national treasure is not to be raided, can she push the Treasury hard to extend tax concessions so that we can ensure that more of those paintings stay in the United Kingdom?
    Estelle Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point, but there has already been substantial investment to make sure that we keep as many works of art as possible in this country. Many in the House will welcome the fact that "The Madonna of the Pinks" is still in the National Gallery, will shortly go on tour and has been saved for the nation. However, we will never reach a point where we can save every single work of art in this country that we would like to save—that is not the real world. At the start of his question, my hon. Friend was almost disparaging about the fact that works of art from private collections are on loan. I think that that is a good thing, but we will keep a wary eye open, make sure that we offer incentives and build on the progress that has been made.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that if the National Gallery and other great museums and galleries were allowed to go down the road to deaccession that would deter many private lenders and donors? Does she also accept that there is unanimity among the directors about the wisdom of the report by Sir Nicholas Goodison?
    Estelle Morris: On the latter point, the directors were represented on the committee and made a good contribution to it, so I accept the strength of their backing for the report. There have been two comments in Question Time about the tricky issue of

    1235
    deaccessioning. It is a live issue and I have heard debates among museum directors in which both sides of the argument were expressed. The Government have not engaged with that debate, and have no plans to change the current regulations. On a personal level, however, if it is a live issue among museum directors, I am pleased that it has been brought into the open—it is a debate in which people interested in museums and galleries and others will want to take part. However, I want to make it clear that that debate was not initiated by the Government, and we have no plans to change the legislation in that respect.

    Olympic Games
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What initiatives she is pursuing to inform other parts of the UK of the potential benefits of a successful London Olympic bid. [158924]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The arguments that I set out for the benefits of the Olympics for Scotland are exactly the same as those for Wales. The millennium stadium will be an Olympic venue, and just as I am grateful for the Scottish First Minister's support, so I am grateful for the support of the Welsh First Minister.
    Mr. Llwyd: I support the Lonton Olympic bid, but there is a certain amount of concern in Wales. The right hon. Lady will know that the Sports Council for Wales has already cut grant funding—only half to two thirds of projects currently receiving grant aid will receive the full amount that they have been promised—because of the introduction of the Olympic lottery game. Bearing in mind the fact that the millennium stadium will host just one football match, the right hon. Lady will understand that the people of Wales are underwhelmed by the prospective bid.
    Tessa Jowell: Let me deal with the last point first. Yes, that is the case, but there will also be opportunities to establish training and preparation camps for visiting teams in Wales, which has to sell the case for locating camps there. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the lottery, there is a misunderstanding among a number of home country sports councils. Very simply, the position is that £300 million of sport lottery money will be allocated to the Olympics, but the decisions about the way in which that money is spent will be taken collaboratively by the four home country sports councils to ensure that each is content with the nature of support for elite athletes that that lottery money will fund.
    Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in Westminster Hall last week we had an excellent debate on the benefits of a successful London Olympic bid, but will she assure me that in the event of a successful bid, funds will not be diverted either from sports projects in the north and other parts of the United Kingdom or from grass-roots sport? The Olympic bid should be a success for the whole country, so will she do her best to press the
    1236
    Chancellor of the Exchequer to make sure that funding is available for facilities in the rest of the country, which should not be hurt by a successful Olympic bid?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes, of course. I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport argue, and will continue to argue, the case for sport. My hon. Friend is right—it would be wrong if a successful bid to host the games in London were to lead to a reduction in funding for community and school sports facilities in the rest of the country. Underlying the bid for the Olympics is the ambition to get more kids playing sport, competing and becoming champions.

    ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
    The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

    Local Government Boundary Review
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what proposals there are to allow further and wider community participation in the procedure for the review of local government ward boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [158936]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Later this year, the boundary committee for England will complete its programme of periodic electoral reviews. I understand that the Electoral Commission will then undertake a comprehensive appraisal of its review processes and policies, which will include consideration of community participation in the process.
    Mr. O'Brien: I advise the House that from my experience of schemes for changing the ward boundaries of local authorities, local individuals and groups may come up with perfectly good ideas, but because they do not have the ordnance survey, the electoral details or the projected housing for the next five years, and cannot supply that information to the boundary committee, their scheme is not considered. That is unfair and unreasonable to the people involved and changes will have to be made. When will the House have the opportunity to debate the recommendations of the boundary committee and the boundary commission?
    Mr. Viggers: The boundary committee asks local authorities being reviewed to make available locally all relevant electoral data so that any interested party should be able to access exactly the same detailed information on which to base their proposals as does the council. The committee also provides a wide range of information to interested parties about its electoral review work through the press, media, its website, council offices and local libraries. I am advised that the Electoral Commission and its boundary committee then give equal consideration to all submissions that are received, with the main consideration being the level of argumentation and advice that accompanies any

    1237
    submissions. Later today, the House will have an opportunity to consider some aspects relating to Electoral Commission work.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I declare an interest, inasmuch as the Vale of York came into being in 1995 and is due to expire when the next boundary commission takes effect. Is it the case that in their representations on local government boundary changes, parish councils carry more weight than individuals? Is the Speaker's Committee mindful of that, and should not individuals be heard in the same way as parish councils and others?
    Mr. Viggers: The advice I have been given is that the Electoral Commission and the boundary committee review the level of argumentation and evidence that accompanies any submissions, and they seek to be scrupulously fair.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Might there not be more interest in the review of local government boundaries if there were more candidates coming forward in local government elections, especially in parish areas where there are often hosts of unopposed returns? Might there be added interest if there were a television campaign at about the time of the elections to encourage people to stand? There would then be greater interest in what was happening in the community, which might affect boundary reviews.
    Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission carries out a wide range of activity to encourage interest in the electoral process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

    All-postal Elections
    Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the potential risks of holding all-postal pilots in four regions in the June 2004 European and local government elections. [158937]
    Mr. Viggers: The Government directed the commission to make recommendations as to which regions were most suitable to undertake all-postal voting in the June 2004 European and local government elections. The commission's report published in December therefore examined a range of issues, including the potential risks in each potential pilot region. The commission concluded that two regions best met the criteria and were suitable for piloting all-postal voting. Its opinion on the Government's proposal for four regional pilots, as opposed to two, is set out in the letter of 4 March from its chairman to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), the text of which is available on the commission's website and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I have now seen the letter to which he referred, but it had not been published when I tabled my
    1238
    question. It is clear from the letter that the Government have attempted to lean on the Electoral Commission ahead of today's consideration of Lords amendments to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, which would have the effect of reverting to two pilots, as the Electoral Commission recommended. It is much to the commission's credit that it is unbowed in its objection to conducting more extensive all-postal voting before necessary legislative changes are made. The letter makes it clear that its expert opinion is being overridden by the Government.
    It is only by chance that that important letter came to my attention today, and I suspect that many other hon. Members will not be aware of its presence. Will my hon. Friend explore with the Electoral Commission whether it could routinely make available in the form of briefings to Members of Parliament matters of such importance, where issues touching on its work are to be debated in the House?
    Mr. Viggers: I think that the Electoral Commission has been assiduous in keeping hon. Members informed of developments in the field of electoral reform. The issue in question arose at very short notice, and the letter was placed on the commission's website and in the Library, so it was available to colleagues. The commission was concerned about the number of pilot regions. The letter states:
    "As I have mentioned, we expected the Government to nominate three regions and were surprised to learn that the Bill was to be amended to name four regions."
    It went on to say:
    "You are aware of our if view that the rollout of all postal elections needs to be underpinned by a more robust statutory framework."
    There will be an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in the House later today.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Electoral Commission, which does a good job in protecting the interests of the electorate, is right to be concerned about the lack of proper supervision? If the Bill gets on to the statute book, will his do everything that he can to encourage it rapidly to put in place monitoring machinery that will ensure that there is no fraud or forgery, as that would be very damaging to the electoral process?
    Mr. Viggers: Indeed. The hon. Lady referred to her concerns, which are reflected in the chairman's letter, which states that all-postal elections need to be
    "underpinned by a more robust statutory framework."
    That is one of the risks that was identified in the Electoral Commission's report of December 2003, and one of the matters that has not perhaps been given the weight that the commission might have wanted it to be given in the Government's response.
    Mr. David Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the views of the Electoral Commission are being systematically misrepresented by Ministers in this House? For example, on Thursday 4 March the Leader of the House said of the Electoral Commission:

    1239
    "it has said that we should go ahead with two schemes and, if we judge that there are sufficient resources and so on to enable four pilots to be held, that we should go ahead and hold those as well. That is exactly what it said."—[Official Report, 4 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1066.]
    My understanding is that that is exactly what it did not say. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would say about that observation.
    Mr. Viggers: I have seen a copy of the parliamentary report and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. What is more appropriate is for me to read out a section of the letter from the chairman of the Electoral Commission, dated 4 December:
    "There is also in our view increased risk, with combined elections and in some cases new boundaries, in running on such a large scale and we are not persuaded that the risk is outweighed by what we might learn from four regional pilots as opposed to two."

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Westminster Abbey
    Mr. Roger Gale: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the timetable for removal of the temporary builders yard adjacent to Westminster abbey. [158938]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The dean and chapter are working closely with English Heritage and Westminster city council under guidance from the Westminster Abbey Fabric Commission to reduce the size and area of the masons yard, which is required for essential restoration work.
    Mr. Gale: As this House appears ready to permit Parliament square to be used as a junkyard for largely unattended protest placards, this question might appear a little churlish, but the last time I did a recce of this particular corner of Westminster abbey—arguably one of the most historic ecclesiastical buildings in the world—I discovered that the yard is no longer used by masons, whose trade is honourable and whose work is essential, but is being used as a storage yard for, as far as I can see, vehicles and other junk from Westminster city council. Will the hon. Gentleman please take that message back to the commissioners, with a view to having the area cleared in time for the tourist season, so that it can be used as a proper facility?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I shall certainly check out the use of that space. Ever since Henry III knocked down the Norman abbey and started again in the 13th century, we have appreciated the abbey's magnificence, its daily worship, its splendid architecture, its fine musical tradition and its significance for visitors—to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It brings us joy, but that has a price, and the price is the burden of maintenance. We shall certainly check out whether the city council or the abbey is responsible.

    Church Land
    Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what action parishioners can take to prevent Church land in their parish from being sold by the diocesan authority for development. [158939]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): A diocesan board of finance is legally obliged to serve notice of the proposed sale of glebe land on the local incumbent or, in a vacancy of the benefice, on the priest in charge or churchwardens of the parish. They can make representations to the commissioners, who then decide the matter.
    Bob Russell: Will the Church Commissioners have words with the Chelmsford diocese over the glebe field in the Mile End area of Colchester, where the diocese used the opportunity of the rector's departure to acquire part of the rectory grounds, add it to the glebe and put it on the market, against the wishes of local residents and the parish council? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that avarice shown by the Church is rather worse than avarice shown by property speculators?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's question about the glebe field on the edge of Colchester, and we have already taken up the matter with the diocese. The legal obligations of the diocesan board of finance fall under the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976. On the question of avarice, the Church does the best it can and is not to be compared with property speculators or developers, but I will be glad to take up the matter on the hon. Gentleman's behalf.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: May I raise the question of the development of land at Lingey house in Sacriston in my constituency by the Church Commissioners? What weight is given to local people's views? I ask that especially in light of the letter that I received from Vivien Brooks of the Church Commissioners, saying that she sees no reason for a meeting with local residents if it is for the purpose of discussing access and egress at the development site. I would expect such a hard-nosed approach from the most callous of property developers, but not from an organisation that is supposed to support the local community.
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that constituency matter. He and I have been in communication on it, and it concerns access and egress, as he said. We have given him some letters, and I have said that, as a Church Commissioner, I will be happy to discuss directly with him his constituents' concerns, and I look forward to our having such a meeting shortly.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the policy of the

    1241
    commissioners is regarding (a) the cultivation and use of GM crops and (b) the keeping of animals on their land. [158941]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The Church Commissioners do not permit the growing of GM crops on their land. As to the keeping of livestock, the commissioners expect their tenants to observe the requirements of law and best practice.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me, as a member of a disestablished Church, to ask this question. I am delighted that the Church Commissioners have made this decision. In the light of a likely announcement by the Government tomorrow licensing the commercialisation of GM crops, I hope that the commissioners will maintain an interest in low-intensity and possibly even organic agriculture, and not in chemical-based agriculture.
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am always happy to welcome Plaid Cymru to questions, in the best traditions of our national Parliament, in which all right hon. and hon. Members can put questions to a Church Commissioner. The GM policy to which I referred reflects the advice of the Church's ethical investment advisory group in 2000, as endorsed by the commissioners. I have no reason to believe that that advice will change in the none too distant future.

    Mission Activities
    Michael Fabricant: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the current plans are for
    1242
    the funding of mission activities and for the future of the section 23 grant for cathedrals with respect to the recent decision made by Synod; and if he will make a statement. [158942]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The Church Commissioners' spending plans for 2005–07 will be developed over the coming months in the light of the actuarial evaluation of the commissioners' fund, and they will take on board views expressed by Synod kind others in the Church.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but does he not realise that many cathedrals and diocese are concerned that money might be diverted from mission duties and the funds available to cathedrals for restoration, and instead given to other worthwhile causes such as the maintenance of parish churches? What can he do to assure them—including, of course, Lichfield cathedral—that that will not happen?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question and I welcome him back to our Question Time; I thought that he had deserted us for a while. Having visited Lichfield cathedral, I can well understand his concern about this matter. He is certainly right in that during the early 1990s the decision was taken heavily to Cut parish ministry support, which then stood at some £60 million. However, he should know that in 2003 the commissioners provided £2.5 million in grants to cathedrals under section 23 of the Cathedrals Measure 1999; in addition, they spent £3.8 million on cathedral clergy stipends. Having visited Lichfield cathedral last summer, I am looking forward to visiting it—and, of course, other cathedrals—this summer.

European Communities Association Agreement
3.31 pm
David Davis(urgent question),: Will the Secretary of State make a statement on the immigration service's operation of the European Communities association agreement?
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Under the European Communities association agreement—which was signed in 1994, 1995 and 1999–citizens of countries seeking to accede to the European Union must be treated on a par with European economic area nationals for the purpose of establishing themselves in business in any member state. This means that nationals of a number of central and eastern European countries can set themselves up in a company, as sole traders or in a partnership, in any of the existing member states. In the United Kingdom, the EC association agreements are incorporated into the immigration rules. To enter under this category, an applicant has to provide evidence that the proposed business will generate enough income to maintain him or her and any dependants.
Towards the end of last year, a backlog of such cases accumulated in our Sheffield office, following the introduction of charging and a seasonal increase in other applications during the autumn. Without any authorisation from any Minister, or from senior managers or the director general guidance was issued locally to staff, to the effect that in straightforward cases—mostly those involving people who already had leave to remain—the application should be granted without further inquiries being made, provided that a business plan had been submitted.
There was no question of staff being instructed to grant such leave to those whom they believed to be fraudulent. Furthermore, the guidance made it explicit that applications from those here illegally were to be refused in the normal way. However, the guidance did enable workers to approve applications without further checks in cases involving those who were already here legally—they are the majority—or those who were otherwise judged to be low risk. Ministers were not consulted and I have ordered a full investigation into how this came about. The investigation will be conducted by a senior immigration and nationality directorate official, from outside the managed migration directorate. I have also issued instructions that the local guidance be rescinded forthwith, and that all such cases receive the same level of scrutiny as before.
I refute categorically, however, the suggestion that this was a deliberate policy to reduce the impact of accession on 1 May. The essential point is that, as I have said, no change in practice was authorised by Ministers or senior managers. It is worth remembering that, principally, the people affected were already lawfully in this country.
David Davis: The Minister has announced an investigation, the first stage of which will presumably be to establish the facts about the procedures and the behaviour of the Home Office immigration service. Will she publish those facts within one month, so that the
1244
House of Commons can know what is happening before European Union accession on 1 May? Will she assure the House that any civil servant who tells the truth about this issue will not be disciplined or punished for doing so?
On Sunday, a Home Office spokesman said:
"There have been no changes in procedures or dip in the level of the scrutiny applied by caseworkers."
I take it that the Minister no longer stands by that statement. She claims that she was unaware of the behaviour described by Mr. Moxon. However, the Home Office has had three days since it was challenged by The Sunday Times over the issue on Friday, and two months since Mr. Moxon e-mailed her. At the very least, she should be able to confirm or deny the existence of the documents described in the newspapers.
As the Minister has asked us to believe that neither she nor the Home Secretary was aware of the decision, will she tell us who authorised it? In particular, will she confirm the existence of the document entitled "Flexibility guidance: ECAA guidance for Entry Clearance cases post August 1st", which stated:
"As this is NOT a published policy, however, no reference should be made to this, either to the applicants/representatives, or on the immigration service computer system"?
Will the right hon. Lady explain that doctrine of unpublished policy? Is this a policy whose existence is withheld from Ministers, or is it just Parliament and the public who are meant to know nothing of it? Are there other secret immigration policies of which the House has not been notified?
Is it true that the document says that
"previous failed asylum seekers or illegal entrants can still benefit under Entry Clearance Rules"?
Is that official policy, or is it another secret guideline unknown to Ministers? Is it true that the document states that guidelines were relaxed so that even if there were no proof of financial status whatever, the policy would still be to grant one year's leave to remain in the country? How many people have been allowed in under the new rules? Will the Home Office review the decisions taken in the last six months, and could decisions be overturned?
Does the Minister realise that this is not the first time stories have emanated from the immigration service about fiddling the figures? There have been at least three, if we include those about soft-pedalling on illegal immigration and asylum. Does she not remember that I raised this question with her at the most recent Home Office questions, and she dismissed it? Will she explain why she did not act on the e-mails sent to her about the problem? Mr. Moxon's supervisor confirms that those were sent to her on 12 January.
Does the Minister recognise that whether there has been collusion, cover-up or simple incompetence, the responsibility for this disgrace rests firmly with her and with the Home Secretary?
Beverley Hughes: I set up the investigation for the exact purpose of establishing the facts, and I will certainly find out how we can make those facts known to Members of the House in the most appropriate way. If it is any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, I can tell

1245
him that I do not relish being in this position; it is not a position that I would want to be in. The situation that has been revealed as pertaining at a junior level in Sheffield is quite unacceptable; I make no bones about that.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions, and I shall deal with them in so far as I have the answers today. The response from the Home Office to the press reports on Friday—that there had been no dip in scrutiny—was wrong. That advice was given to the press office by a senior manager, who was one of the people who did not know at that time that the local guidance had been given and was operating. Arguably, she should have known, but she did not, and she gave the best advice that she had on Friday. Since then, as a result of The Sunday Times story, senior officials and I worked all through yesterday to get the information, as far as we could.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the e-mail sent to me, and I am grateful for an opportunity to clear up that matter. I visited the office concerned on 4 December and, as I always do, I had a question-and-answer session with staff. I understand that Mr. Moxon wrote three questions that he wanted to put to me. He was not in the meeting, and I did not get to see him, or those—[Horn. MEMBERS:"Why not?"] I have no idea why he was not there.
Mr. Moxon's questions then went round a number of managers and eventually came to my private office on 12 January. I did not know that until yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS:"What?"] I know that Members will suspect another conspiracy, but the fact is that I had a new member of staff starting work on 12 January, and in the week from 12 to 16 January she was shadowing the person who was leaving. I am afraid that I was not informed until yesterday about that e-mail, which was not sent on for senior managers to construct a reply for me. The situation is not acceptable, but that particular issue was the result of a human error on the part of an assistant private secretary in my office. As the right hon. Gentleman has been in this position himself, I hope that he accepts that Ministers do not manage civil servants; we depend on senior officials to give us the right information so that we can correct points that need to be corrected.
The right hon. Gentleman asked who authorised the local guidance, and that is the point of the investigation.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:Order. There are no points of order during a statement. I should have thought that a member of the Chairmen's Panel would know that. I also expect a member of the Chairmen's Panel not to shout while the Minister is speaking.
Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not yet established who authorised the publication and distribution of the guidance, and that is the point of the investigation. I saw the flexibility guidance to which the right hon. Gentleman refers for the first time this morning—it was issued in September 2003 and contains the quotations that he read from it.
1246
This is the system for ECAA applications: if a person is in the country, they can initially apply for one year's leave to remain. The terms of the accession treaties require such people to be treated in exactly the same way as other member states' nationals, so it is meant to be a light-touch assessment. If such people are still here after a year and their business is sustaining itself, they must apply again, and bank statements and records of national insurance contributions are required at that point. The situation is the same in every EU country, and there is nothing different about it here.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about numbers. People given leave to remain for that purpose are included in migration statistics, but they are not identified as having come through that route—they are included in the leave to remain figures and the further leave to remain figures. That is not acceptable, and we must see whether we can extract those figures so that they are discernable.
I think that I heard someone call out that 11,000 applications were processed in one week, and that figure has featured in some press reports. I can make no sense of it, and the investigation will explore that point. I am pretty sure that it is not possible that 11,000 applications were processed through the ECAA route in one week, because the backlog that staff were trying to reduce was 7,000 cases. However, the confusion over the 11,000 figure may have arisen because 500,000 cases come through the general group every year—those cases cover leave to remain and do not include asylum, nationality or work permits. That figure covers all the cases processed in Sheffield, Croydon and Liverpool for any purpose—marriage, students or whatever—and it equates to about 11,000 cases a week. I wonder whether it has been promoted as relating to the ECAA applications through confusion or a more malicious purpose, but I am fairly clear that it does not.
Keith Vaz: May I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend, who is right to initiate an inquiry? This may be the first time in history that Home Office officials have been criticised for removing a backlog rather than creating one. She will know that in 52 days' rime such applicants will be full EU citizens with the right to work here subject to registration. Will she give an undertaking that the status granted by the Home Office in Sheffield will not be affected by Conservative Members' comments?
Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. It is not feasible to reconsider applications that have already been granted—among other things, there would be many legal impediments—but I shall ask my officials to consider the matter. My hon. Friend will know that, as far as self-employed people are concerned, no member state can derogate from the terms of the treaty.
I might point out that the terms of the treaty were agreed in 1994, when the Conservative Government were in control. The treaty allows nationals of acceding countries to come into this country under these special arrangements before 1 May 2004, in anticipation of the rights that they will have after that date. At that point, those nationals will be able to enter any EU country and establish a business without any requirement to publish

1247
a business plan or anything else. They are to be treated exactly the same as EU nationals. As my hon. Friend says, that will be the case in a few weeks' time.
Mr. David Heath: I have listened with great care to what the Minister has said this afternoon, but the only bit that I feel able to welcome is the fact that an inquiry has been established. Even on that, I believe that it should be independent of the Department, which is clearly at fault. This is no longer about immigration policy: it is a question of the competence and organisation of the Department, right up to Ministers themselves. Is it not unsustainable for an undisclosed policy to run in parallel with the policy disclosed to the House? That is especially the case when it would appear that people are being admitted on little more than a bus ticket, while others in similar circumstances are deported. That is not sustainable.
Was Mr. Moxon required to operate the policy in the Department's Sheffield office at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked questions specifically about the operation of the office on 2 July 2003, at column 324W? Specific requests were made of the Minister to provide information on the operation of the directorate in Sheffield. Were no inquiries made at that time? Was there dissimulation on the part of those working in that office? Was it simply the case that the advice to civil servants that they were not even to refer to the policy guidance on their computers extended to not referring to it in response to parliamentary questions?
If, as the Minister has said this afternoon, the basic principles of what Mr. Moxon has described—for whatever motives—in the newspapers are true, and the documents on which he based his evidence were genuine, is not it extraordinary that it is Mr. Moxon who is suspended and will presumably be subject to further disciplinary action, rather than those who ordered this extraordinary state of affairs?
Beverley Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic premise that questions clearly arise about competence, unacceptable behaviour and management. The investigation will seek to provide the answers to those questions. However, my biggest regret is that incidents such as this, however rare and untypical they may be, create a general impression about the vast majority of very good staff in the immigration and nationality directorate, who have worked hard in the past 18 months to build up an organisation that the Conservatives left in a parlous state in 1997. It grieves me that the efforts that the staff have put in and what they have achieved—in getting to grips with asylum applications and correspondence, and introducing proper practices to the organisation—are diminished and clouded by the actions of some people. However well intentioned those actions may have been, they were wrong and cannot be justified. I am taking action to ensure that we get the full answers as to how and why the problem arose, why senior managers did not know and how people can feel that they can behave in that way without permission.
As to Mr. Moxon, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands—and agrees—that it is not the job of Ministers to manage personnel. I am sure that in other parallel circumstances, all Opposition parties would
1248
acknowledge that. I have to leave decisions about personnel to senior managers, who decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister said, the flexibility policy was not approved by Ministers in any way whatever and is now to be cancelled. Given that Mr. Moxon endeavoured to advise the Minister, by writing letters to her, is it not wrong in principle to suspend him? In my view, he has done nothing wrong, and has only drawn the Government's attention to a muddle. Will the Minister try to solve the problem by ensuring that in every month until May, she publishes the number of people who have been permitted to come here from the eastern European countries that are being admitted to the EU?
Beverley Hughes: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I would like to clarify an important aspect of applications through the ECAA route, where people apply to set up businesses here. The vast majority of people given permission to settle through that route are already—and legally—here. We are not talking about a whole additional group of people coming in: there are some, but the majority are here in one capacity or another, have been admitted regularly and are here legally. Some people are applying to switch into the business route. It is important that Members understand that and avoid claiming that somehow large numbers of additional people are coming into the country through that route. As I said, most are already legally here.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about Mr. Moxon, but an investigation is taking place and managers have taken the view that it is right and appropriate for him to be suspended at this time. He will be interviewed and no doubt managers will reach their own conclusions about what, if anything, needs to be done.
Mr. James ClappisonIn the light of the very unsatisfactory circumstances relating to the Minister's office, which must be her personal responsibility, will she now say exactly when she discovered the state of affairs that she has described today?
Beverley Hughes: Yesterday.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: When the House debated and passed the EU enlargement treaty last year, many hon. Members asked the Minister about the immigration figures. We accepted her assurances then on the assumption that she was in control of her Department. It now seems that her Department ran a parallel covert immigration policy, so was not the House misled in that respect when the treaty legislation was passed?
Will the Minister comment on a further specific matter? She alluded at that time to a Home Office study that established that the maximum immigration from the country concerned would be between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. Will she confirm that she still holds and stands by those figures? Ministers have been asked about that repeatedly in recent weeks, but have provided evasive answers.
Beverley Hughes: We have not given any evasive answers. I certainly accept that we should be as well

1249
informed and transparent about these issues as possible, but I would also say, with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman needs to be better informed. The questions that he has just asked reveal considerable muddle about the issues. There are two main issues. One is the ability of people to enter the country and seek work—in other words, to be given free movement as workers. In respect of an estimate of those numbers, the Home Office commissioned independent research by University college London, which produced best estimate or best advice figures.
What we are now discussing is a wholly separate issue: under the terms of the EU treaty, every member state signing up to it—I have already said that when it was signed in 1994, the UK was Conservative controlled— agreed to allow a number of people to enter the country not to work, but to set up in business. That applied to all member states under the terms of that agreement up to 1 May this year, after which there will be no further requirements under free movement provisions to allow people to go through some form of process if they are to set up a business. They will be treated like any UK citizen, and the same terms apply in Germany, France, Italy—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State does not seem to understand the rules. People from any member state—both now under the terms of the EC association agreements and in May under the terms of the treaty—will be able to come into the country, be treated like any UK citizen and set up a business.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Opposition and all the other parties voted for the accession treaty, will a single additional person from the accession countries, who would not have had the right to be here, be in this country on 1 May as a result of this hiccup?
Beverley Hughes: The answer to that question is no; there will not be.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Moxon on trying to alert her through the proper channels in December and January? Will she assure the House that disciplinary action will not be taken against him, and will she promise us that disciplinary action will be taken against all those who put through this unauthorised policy and, as she tells us, kept her in the dark?
Beverley Hughes: I have already said that an investigation is under way. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was this Government who introduced legislation to protect so-called whistleblowers. I wonder
1250
what his view of that was at the time. The bottom line is that I am glad that I now know what has been going on; I am glad that somebody has told me—and so are the senior managers. I repeat, though, that I regret the method that Mr. Moxon has used, not because of me—[Interruption.] I say I hat because it has cast a shadow —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. Hon. Members must allow the Minister to answer.
Beverley Hughes: It has cast a shadow over the excellent work of the vast majority of those in the IND, and has created a general impression, which is not typical, of such work.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am almost sorry for the Minister, but I am a great deal more sorry for my constituents and the many other electors who have been kept in the dark—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.
Mr. Wilkinson: They have been kept in the dark by the Home Office and Her Majesty's Government over the extent of immigration into this country. Will not boroughs such as Hillingdon, which are in the front line due to the presence of Heathrow—the premier port of entry in the UK for immigration—be deeply preoccupied by the fact that the Government and the Minister's Department have been allowing a flexibility clause whereby those who came in, perhaps legally, have no work, are not in partnership and are not in paid self-employment? That has put a further burden on the health and social services in my borough, which are already over-stretched by asylum seekers and others.
Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's question illustrates the dividing line between his party and mine on the subject of immigration. Unlike him and his party, we welcome immigration where our economy needs it and do not automatically reject migrants. Provided that people come in legally and do not try to misuse the asylum system, we want people to contribute to our economy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that people coming in through such a route—I am not condoning for a moment the dip in scrutiny that has taken place—are supporting themselves. They do not have access to public funds. They are not able to take paid employment when they enter the country through this route, but they are supporting themselves and their families. Many are providing much-needed services, particularly in London and the south-east, as plumbers, cleaners and builders—services that many people in this country are not willing to provide. Such immigrants play an important part in that sector of our economy.

Equitable Life Inquiry
3.59 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a statement about Lord Penrose's report into the events at Equitable Life, which I can confirm is being published in full today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
As the House will remember, following the closure of Equitable Life to new business and the cuts in policy values in July 2001, the Government established an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose on 31 August 2001. The terms of reference were:
"To enquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of relevant life market background; to identify any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury ministers."
I would personally like to thank Lord Penrose and his team for their hard work and dedication. The report presents a full and forensic account of events, covering some very complex issues and spanning a period of more than 30 years. The Government sympathise with the plight of policyholders who have suffered much worry and distress over the past four years and who have seen significant reductions in their expected income in retirement.
Lord Penrose says:
"I have interpreted the remit"—
of the inquiry—
"as requiring me to focus on the events that explain the Society's fate."
He also makes it clear that
"it was inevitable that hindsight would instruct much of the inquiry's work and many of its findings".
Lord Penrose does not attempt to judge any person's actions. He says:
"It was not for me to measure any person's actions against accepted standards of conduct defining the legal duties of other people performing comparable duties in other organisations and other similar circumstances."
He observes:
"Breach of duty, and the financial consequences of breach, are properly matters for the established courts of justice and for other appropriate tribunals in the financial sector."
He adds:
"An open adversarial process such as would have been necessary to replicate the litigation process over the longer period and the wider range of issues would have been beyond contemplation…It would be unthinkable for an inquiry such as this"—
non-statutory and non-adversarial—
"to have embarked on such a process."
Moreover, he says:
"There was no mechanism that could have been devised and put into effect within a time scale that would have had regard to the wider public interest in obtaining the account of the developments of the Society's position."
Lord Penrose argues that the judgment of the House of Lords in the Hyman case in 2000, which disallowed the society's practice of reducing terminal bonus to meet
1252
guaranteed annuity claims, precipitated a crisis, but was not—as some have claimed—solely responsible for it. He notes:
"Superficially claims of £1.5 billion should not have brought down a Society with funds of £32 billion."
In Lord Penrose's own words,
"The Society's uniqueness lay in the approach adopted by its management, not in the essential characteristics of its business."
Lord Penrose describes how a culture of what at various times he calls "manipulation" and "concealment" on the part of some of the company's previous senior management allowed a bonus policy to develop that led to the society's financial weakening—a policy left unchecked by its own board. It was the society's own actions that ultimately precipitated its financial crisis in the summer of 2000.
First, the report details how executive management failed to keep the board fully informed about the true state of the company's financial position, despite the clear responsibility placed on the appointed actuary to inform the board in that regard. Lord Penrose outlines how Mr. Roy Ranson, appointed actuary from 1982, and both chief executive and appointed actuary of the company between 1991 and 1997, did not inform the board
"of management decisions in the period 1983–93 related to the recovery of the cost of annuity guarantees from terminal bonus".
He did not inform the board
"of the risks to which policyholders not entitled to annuity guarantees were exposed by the policies and practices adopted",
and did not inform the board
"about the business risks inherent in the general actuarial management of the Society".
That meant, Lord Penrose says, that
"the Board's understanding of the annuity guarantee issue was at best limited until the autumn of 1997, and some directors may not have had any understanding of the position".
As a result, he says that the decisions of the board
"brought the Society to the position of weakness in which it found itself in 2000 and 2001 without full knowledge and understanding of the developing position."
He does not offer judgment on Mr. Ranson's failure to keep the board adequately informed. In line with his interpretation of his remit, he says:
"I have not sought to form or express a view whether Ranson was in breach of duty…that is a matter for the courts and for his professional institute."
But, in Lord Penrose's own words:
"The Board at no stage got fully to grips with the financial situation faced by the Society: information was too fragmented, their collective skills were inadequate for the task, and there were no effective arrangements for ensuring that there was detailed examination of, and onward reporting to the Board, on actuarial reports."
He adds that the
"non-executive directors were so wholly dependent on actuarial input from the … chief executive/actuary that they were largely incapable of exercising any influence on the actuarial management of the Society."
Lord Penrose also finds that there was
"Serious omission in communication to policyholders of relevant information about their prospective interests."
He reveals how the differential terminal bonus policy
"was not disclosed to policyholders…in any way until 1996."

1253
Even when the company decided to inform policyholders about the terminal bonus policy in 1996, Lord Penrose argues that it was done badly—in his own words:
"Attempts were made to change expectations in 1996 and later years. These were ill-conceived, poorly expressed and confusing. The intimations to policyholders were generally uncommunicative."
Lastly, Lord Penrose finds that the society concealed information from the regulators. Mr. Ranson was, in Lord Penrose's own words, "obstructive" of scrutiny and "dismissive" of regulators' concerns. The regulatory returns were, he says, "opaque and uncommunicative". The Society did not inform regulators properly about
"a series of particular valuation practices of dubious actuarial merit"
that were being used by management to sustain the society's capital position and prop up its solvency.
Lord Penrose reveals how, from 1992 to 2000,
"the Society never clearly communicated the nature of its quasizillmer adjustment to"
the Government Acturary's Department—an adjustment that, he says,
"was not a legitimate device…on the terms of the regulations."
In relation to guarantees, Lord Penrose finds that
"Such references as were made…failed properly to disclose their nature and extent to the regulators."
More recently,Lord Penrose observes the then appointed actuary, Mr. Christopher Headdon, wrote a crucial side letter relating to a reinsurance contract, which recorded that it would be cancelled, rather than renegotiated, in the event that more than £100 million was claimed. Lord Penrose notes that, if the Financial Services Authority had been made aware of that side letter,
"they 'would not have been prepared to accept the reinsurance arrangements as providing as much security for reserving purposes as was in fact taken."'
Lord Penrose writes:
"Those involved at the Society were not in any doubt that a right for the reinsurer to cancel in these circumstances would undermine the regulatory value of the agreement."
Lord Penrose says:
"These matters are potentially the subject of other proceedings, so I do not propose to comment on what may or may not have been the intention in writing the side letter or its legal effect."
In short, Lord Penrose makes it clear that the society's former management adopted a series of "dubious" practices, many of which it concealed from its own board, its policyholders and the regulators. He argues that that led to the situation in which the society found itself in July 2001. Thus, as Lord Penrose says,
"the Society was able to over-allocate bonus beyond available assets at market value, and in particular to make payments on claims that exceeded the relative available assets at the time."
That weakened the society so greatly that it was unable to withstand the claims on guaranteed annuities.
Lord Penrose's central finding is that
"principally, the Society was the author of its own misfortunes."
1254
The House will be aware that Lord Penrose sent his report to the Serious Fraud Office. The Treasury followed up by passing the report to the enforcement arms of the FSA and the Department of Trade and Industry—all three are currently considering the evidence of the report.
As I have described, Lord Penrose lays the blame for events at Equitable Life at the heart of the society. He calculates that, by the end of 2000, as a result of the excess bonus declarations, the society's liabilities exceeded its assets and 1.8 billion had been lost to the fund as policies matured taking more than their fair share of assets. That past over-bonusing was a driving factor, he says, behind the need to cut policy values in July 2001.
The current management argue strongly that the cuts in policy values in 2001 reflected different factors. The House will appreciate that this is a complex legal, actuarial and accounting issue, which could ultimately be determined only by the courts. Lord Penrose himself makes it clear that he could not
"adjudicate on the policyholders' complaints and claims: that again is a matter for other proceedings".
It was, however, important that the Government acted with due diligence to check with the FSA the potential impact of these complex issues on the society's current policyholders and on wider financial stability. That is why we have been unable to publish the report earlier.
The current board of Equitable Life will, together with the FSA, assess the impact on the society's liabilities and any risks to policyholders posed by Lord Penrose's findings. Those who have already seen limited extracts of the report on behalf of Equitable's board have concluded that it is in the best interests of policyholders to continue in business as before.
To conclude on over-bonusing, Lord Penrose himself makes it clear on claims that
"that again is a matter for other proceedings."
The FSA will continue to monitor the society closely and take whatever action is needed to protect policyholders.
Lord Penrose raises a number of important issues about the deregulatory, light touch, reactive system in the decades before the creation of the FSA. It was a system, however, that in that period clearly reflected the will of Parliament. He finds that the
"lack of co-ordination of prudential and conduct of business regulation…was unacceptable"
and that
"the accounts did not reflect the realistic"
financial
"position of the office".
In 1997, as soon as this Government came to power, they took action to put an effective regulatory system in place, setting up a single integrated regulator combining prudential and conduct of business regulation. A key part of the new regulatory regime was the creation of a comprehensive financial services compensation scheme and a single financial ombudsman service.

Since then, the FSA has proceeded to introduce risk-based insurance regulation and individual capital standards. It is also in the process of introducing realistic accounting by life offices, including a

1255
requirement to reserve for terminal bonus. In addition, the use of future profits implicit items is being phased out. The FSA is also removing responsibility for making key decisions on asset allocation and distribution in with-profits funds from the appointed actuary and transferring it to company boards, and it has brought forward proposals on better treatment of customers by firms and fuller transparency of with-profit funds.
Lord Penrose fully endorses the Government's actions since coming to power, saving that the FSA's reforms reflect
"a major, comprehensive reassessment 01 the requirements of an efficient regulatory system for the insurance sector".
In particular, he welcomes the FSA's detailed proposals for realistic accounting, which, he says,
"are clear recognition of the importance of looking beyond a narrow concept of solvency".
In summary, he argues that the FSA's work since 1997
"has sought to anticipate many of the lessons that might be drawn by this inquiry and it should come as no surprise that it has largely succeeded."
However, Lord Penrose's report deals with a time when a different regulatory system was in place, and a regulatory culture that was light touch, reactive and placed the responsibility for monitoring policyholders' reasonable expectations firmly on the appointed actuary of companies—a regulatory system that was argued for by Ministers and reflected the will of Parliament.
Lord Penrose notes that in 1973, during the passage of the Insurance Companies Act 1974, DTI Ministers resolved
"that action on the basis of policyholder s' reasonable expectations would be reactive to what was found in he"
annual regulatory
"returns so as to restrict the workload that a less restrained approach would involve."
Lord Penrose argues that the system n was not updated to take account of developments in the industry, particularly the trend toward terminal bonuses. He notes that aspects of the regime were reviewed, but that no proposals for change were pursued by Ministers. He writes:
"Virtually no primary legislation in the regulatory area for which DTI was responsible was taken forward by Ministers…there were specific proposals for change that Ministers did not pursue."
In particular, a proposal was made in 1988 to update life insurance regulation, but in Lord Penrose's own words,
"the Minister"—
the right hon.Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—
"did not regard the subject as a high priority for legislation."
Lord Penrose notes that senior regulatory officers argued to him that
"the Government required a 'light touch' approach to regulation, and allocated resources accordingly."
He says:
"I was urged to take into account the political climate that prevailed for most of the 1990s when the Government's objective was to deregulate, to reduce regulatory burdens on business, to avoid interference in private companies, and to let market forces prevail."
1256
Lord Penrose goes further. He says that Ministers argued against reform in the early 1990s—a critical time of development in the industry—when the third life directive was being negotiated in Brussels, maintaining that the reactive approach to monitoring policyholders' reasonable expectations based on regulatory solvency was sufficient. According to Lord Penrose, the DTI believed that forcing insurance companies to reserve for terminal bonus would have been "over cautious". And Lord Penrose adds that the UK delegation "led the resistance" to measures requiring more cautious valuation techniques.
Lord Penrose says:
"As for the regulatory system, I do believe it has failed policyholders in this case."
However, he emphasises:
"Regulatory system failures were secondary factors",
and argues that
"it was the system that failed to provide the regulation that changing circumstances in the industry required, not that there was failure to implement what was fundamentally a satisfactory system."
That system was one that Ministers and Parliament intended.
Lord Penrose makes no recommendation for the payment of compensation. His central finding is:
"Principally, the Society was the author of its own misfortunes."
And when he itemises specific findings about the regulator, he is clear that these are matters that are not for him, but for the courts. Nor does he conclude that economic loss was caused to policyholders by the regulatory system. However, as Lord Penrose says in his own words:
"The deficiencies are not so obvious as some are inclined (or wish) to believe. And…it is not enough in this case, to infer from the coincidence of systems deficiencies and loss that one caused or contributed to the other."
He stresses that he examined the regulators with the benefit of hindsight and that they were operating under a system different in its approach, resources and values from that applying today. The misfortunes of the society were caused primarily, he finds, by deep-seated management problems that began as early as the 1980s.
Lord Penrose makes no allegation of maladministration or of negligence against the regulator. He clearly establishes, with the benefit of hindsight, that the "light-touch" approach to regulation was inappropriate. It was not updated to meet the requirements of the industry, but it clearly reflected the will of Ministers and Parliament. He says:
"Ministers resolved…that scrutiny would continue to be based on the examination of the regulatory returns, and that action on the basis of policyholders' reasonable expectations would be reactive to what was found in the returns".
So, it is a question of the laws that Parliament enacted and the context in which Ministers resolved how those laws should be implemented that Lord Penrose criticises rather than the discrete actions of the regulators themselves. Indeed, Lord Penrose accepts that it cannot be the role of the regulator to prevent all failures. The costs of regulation are paid ultimately by the consumer rather than by the institutions themselves.

1257
Lord Penrose also accepts that even had a different, proactive regime been in place earlier, no regulator can guarantee to protect consumers against what he at various times calls concealment and manipulation. Indeed, the losses suffered by policyholders are attributed by Lord Penrose to decisions that were made by the management of the society from the early 1980s onwards. He observes:
"by appearing to insulate consumers entirely from the risk inherent in the selection of an investment product such an approach could give rise to perverse economic incentives for both consumers and providers."
That position is, I know, shared widely across the House. In July 1995, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said:
"I should like to remind the House of an important point. No regulatory system can provide a 100 per cent. guarantee against…failure, especially where there is a deliberate intention on the part of individual traders to conceal or deceive, combined with inadequate management controls. In cases such as this, it is important that lessons are learned quickly and promulgated widely, so that all parties, including the management of other financial institutions, can learn from the unfortunate example".—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1457.]
The Government sympathise with all policyholders who were deceived by a company that Lord Penrose says manipulated and concealed information from them. Although we will do all in our power to stand behind policyholders in difficult times, we cannot, in a financial services industry, like any other industry, underwrite each and every company whose managements and boards make fundamental mistakes and questionable decisions. In dealing with the issues, we have a responsibility, too, to the needs of taxpayers now and in the future.
Many people have drawn parallels between Equitable and Barlow Clowes. It has been put to us that as the then Government provided redress in the Barlow Clowes case, we should do so with respect to Equitable, but there are major differences between the two cases. Barlow Clowes had ceased trading; Equitable is still trading. In the case of Barlow Clowes, there was a finding of maladministration; for Equitable, there has been no such finding. At the time of Barlow Clowes, there was no compensation scheme; now there is the financial services compensation scheme. Those who continue to argue that what happened for Barlow Clowes should also happen in the case of Equitable Life have got to take into account both the existence of a compensation scheme and no finding of maladministration.
In the event that Equitable were to be subject to insolvency proceedings, there is now a statutory safety net, which was recognised as not being available at the time of Barlow Clowes, to protect investors, provided by the financial services compensation scheme, which would pay out 90 per cent. of guaranteed policy values. Further, the Government have also provided for a single financial services ombudsman to consider individual complaints. I understand that he is currently considering the cases of a number of different categories of former policyholder who have made claims for redress, for which the society has already made provisions. I want to make it clear to the House that we
1258
stand ready, if requested, to assist the financial ombudsman in expediting the resolution of those complaints. As I have made clear, Equitable's current board stresses that the company is solvent and policyholders' interests are best served by it remaining in business.
In his report, Lord Penrose raises a number of issues concerning the unlimited liability status of Equitable Life. I can announce that the Government intend, at the earliest opportunity, to publish and consult on draft legislation to protect policyholders in the event that that were ever to become material.
In line with his interpretation of his remit, Lord Penrose does not set out a comprehensive list of recommendations for the Government. Nevertheless, he does make a number of observations that merit further action. I have no doubt that Committees of this House that have taken an interest in these matters will wish to examine what further can be done, but the principle that the regulatory system—even one so recently updated—should be subject to constant review is one that we accept.
I can announce a programme of work to build on Lord Penrose's findings. The Government accept the need to re-examine the corporate governance arrangements applicable to mutual life offices in the light of the experience at Equitable Life. I can announce a review of the governance of mutual life offices, to be led by Paul Myners, so that the boards of mutual life offices are as accountable to their members as those of comparable companies are to their shareholders.
Lord Penrose also offers a number of criticisms of the actuarial profession. He says:
"The profession resisted prescription. The individual judgement of the appointed actuary prevailed."
He adds that
"the guidance offered no standards of performance that might reflect generally accepted principles or rules of conduct such as one might have expected of a professional body."
I can announce that Sir Derek Morris will lead a review of the actuarial profession with a particular focus on considering how best to modernise the profession and to ensure that high standards are delivered in a more open, challenging and accountable professional culture.
I can announce also that I have asked the independent Accounting Standards Board to initiate a study into the accounting for with profits business by life insurers. The study will have a particular emphasis on identifying ways of improving the transparency of reporting.
Lord Penrose also argues that there is a clear responsibility on Government to inform and educate consumers about the nature of the financial system. This Government were the first in the world to incorporate consumer education as a key statutory objective of the financial services regulator. The FSA has recently stepped up its work in this area, with the launch of the financial capability steering group, which will examine the approach to consumer education from first principles.
I have set out Lord Penrose's account of events leading to the situation in which Equitable Life found itself in July 2001. Lord Penrose finds that
"the first and most significant failure identified in this report lay at the heart of the Society".

1259
However, he adds that a key lesson from the report is that
"it is important to ensure that the continued relevance of the regulatory tools is regularly assessed in the light of a constantly developing industry, and to ensure that those tools are diligently and intelligently applied".
"It seems not unreasonable to suggest",
he says,
"that those in control of any supervisory regime have a duty…to take steps to ensure that the systems of regulation that are in force and enforced remain relevant to the changing requirements of the industry".
We made those changes.
Inevitably, certain key issues arising from Lord Penrose's report, as he recognises, can be resolved only in the courts. Nevertheless, as a result of his findings we will publish and consult on draft legislation to remove any possible concerns relating to unlimited liability potentially facing Equitable Life and some other policyholders.
We stand ready, if requested, to assist the financial services ombudsman in the resolution of any consequential issues before him and his staff. The FSA is working intensively to ensure that all its current policyholders are treated fairly.
Looking forward, there will be a programme of comprehensive reviews on corporate governance of life mutuals, actuarial standards or performance and accounting standards. These, alongside the FSA reforms welcomed by Lord Penrose, are developing the architecture of the life assurance industry for present and future policyholders.
It is now for the Serious Fraud Office and the companies adjudication branch of the DTI to decide whether a prosecution should follow.
Mr. Howard Flight: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving us a copy of her statement at 3 o'clock this afternoon and access to the report previously at 1.30 pm. I and my colleagues cannot claim to have absorbed every detail of the 818-page report during the past two and a half hours. Manifestly, over the course of the next few days, we shall need to study the report in great detail. It deals with matters that are of huge importance to many of our fellow citizens whose lives have been so badly affected by the Equitable saga.
The Opposition do not wish to make party political points about the grave substance of the matter for so many citizens. To say the least, I am surprised that the Financial Secretary has focused almost exclusively on the society itself and on the pre-1997 regulatory regime. That was no doubt meant to deflect criticism for regulatory failure after 1997. Surely, however, that is not an appropriate or a grown-up way for the Government to respond to a report of this nature. We should not allow ourselves to indulge in the childish
1260
game of making competing attributions of blame. We should rather work together to seek to address the harm done to innocent people, many of whom are vulnerable and elderly—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. Please allow the hon. Gentleman to speak. Mr. Ronnie Campbell, you are usually quite noisy and I sometimes tolerate it, but you are being even noisier than usual.
Mr. Flight: Many different groups of people are involved, each with their own tale to tell: annuitants, policyholders who are not yet annuitants, those with guarantees, those without guarantees, those who joined early and those who joined late. I am sure that we will need to make distinctions in how we respond, because each group of people has been affected in a different way.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree with us on two points. First, it is not appropriate for the taxpayer to make good the losses suffered by savers when those losses arise from ordinary business risks. Secondly, it is appropriate for the Treasury to make good those losses that are directly attributable to negligence or to incorrect interpretations on the part of the regulatory authorities.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will also agree that it is important, when the state is shown to be directly at fault, that people can trust the Government of the day always to do the decent thing by those who have suffered. That was the view taken by the present Chancellor when he responded to the statement on Barlow Clowes in the House at the end of 1989. The Financial Secretary has drawn our attention to the differences between Barlow Clowes and Equitable Life, but there are striking parallels. In 1989, the present Chancellor said:
"I welcome … this … payment to Barlow Clowes investors".
But it is somewhat ironic that he went on to ask the House
"why it took an internal inquiry, a departmental inquiry and now the ombudsman's investigation … before justice began to be done?"—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]
I cannot think that the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor would want, in government, to apply standards different from those that they applied to the Government when they were the Opposition.
There can be no doubt that this report, even on a first reading, provides unambiguous and compelling evidence of regulatory failure at operational level, despite the Financial Secretary's efforts to avoid that conclusion. In paragraph 240 of chapter 19, Lord Penrose tells us:
"There was a general failure on the part of the regulators and"
the Government Actuary's Department. In paragraph 158 of chapter 19, he describes the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury as "ill-equipped" and the Government Actuary's Department as complacent.
In paragraph 171 of chapter 19, Lord Penrose describes the regulator's
"failure to appreciate that a change of valuation assumption … had real implications".

1261
In paragraph 187, he describes
"short-term objectives related to support of solvency that should have alerted regulators to the Society's weakening position."
In paragraph 209, he tells us that
"information was not used to form a realistic appraisal of the Society's financial position",
and in paragraph 228, he tells us:
"Unsatisfactory answers were accepted without follow-up."
In paragraph 232, he expresses his concern that
"the FSA and GAD did not have sufficient independent knowledge and understanding of the Society's business",
and in paragraph 236, he tells us that
"regulators and GAD also failed to identify and question the adequacy of disclosure".
I believe that the Financial Secretary is bound to accept that that is a comprehensive series of findings against the regulators at operational level. I remind her that at the time of Barlow Clowes the present Chancellor said, in the face of similar operational failure on the part of the regulators, that
"the need for compensation is agreed"—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]
I hope that the Financial Secretary will now tell us what she did not tell us in her statement—that she will find a way of allowing the parliamentary ombudsman to investigate the operation of the Government Actuary's Department and other regulators to establish the extent of maladministration so that the question of compensation can be properly addressed. I hope that she will tell the House that she is willing to join hon. Members from other parties and the professional parties involved so that we may together consider how best to address the issues arising from the report.
As responsibility for the events is shared, so should solutions be, not least because pensions and the savings that give rise to them, as well as the associated liabilities, are long-lived items that must inevitably be addressed over the span of several Parliaments. When a crisis of this kind affects a large number of people, it is of the utmost importance that we forge political consensus on the appropriate remedies so that the steps that are taken can be maintained with consistency over a long period.
The implications of the episode are deep, because it raises issues of trust, not trust in this or any other Government, nor in this or any other organisation, and not even in this or any other particular regulatory regime, but of the trust of the ordinary family in the pensions industry, which lies at the heart of our financial system. Ultimately, it is a question of trust in capitalism
1262
and the fulfilment by the financial system of obligations that, whatever their legal status, have great moral, social and economic importance. I hope that the report's receipt will be the beginning of a process that leads to the restoration of a trust that has been sorely and dangerously diminished in recent years, and that the Financial Secretary will join us and others in a common effort to achieve that common aim.
Ruth Kelly: It thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for his most reasonable response and shall try to deal with his points in turn. First, however, he ought at least to acknowledge the fundamental reforms that the Government introduced in setting up the Financial Services Authority. Those reforms were long overdue, and the notion that the Government have not done everything that they can to overhaul regulation, protect policyholders and keep the system up to date is ludicrous.
We, too, sympathise with the plight of Equitable Life policyholders, some of whom have suffered tremendous hardship. The hon. Gentleman cannot, however, argue on the one hand that the Government do not have responsibility for underwriting business failure up and down the country and fail, on the other, to acknowledge that Lord Penrose firmly pinned the blame on the society in this case. Lord Penrose said that the problem started and continued there, and was born of the society's policy. It was founded on a mistaken strategy by the society and was concealed by its officials from its own board and policyholders and the regulators.
Lord Penrose makes it clear in this case that
"principally, the Society was the author of its own misfortunes".
At the heart of the society there was, as Lord Penrose says, "a self-perpetuating oligarchy" that "aggressively pursued growth" with "missionary zeal". They failed to inform the policyholders of the position of their company. They buried and concealed information from the regulators. Even their own board was kept in the dark about essential financial information, including the impact of guaranteed annuities, until 1998.
The hon. Gentleman raises questions about the regulatory system in place. I dealt with those in my statement. Lord Penrose says
"regulatory system failures were secondary",
but a system failure there was—one that the hon. Gentleman's party cultivated and over which the Leader of the Opposition presided when he was a financial services Minister. As Lord Penrose states, Conservative Ministers, in an attempt to minimise the work load involved,
"resolved…that scrutiny would continue to be based on the examination of the regulatory returns, and that action…would be reactive to what was found in the returns".
As a result, he says—a point that the hon. Gentleman picked up—the DTI insurance division was ill-equipped to participate in the regulatory process—a deliberate decision of his Government when they were in power, and one that reflected the will of Ministers and of Parliament.
When proposals were made to update life insurance regulations, they were rejected. In 1997 when we came to power, we inherited a light-touch, under-resourced, reactive regulatory system that lacked challenge, and we moved quickly to set up the FSA—a system that Lord Penrose calls.

1263
"a major, comprehensive reassessment of the requirements of an efficient regulatory system for the insurance sector"
I shall deal with each of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but first. I shall quote Lord Penrose. He says:
"I have not qualified my comments by reference to professional standards current at the time that the events occurred: that is a matter for the courts and professional bodies exercising disciplinary functions. Further, I have the benefit of hindsight … in seeking material from which lessons can be learnt for the future it would be impossible to restrict oneself to what individuals knew or ought to have known at any time in the past."
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs argued that the DTI was under-resourced and that it could not monitor policyholders' reasonable expectations. Lord Penrose says it was it was resolved by ministerial decision that PRE would be monitored from the annual regulatory returns. Up until the FSA was in force, he says
"regulators were never in a position to form a view on the issue".
The hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Penrose on future profits and the fact that the FSA allowed the society to take out an implicit future profits item. Perhaps if he read further, he would see that Lord Penrose notes
"it appears that in the context of current guidance and the regulatory framework in force, regulators could not have done otherwise".
The hon. Gentleman argued that the point about subordinated debt should have been picked up by the regulators. If he further, he would see Lord Penrose says:
"I do not criticise any of the formal steps taken of the propriety of the order granted".
Lord Penrose makes it clear that guaranteed annuities were not the cause of the society's weakening. He accepts that the presentation of the issue was disjointed and opaque, and that even the society's own board did not fully understand it until 1998. The regulators—the Treasury, in this instance—took strong action against Equitable throughout 1998 and 1999. Equitable threatened judicial review. The regulators threatened regulatory action. In the end the regulators' view prevailed and Equitable reserved in full.
The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Barlow Clowes. In that case, there was a finding of maladministration. The company was not trading. No compensation scheme was in place. In the case of Equitable Life, there is no finding of maladministration, the company is still trading, and a comprehensive compensation scheme is in place. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the parliamentary ombudsman should be asked to investigate the Government actuary service. He failed to notice that we have just set up a review of actuaries, including the Government Actuary's Department, under Sir Derek Morris. I wonder what else he had in mind.
There is no new evidence in the report to suggest any allegation of maladministration or negligence. Lord Penrose does not pin the blame on individuals who, he says, have in the main operated in good faith and to the best of their abilities within the system as they found it. Principally, he says, the society was the author of its own misfortunes. Regulatory system failures were secondary factors.
The hon. Gentleman made a last plea about trust in financial services. Perhaps I should go back to the Penrose report for a last time. Lord Penrose himself says:
1264
"If the proposals in hand for the future of the new regulatory system are implemented and if they are effective in practice, the major criticisms of the earlier regulatory regime will have been addressed both in relation to the general approach to regulation and in relation to the particular issues arising from the discussion of regulation of the Society."
Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, thank the Minister for early sight of the massive report. Clearly, I have not read all of it, but I have read enough to see that there are considerable discrepancies between what it actually says and the way in which she has interpreted it to us.
I want to deal with three specific points. First, on whether there was a regulatory failure, the key sentence in the summary, which the Minister quoted and on which she hinged her whole argument, was:
"As for the regulatory system, I do believe that it has failed policyholders in this case."
She interpreted that as being a criticism of the system as a whole, and as meaning that there was therefore a failure of the previous Government and the wicked, incompetent Tories, who failed to put the proper legislative framework in place. I do not need any persuading that the Tories are wicked and incompetent, but anyone who reads the report carefully will see that that is only part of the truth. Why did she not read the whole paragraph in which that sentence was embedded? The concluding sentence starts with the word "but", which is crucial:
"But I do take the view that the system itself was not overseen … was not kept up-to-date, and operated in an ineffective manner."
There is specific reference to a major scandal that arose when the Department of Trade and Industry was overseeing Equitable Life, when the DTI commissioned as its own auditor the chief executive of the company that it was supposed to be regulating. If that is not negligence, what is? Clearly, there was a system failure, but there was also negligence.
Secondly, let me turn to compensation. The Minister said that Lord Penrose did not advocate compensation. Of course he did not, because it was not in his mandate, as paragraph 77 of the conclusions makes clear. Why did the Minister not quote a key paragraph in the conclusion in which Lord Penrose introduced the discussion on compensation:
"However, whatever the position on compensation might prove to be in the end of the day, it is clear that many Equitable policyholders have suffered much worry and distress, and many have been and will continue to experience real financial hardship, as a result of seeing the returns they had expected from their savings very dramatically reduced"?
That happened as a consequence of failures of regulation of the company.
The Minister stated that the fundamental difference in respect of Barlow Clowes—I want to pursue in a little more detail the point made by the Conservative

1265
spokesman—was that there was no finding of maladministration in that official inquiry. That is simply untrue. The finding of maladministration came in a subsequent report by the ombudsman. Indeed, in a particularly trenchant paragraph, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, commenting in Parliament in 1989, confirmed that point precisely:
"I must ask why we have had to rely on the ombudsman to confirm … mismanagement, maladministration and incompetence".—[Official Report, 18 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]
That is why we and members of the society now expect a follow-up report by the ombudsman to interpret Lord Penrose's findings. If that is not possible, why cannot Lord Penrose be asked to spend an extra three months extending his mandate to look specifically at compensation, which he was precluded from doing before? If his findings are as the Government think, they need have no worry that they will be asked to sign any cheques, so why cannot they ask him to examine that dimension?
My third and final comment relates to the future of the society, about which the Minister said very little. As I understand it, her only practical recommendation to policyholders is that they should pursue mis-selling claims. Is she not aware that Equitable Life's policies were essentially sold by its salaried staff, not by commission agents? Any attempt to pursue a mis-selling claim must necessarily involve raiding the society's residual funds—less, of course, very large fees for the lawyers. The only recourse that she is offering is for the lenders to sue themselves. This is a hopeless outcome, and one that is totally unworthy and unsatisfactory. Not Penrose, but the Minister's interpretation of Penrose, will be alarming and demoralising to the million people who have policies with the company, and it will have very damaging long-term effects on the savings culture for millions of others.
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman has fundamentally misread the central findings of Lord Penrose's report. He made a point about regulatory failure. I accept that there was a system failure of regulation, as Lord Penrose says. That failure was the policy pursued by the previous Government, implemented according to the will of Ministers, and accepted by Parliament. Lord Penrose is specific in saying that the coincidence of system failures in this case did not lead to loss.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the combination of the role of chief executive and appointed actuary. If he reads deeper into the report, he will see that there was no law that could have prevented the situation from occurring at that time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Barlow Clowes and the fact that no compensation scheme was in place at the time. The parliamentary ombudsman made a clear finding of maladministration in that case. The previous Government did not accept liability but said that they would pay compensation out of respect for the offices of the parliamentary ombudsman, recognising that there was no other way that distress could be alleviated among the Barlow Clowes victims. Now we have a comprehensive financial services compensation scheme in place, and it pays out 90 per cent. of guaranteed policy values.
1266
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Lord Penrose could now investigate whether compensation should be payable, but if he had listened to my opening statement, he might have heard Lord Penrose's own words:
"There was no mechanism that could have been devised and put into effect within a time scale that would have had regard to the wider public interest"
that could have allowed him to investigate those issues.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the future of Equitable Life itself and its policyholders. Yes, they had a very difficult time and I sympathise with their plight, but the question now is what is the right thing for the Government to do. Lord Penrose identifies a prolonged and sustained period of over-bonusing in the society. His estimate is that more than £3 billion was paid out to policyholders in the 1990s. He says that that issue can ultimately be resolved only by the courts.
Mr. John McFall: The Financial Secretary will be aware that the Treasury Committee has invited Lord Penrose to give his views on his report next week. Surely it sounds the death knell for the post of appointed actuary. The report's conclusions are bitter for the many hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders. We have had prudential regulation, conduct of business and realistic reporting improvements, but all that, for Equitable Life policyholders, sadly, is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The big question today is how we can improve transparency to ensure that there is no rerun of this scandal and fraud by future managements and that when people put their money in savings they can have confidence in the system. How will the Minister and the Government work to ensure that we restore confidence in the long-term savings market?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend draws attention to the appointed actuary system that was in place for a prolonged period during the 1980s and 1990s. The Financial Services Authority has decided to abolish that system, to remove from the appointed actuary responsibility for making key decisions about asset allocation and distribution in respect of with-profits funds, and to place that responsibility firmly on the board.
My hon. Friend asks how we can restore confidence; the way to do so is to take the action required. We have made the changes that Lord Penrose thought essential to regulating the life insurance industry, and we will continue to make them. That is why we have set up a review of the mutual sector and the actuarial profession, and we are reviewing the accounting treatment of with-profits funds. My hon. Friend will know that if there are aggrieved policyholders, as undoubtedly there are, they are at liberty to pursue any claims that they feel are rightly theirs through the financial ombudsman service, which this Government put in place for the resolution of such complaints.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister seemed with approval to quote me from the time of the Barings bank collapse, when I said that there was no failure on the Bank of England's part in respect of regulations that could protect against a rogue trader

1267
who deliberately deceived and obscured the truth. She also reminded us of the occasion on which the previous Government accepted a finding of maladministration against the Department of Trade and Industry, in the case of Barlow Clowes, and paid compensation to the innocent victims.
Will she, therefore, clear up the seeming ambiguity in her comments on the regulators in this case? She attacks the DTI's actions before 1997 with considerable vehemence when she is making party political points, but she defends its actions when resisting the claim for compensation. She is totally silent about the Financial Services Authority and the Government Actuary during the period after 1997—the three years that led up to the revelation of the true facts about Equitable Life. Is she saying that the DTI, as regulator, made no errors or misjudgments before 1997 under the existing regime, and that after 1997, the FSA or the Government Actuary made no errors or misjudgments? When she answers that clear question—she has yet to do so—will she bear it in mind that 800,000 policyholders will not welcome party politics on this subject, and that they will want a clear description of where fault lay, including with the regulators, if part of the blame did indeed lie there?
Ruth Kelly: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point about Barlow Clowes, but unfortunately it is not right. There was a finding of maladministration, but the previous Government did not accept it. I quoted him deliberately, because in 1995 he accepted the point that no regulator can guarantee against a company that is intent on concealment, manipulation or deception. In this; case, Lord Penrose sets out clearly a litany of occasions on which the regulators were not given full information, and on which the company concealed information from the policyholders and from its own board.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to distinguish between the operation of the regulatory system and the regulatory policy. Lord Penrose is absolutely clear: there was regulatory system failure. There was a failure of policy by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government, in that they failed to regulate the life insurance industry appropriately. Indeed, when they were offered the opportunity to do just that in 1994, they rejected it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about individual instances after 1997, so let me give him the details. Lord Penrose questioned, for example, whether the FSA should have granted a reinsurance treaty. On taking a closer look at the report, however, it is clear that he accepts that the company wrote a side letter that withheld information from the regulator. The FSA has said that, in such a situation, in no case would it have accepted a reinsurance treaty. The claim is made that the regulators should have taken action when the company asked for a subordinated debt agreement, but in the next paragraph Lord Penrose says that he does not criticise any of the formal steps taken, in terms of the propriety of the order granted. He accepts—and I must accept some failure here—that the FSA should have handled late joiners in a slightly more sensitive way. That criticism, too, was made by the parliamentary ombudsman when she reviewed the case, and the FSA has already accepted that it could have handled the
1268
situation more fully. However, the company has already admitted liability in that case, and a reserve for late joiners. There is no issue after 1997 in Lord Penrose's report that has not been considered by the parliamentary ombudsman, and she has cleared the Government of all cases of maladministration.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Minister for the announcement about the Paul Myners inquiry and the inquiry into the actuarial profession. Given the strategic importance of actuaries to the long-term delivery of our pension schemes, will the House have some say in the terms of reference of that inquiry? Do the Government accept that, whatever final decision the House may come to about compensation in that respect, there is a clear distinction between people like me, who voluntarily saved in an organisation that gave us bad advice, and the 60,000 people who, as a condition of their employment, were made to save in a company pension scheme and now find that all or most of their pension has been lost?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for his insightful comments on the actuarial profession. Although we have published terms of reference for that review today, I assure him that they are extremely broad. I am sure, too, that Paul Myners will be interested to learn of my right hon. Friend's interest in the subject of his review, and I shall refer my right hon. Friend to him. My right hon. Friend spoke of the 60,000 pensioners in the ASW case and others. He will understand that as a result of their position the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has made it a priority to put in place a pension protection fund, through the Pensions Bill now passing through the House.
Mr. John Redwood: What would the Minister say to a constituent of hers, or mine, who has lost a lot of money and has been hanging on in the hope of something from Penrose, or Government compensation, but who now faces a very mean retirement because of those losses? Is she really saying that such people should spend what little money they have left on good lawyers, that they should just sit and hold on, or that they should get out? That is what my constituents need to know. They have been extremely badly done by, and they want an answer.
Ruth Kelly: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that it is the Government's responsibility to act on the basis of what Lord Penrose has said in his report. Of course, I entirely sympathise with the distress of individual policyholders who have suffered loss over the last four years as a result of the actions of the society. However, I can perhaps give some words of assurance about the fact that the Government have introduced the comprehensive financial services compensation scheme, which is ready, were problems to materialise in a company, to pay out 90 per cent. of guaranteed policy values. Apart from that, the financial ombudsman service is also there ready to offer help, without the expense of lawyers, to individuals who feel that they need redress.
Tony WrightIs this not the story of a period when this country was in the grip of an

1269
ideology that said that people would be more prosperous and freer to the extent that the state did not interfere with their lives? Are not the Equitable Life policyholders now being asked to pay a terrible price for that ideology? More specifically, my hon. Friend has made an important distinction between regulatory failure and regulatory maladministration, but I am sure that she will agree that that is a proper distinction for the parliamentary ombudsman to examine, in so far as it is within her jurisdiction, and that she will want to make her own judgment on the matter.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes some important points. Lord Penrose's report provides a cautionary tale for all hon. Members on both sides of the House. His main recommendation is that the regulatory system should be constantly reassessed and kept up to date in the light of changing developments in the industry. We set up the FSA immediately on coming to power, and alongside it we are prepared continually to review and update its effectiveness to make sure that adequate protection is in place. My hon. Friend draws a distinction between regulatory failure and operational failure, and it is one that Lord Penrose himself draws in the report. Lord Penrose is clear that the fault principally lay at the heart of the society and that regulatory system failures were secondary factors.
Norman Lamb: May I declare an interest as a former policyholder? I draw the Minister's attention to the report's key findings, which identify not only a systems failure but a specific failure by regulators operating within the system. Is it not remarkable that she failed to mention that at all in her statement and that she concentrated only on the systems failure? Her statement is a recipe for years of litigation, which will enormously benefit many lawyers but which will be at the expense of all those who have suffered enormous hardship, and will do nothing to address the crisis of confidence in the industry. It is time for a proper process through either the parliamentary ombudsman or a further remit to Lord Penrose to identify the loss resulting from the regulatory failure—not system failure—identified by Lord Penrose, so that compensation can be paid.
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation is not correct. Lord Penrose's main finding is that there has been systematic and sustained over-bonusing in the society over a matter of decades, and perhaps even longer. As Lord Penrose says, the issue could be determined only by the courts. He specifically rules out any attempt to give him extra powers to deal with consequential issues and says that such issues could be determined only by the statutory process.
The hon. Gentleman points to particular issues about the regulatory system and leads me to examine Lord Penrose's central findings and conclusions. Lord Penrose says that "the system lacked challenge", and he also says why. The system was set up by deliberate ministerial decision to lack resources. In 1999, 70 regulators supervised 800 life insurance companies while 400 regulators supervised 600 banks, which was a complete bias in the system. This Government have
1270
doubled the resources going into life insurance regulation and made sure that the system is set up in such a way that it now has sufficient to do the job properly.
Mr. James Plaskitt: May I refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury Committee's interim report on Equitable Life? We found that the Treasury asked the Government Actuary's Department to survey life offices in 1998. When Sir Howard Davies gave evidence, he told us that the case of Equitable Life stood out among all the others. Equitable Life did not like the regulator's comments and threatened the Treasury with judicial review. Although Lord Penrose rightly says that the society was the author of its own misfortune, does my hon. Friend think that the pre-FSA regulatory vacuum aided that situation?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Regulators became aware of the guaranteed annuity issue in 1997, and, in effect, the regulators and Equitable Life had a running battle over the following two years. Equitable threatened the regulators with judicial review; the regulators threatened to take regulatory action and shut the company. In the end, the regulators' view prevailed and the company reserved in full. The reason that situation did not materialise earlier is, as Lord Penrose says, that the system was not set up to allow the regulators to pick up any impact on policyholders' reasonable expectations.
Mr. Graham Brady: I, too, have a small interest to declare. The Minister refers to the statement by Lord Penrose that insulating policyholders from any kind of risk would provide a perverse incentive. On the other side of the account, does she accept that leaving people suffering loss and hardship in their retirement also provides a perverse incentive? What is her assessment of the damage that could be done to confidence in the industry and of the danger that people will simply stop saving for their pensions?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it was one that Parliament considered when it set up the financial services compensation scheme, which acts as a comprehensive safety net for individuals in a case of insolvency. Were Equitable to become insolvent—I stress that the company thinks that it is still solvent—the financial services compensation scheme is there to meet individuals' needs and would pay out 90 per cent. of policy values. However, in addition, the financial ombudsman scheme is available, whether a company is solvent or insolvent, to pay out on the basis of individual policyholder complaints. It is to that scheme that individuals should look in the first instance if they feel aggrieved.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Equitable Life is the oldest insurance society in Britain and, in many people's eyes, was the gold standard of the life insurance industry. What are the implications for the rest of the life insurance industry?
Ruth Kelly: Lord Penrose says that the FSA, in its reforms, has anticipated many of the lessons that could

1271
have been drawn from his report. He says that it has "largely succeeded" in that. The lessons for us as a Government are to keep his report in mind to ensure that the regulatory process is constantly updated and to ensure that policyholders have the most effective system possible in place. At the same time, we must acknowledge that no regulator can guarantee against a deliberate and particular intention to conceal and manipulate by a company. No regulator could guarantee to prevent that from happening.
Richard Ottaway: Millions of policyholders listening to the Financial Secretary's statement this afternoon will be dismayed by its content and tone, and the way in which everybody seemed to be to blame except the Government. I remind the Minister of the guidance in the letter of 18 December 1998 from the Treasury's insurance directorate, which condoned, confirmed and accorded with the accounting practices of Equitable Life. That guidance was slaughtered by the House of Lords in its judgment of July 2000. However, the Treasury has always stood by that guidance and never suggested that it was wrong. Will she now take this opportunity to admit that the guidance was wrong and that Equitable Life did not operate in accordance with proper procedures?
Ruth Kelly: I have already said to the Treasury Committee, when the issue was last considered, that with hindsight it probably would have been better not to have issued that guidance. I can only cite Lord Penrose who, when he looked at the issue, accepted that the regulators' view of the guidance was that it was neutral. Indeed, he accepted that the regulators thought that the guidance could act as a warning shot across the bows of Equitable. He accepts that that is the case, and that was the view that was held by regulators at the time.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is the widest possible distinction on the issue of regulation between the former and current Governments—I hope that we will hear less bleating from the Conservatives about red tape—but Governments are a seamless whole as far the public are concerned. Do we not often have to clear up the mess that was created by the Conservatives? That needs to be taken into account in connection with the Equitable Life policyholders, and we may have some responsibility to deal with their problems.
Ruth Kelly: The distinction is fundamental, and it is essential for the Government of the day to get it right. There is a clear separation between policies, which are dreamed up and implemented by Ministers of the day, with Parliament's support—effectively representing the will of Parliament—and the operation of a regulatory system that can lead to circumstances in which policy is not effectively implemented and does not represent the wishes of Ministers and Parliament. That is a distinction that Lord Penrose makes when he says that in this case the problem was regulatory system failure: it was the policy that was the cause of the problem.
Mr. Mark Field: Will the Government find a way to enable the
1272
ombudsman to investigate the serious regulatory failure of the Government Actuary's Department, which was identified in Lord Penrose's report?
Ruth Kelly: The ombudsman has already considered the position since 1997 and found no evidence of maladministration. The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the Hansard report of my original statement. I pointed out that Lord Penrose himself made serious criticisms of the actuarial profession—not least the fact that one appointed actuary was reluctant ever to criticise the opinion of another appointed actuary. Lord Penrose also said that the profession was set up in such a way that there were no standards of discipline of the type that are normally accepted as applying to any professional body. That is why the Government have set up an independent review to examine the actuarial profession, and it will include the Government Actuary's Department.
Mr. George Mudie: I genuinely commend the Minister and other Treasury Ministers on dealing with the political and technical aspects of the problem, but I genuinely put down a marker on my concern about the humanity of the position. This is the second time in a week that the House has debated the plight of ordinary pensioners who now have to face life on reduced pensions. That is their reward for doing exactly what the House has urged them to do—to put money aside and save for pensions. I acknowledge that the Minister has set out an able case against compensation, but the prospects for Equitable Life pensioners now hinge on succeeding in legal action against the directors and auditors. That will take years and will enrich only the lawyers. It will in no way help the ordinary pensioners who are now living on reduced pensions.
Will the Minister and other Treasury Ministers speak to the FSA to establish whether it can do something similar to what it did last week to the split capital investment industry—by knocking some heads together? They should try to bring some help not only to people affected by Equitable Life, but to the pensioners we spoke about last week, who look to us not for technical or political arguments, but for help to maintain their standard of living.
Ruth Kelly: I understand my hon. Friend's empathy for the policyholders in Equitable Life and I share it. It is difficult to see people suffer financial hardship and stress, but my hon. Friend must also be aware of the scale of the problem that we face. Lord Penrose identified a problem that was driven primarily by management failure at the society itself. That is what led to £3 billion extra being paid out in bonuses than the society could afford. Of course the Government stand ready to help where we can and where appropriate in that context. Indeed, I have personally spoken to the financial ombudsman to see whether there is any more we can do to help people as they pursue any consequential claims through his office. The reason we set up the financial ombudsman service was to provide an avenue for people to seek speedy resolutions of their complaints.
Chris Grayling: Is it not curiously ironic that the one person who was successful

1273
in extracting money from Equitable Life pension funds after 1997 was the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When the company was pulling the wool over the eyes of the regulator in the early 1990s, the system was supposedly to blame; but when the company was still pulling the wool over the regulator's eyes at the end of the decade, the post-1997 Labour-introduced regulatory system was entirely blameless. Does the Minister honestly believe that the policyholders will think that that is credible?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the society was pulling the wool over the eyes of the regulator, but in fact Lord Penrose set out a litany of ways in which the company failed to disclose information to the regulator. For example, it failed to disclose in 1992 with the quasi-Zillmer adjustment—and it went on from there. It also failed to disclose information about a side letter written on reinsurance agreements under the stewardship of the FSA. However, the Penrose report found no maladministration or negligence by the regulator and also states clearly that no discrete actions by the regulators led to loss. It was not the regulatory system that was responsible for policyholder loss, but the action of the society itself.
Alan Howarth: Wherever responsibility may lie for the disasters that have so devastatingly affected Equitable Life policyholders, does my hon. Friend agree that it may have contributed to a dangerous undermining of confidence in pensions more broadly, and that there is an urgent need to rebuild that confidence? Over and above the regulatory improvements that the Government have already brought in, will the Treasury act to improve incentives for savers who are not high earners, perhaps by replacing tax relief with grants, for example? Will the Treasury also offer incentives to employers to contribute more generously to the pensions of those who work for them, as well as to provide financial education and financial planning advice in the workplace?
Ruth Kelly:My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why in 1997 we took immediate action to set up the FSA. We also set up the comprehensive financial services compensation scheme, and the financial ombudsman service to help people with speedy resolution of their claims. Confidence in the financial services industry will be restored by an effective regulatory system that is updated adequately to reflect movement in the industry. As for the subjects that my right hon. Friend mentioned, workplace advice, for instance, is very close to my heart. We are consulting on ways to make that work better so that employees can receive appropriate advice in the workplace. We shall keep under review—as, indeed, will Adair Turner as head of the Pensions Commission—all ways of promoting pensions in the workplace.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I represent a large number of victims, many of whose lives have been ruined as a result of this matter. The shadow Chief Secretary asked the Minister about the Government Actuary's Department, which saw
1274
Equitable's returns and gave it a solid rating every year—both before 1997 and for four years after that, at which stage the deterioration in the company's balance sheet became apparent. Surely the Government Actuary's Department is to some extent culpable. How much responsibility should it carry?
Ruth Kelly: The Government Actuary's Department acted as advisers to the regulator. I have already set out the inadequacy of resources given to life insurance regulation over a prolonged period. It was natural that the regulator, when completely under-resourced, should rely on 20 Government actuaries for support. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the case after 1997. We took immediate action as a Government to set up the FSA; we have doubled the resources to life insurance regulation; we have increased the skill levels for carrying out life insurance regulation; and we stand ready to make any changes on the back of Lord Penrose's recommendations.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Like many Members, I have waited a long time for this report to be announced to Parliament. I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement today of an independent review. I believe that I have understood her point about the failure of the regulatory system pre-1997, but for the benefit of Conservatives Members who were in government before then will she once again reiterate—I know that she has done so several times already—the point about the regulatory system? I am very angry on behalf of the constituents who have written to me when I hear such an announcement and what Lord Penrose said in his report.
Ruth Kelly: As a result of Lord Penrose's report, the House will want to take time to reflect on whether it was appropriate to have a light-touch regulatory system for the protection and care of long-term pensions held by millions of people in this country. Lord Penrose says:
"I do not pin that blame on individuals, who in the main have operated in good faith and to the best of their abilities within the system as they found it."
He adds that, primarily, the company was the
"author of its own misfortunes",
and that
"regulatory system failures were secondary factors."
Mr. Andrew Love: Did my hon. Friend have a chance to read the Financial Times over the weekend, in particular the comments of its respected City analyst on pensions? He said that
"despite the problems, the return on an Equitable pension might be no worse than on one bought through any other poorly-performing life offices.
Many life offices are paying zero bonuses, so Equitable policyholders may be no worse off than some of those with the competitors … If that's a case for compensation, I can't see it."
That is the voice of a reputable, independent expert from the City. Would my hon. Friend care to comment?
Ruth Kelly: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he must agree that Lord Penrose's central finding was that the company was the author of its own misfortunes. It paid out £3 billion more in bonuses than it could afford

1275
over a prolonged period. Thai has clearly had a differential impact on policyholders, depending on when they joined or left the company. In this case, however, it is very much the society itself that is under the spotlight.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Lord Penrose has accused the management of the company of manipulation, concealment and serious omission. Is not that just another way of describing the current state of the actuarial profession? I am sure the whole House will welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of the report by Derek Morris on the actuarial profession. Can she tell us when she expects to receive that long overdue and much to be welcomed report?
Ruth Kelly: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's detailed point, although Lord Penrose suggests that the actuarial profession is in need of review. However, I can tell him that the review process should be completed by spring next year.

Points of Order
5.26 pm
Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I have given prior notification to Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday afternoon, it appears that I was the subject of not one but two points of order from Labour Members. On Friday morning, I received a letter from the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) informing me that I was to be the subject of a point of order on the previous day. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman took issue with a visit that I made to his constituency as a shadow Health Minister, at the invitation of local residents and of Mr. Douglas Carswell, the excellent Conservative parliamentary spokesman in that constituency. The hon. Gentleman was told about my visit, as is my custom—a courtesy that has never been extended to me by any Labour Ministers or Liberal Members of Parliament visiting my constituency.
In Mr. Speaker's response to that notified point of order, he referred to a convention about Members being involved in colleagues' constituencies or those of other Members. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) pointed out that I was visiting as a shadow Health spokesman and that it was common practice during the previous Conservative Government for Labour Front Benchers to ask questions about the constituencies of other Members, Mr. Speaker said that that was an entirely different matter.
There thus seems to have been a degree of confusion as to what hon. Members can or cannot do outside their own constituency. Given the practice, especially of the Department of Health, of answering questions tabled by my hon. Friends and me by saying that information is not collected centrally, thereby requiring us to ask for information about individual constituencies or primary care trust areas, it would be exceedingly damaging to the availability of information to Opposition Members if we were unable to ask such questions. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can give us some—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that we have heard the point of order that the hon. Gentleman is making.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Ivan Henderson rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I first respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)?
I really have nothing to add to the rulings that Mr. Speaker gave on Thursday, when he said that these things are best dealt with between Members and not on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker had occasion to rebuke me for seeking to raise this point of order earlier during what I had forgotten was an answer to an urgent question, not a ministerial statement, for which I unreservedly apologise.

1277
Earlier this afternoon, a Minister of State quite disgracefully criticised civil servants in her Department for failing to inform her until yesterday of matters that she should properly have heard about in January. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would immediately rule that it is up to Ministers to take responsibility for what they say—I understand that—but could you reaffirm the convention that Ministers should take responsibility for their actions, and the fact that it always has been the convention of the House that Ministers do not come to the Dispatch Box and criticise civil servants who do not have the opportunity to answer for themselves?
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I invite you to go somewhat further than my hon. Friend suggests in extending the protection of the Chair in the Chamber to civil servants who are unable to protect themselves—indeed, they are unable to speak for themselves—when attacked by their own Ministers? Surely that is something for which the occupant of the Chair can rightly and honourably take responsibility. Today, we had the most disgraceful example of a Minister of State dumping on her own officials. Surely that is unacceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to tell right hon. and hon. Members who have raised that point of order with me that the way in which Ministers answer urgent questions is entirely their responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Henderson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had gone to the notice board on Thursday afternoon, during Question Time, he would have seen his letter there. I am not responsible for when he receives his mail in his office. If he, like other hon. Members, had contacted the hon. Member responsible when issues are raised on behalf of constituents, he would have got the answers that he required, including on the £7 million investment in the primary care trust in my area.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling in the House last Thursday. I have nothing further to add—certainly, nothing on the matter of when Members do, or do not, collect their post.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to the point of order that was raised by Opposition Members, Madam Deputy Speaker. There has been a long tradition—this may be unwritten, but it is very important—that the House does not attack those who cannot answer back and that the use of privilege is carefully protected because it involves a very great responsibility. We have the right of privilege. We are able to say what we think here and to be protected. I hope that the House will be reminded from time to time that that tradition includes not having a go at those who cannot protect themselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat what I said earlier: the responsibility for replies to urgent questions lies with Ministers themselves.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (PILOTS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the following provisions shall apply to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 21st October 2003 and 29th October 2003:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.

3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

The House divided. Ayes 265, Noes 150.

Division No. 76

[5.33 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Alexander, Douglas

Coffey, Ms Ann

Allen, Graham

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Coleman, lain

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Colman, Tony

Atkins, Charlotte

Connarty, Michael

Austin, John

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Banks, Tony

Cooper, Yvette

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, rh Kevin

Corston, Jean

Battle, John

Cousins, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Cruddas, Jon

Beard, Nigel

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Cummings, John

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

(Copeland)

Berry, Roger

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Betts, Clive

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dalyell, Tam

Blizzard, Bob

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Boateng, rh Paul

David, Wayne

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Davidson, Ian

Brennan, Kevin

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Wallsend)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Browne, Desmond

Denham, rh John

Bryant, Chris

Dhanda, Parmjit

Buck, Ms Karen

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Burden, Richard

Dobson, rh Frank

Burgon, Colin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Caplin, Ivor

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Casale, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

Caton, Martin

Edwards, Huw

Challen, Colin

Efford, Clive

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Chaytor, David

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Clapham, Michael

Farrelly, Paul

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Clark, Dr, Lynda (Edinburgh

Fisher, Mark

Pentlands)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

& Rye)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Foulkes, irh George

Chryston)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

1279

Gardiner, Barry

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Godsiff, Roger

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Goggins, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Merron, Gillian

Grogan, John

Michael, rh Alun

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Miller, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hanson, David

Moffatt, Laura

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mole, Chris

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Moonie Dr. Lewis

Rhymney)

Moran, Margaret

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morley, Elliot

Hepburn, Stephen

Mountford, Kali

Heppell, John

Mudie, George

Hesford, Stephen

Munn, Ms Meg

Heyes, David

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Olner, Bill

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Organ, Diana

Hopkins, Kelvin

Perham, Linda

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Picking Anne

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Pickthall, Colin

Sefton E)

Plaskitt, James

Howells, Dr. Kim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pollard, Kerry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Hutton, rh John

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Pound, Stephen

lllsley, Eric

Prentic;, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Irranca-Davies, Huw

E)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Prescott, rh John

Highgate)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Jamieson, David

Dinefwr)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Hatfield)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Purnell, James

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quin, rh Joyce

Jowell, rh Tessa

Quinn, Lawrie

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Rammell, Bill

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Raynslord, rh Nick

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Kemp, Fraser

Bellshill)

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, John (Glasgow

King, Andy (Rugby)

Anniesland)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Rooney, Terry

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lammy, David

Ruane, Chris

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Lepper, David

Chester)

Leslie, Christopher

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Savidge, Malcolm

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sedgemore, Brian

Love, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Sheerman, Barry

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Sherican, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Short, rh Clare

McCabe, Stephen

Simon, SiÓn (B'ham Erdington)

McCartney, rh Ian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonnell, John

Skinner, Dennis

MacDougall, John

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

McFall, John

Finsbury)

Mclsaac, Shona

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Mackinlay, Andrew

Lunesdale)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McWalter, Tony

Soley, Clive

Mahmood, Khalid

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Steinberg, Gerry

Mallaber, Judy

Stevenson, George

1280

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Lochaber)

Walley, Ms Joan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Claire

Stinchcombe, Paul

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Watts, David

Stringer, Graham

White, Brian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Winnick, David

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wishart, Pete

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Woodward, Shaun

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Woolas, Phil

Tipping, Paddy

Worthington, Tony

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Yarmouth)

Trickett, Jon

Wright, David (Telford)

Truswell, Paul

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Vernon Coaker

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Allan, Richard

Goodman, Paul

Amess, David

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Grayling, Chris

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bacon, Richard

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Baker, Norman

Greenway, John

Baron, John (Billericay)

Grieve, Dominic

Barrett, John

Gummer, rh John

Bellingham, Henry

Hague, rh William

Bercow, John

Hammond, Philip

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hancock, Mike

Boswell, Tim

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Abingdon)

Brady, Graham

Hawkins, Nick

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Brazier, Julian

Heath, David

Breed, Colin

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Hendry, Charles

Browning, Mrs Angela

Holmes, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm

Horam, John (Orpington)

Burnett, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Jack, rh Michael

Cameron, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Fife)

Inverness)

Carmichael, Alistair

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Cash, William

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Barnet)

Lamb, Norman

Chope, Christopher

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Clappison, James

Leigh, Edward

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Collins, Tim

Lidington, David

Conway, Derek

Lilley, rh Peter

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Loughton, Tim

Cotter, Brian

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Mcintosh, Miss Anne

Stamford)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Maclean, rh David

Doughty, Sue

Malins, Humfrey

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Maples, John

Fabricant, Michael

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Fallon, Michael

Atcham)

Flight, Howard

Maude, rh Francis

Flook, Adrian

May, Mrs Theresa

Forth, rh Eric

Mercer, Patrick

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Coldfield)

Garnier, Edward

Moore, Michael

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

1281

Öpik, Lembit

Stunell, Andrew

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Swayne, Desmond

Ottaway, Richard

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Page, Richard

Syms, Robert

Paice, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Portillo, rh Michael

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Pugh, Dr. John

Teather, Sarah

Randall, John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Redwood, rh John

Walter, Robert

Rendel, David

Waterson, Nigel

Robathan, Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Whittingdale, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Wiggin, Bill

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wilkinson, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Willetts, David

Ruffley, David

Willis, Phil

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wilshire, David

Sanders, Adrian

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Sayeed, Jonathan

(Macclesfield)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Young, rh Sir George

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

Younger-Ross, Richard

Kincardine)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Spring, Richard

Mr. Mark Field and

Stanley, rh Sir John

Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
    Clause 1

      PILOTING CONDUCT AT EUROPEAN AND LOCAL ELECTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      5.47 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 15, at end insert—

      `(c) Yorkshire and the Humber;

      (d) North West.'

      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 12, 14 to 20, 22, 24 to 43 and 45 to 50.
      Mr. Leslie: This large group of amendments brings the Bill up to date. Apart from the issue dealt with in our amendment, we agree with their lordships on the need to name in the Bill the regions to pilot all-postal voting. The amendments negate the need for an affirmative order by naming all-postal voting as the method of piloting and specifying the choice of pilot regions. That has allowed greater parliamentary scrutiny and means that electoral administrators will be able to plan with certainty without having to wait for an order to be brought before both Houses.
      Government amendment (a) reinstates Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west as pilot regions, supplementing the north-east and the east midlands as the Government's preferred four regions for piloting, as I announced in January. Although their lordships opted for only two regions, I shall explain why I hope that the House of Commons will settle on four regions and why this can be the final word on the matter.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend perfectly satisfied that there is sufficient time for the regulators to ensure that the machinery is in place in the north-west, because it was thought that we would not be included in the pilot scheme? Although many of us approve of postal voting, we are worried about people acting fraudulently to change the results in those constituencies where, for one reason or another, the vote is close.
      Mr. Leslie: I hope to put my hon. Friend's mind at rest by quoting the regional returning officer for the northwest. I shall come to his specific comments and how he is content to have all-postal voting in the north-west shortly. However, it will help if I first remind the House why we are considering the issue.
      Turnout in local and European elections has been low for some time. As society evolves, it is important that our democracy can also evolve to match the lifestyles

      1283
      and needs of the public. We have a responsibility to make the process of casting a vote: as convenient and simple as possible. The more obstacles in the way, the fewer will cast a vote, and the less likely it is that elected politicians will receive a resounding; mandate if turnout continues to weaken.
      One of several reforms that could help is improving the physical mechanisms of voting. Taking the choice to the elector instead of always requiring the elector to seek out the polling station is a tactic worth trying. I emphasise that that is worth trying because we are talking about pilots.
      Mr. Graham Brady: It is a tactic worth trying. The independent Electoral Commission agreed with that. Irrespective of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber, the commission
      "felt unable to make a positive recommendation in respect of those regions"
      in the pilot exercise. As recently as last week, it was still saying that it felt that those regions were unsuitable to run postal pilots. Why will the Minister not take seriously the independent advice of the Electoral Commission?
      Mr. Leslie: I shall come to that point. The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the Electoral Commission's position. It is not saying that Yorkshire or the north-west are not suitable. On the contrary, it is saying that they are potentially suitable. It has said that all along. I shall deal with these points in more detail later in my remarks.
      Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Leslie: No. I shall make some progress on this matter.
      Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has accused me of misrepresenting the views of the Electoral Commission, yet I have a letter dated 4 March from the chairman of the commission to the Minister. I was quoting from that letter, in which he says:
      "The remaining four regions (excluding London and Northern Ireland who were not part of this exercise) we felt were unsuitable to run all postal pilots."
      I ask the Minister to apologise to me for the allegation that he has made.
      Mr. Leslie: That was the correct representation—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have the gist of the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Perhaps the Minister will respond. It is a matter for the Minister and not one for the Chair.
      Mr. Leslie: It is always the last refuge of the hon. Gentleman to resort to a point of order to make his political point. However, he is wrong about the
      1284
      Electoral Commission so I shall not apologise. I shall read from the letter that he quoted. The commission states:
      "We named a further four regions that were potentially suitable as pilots. These were, in order of suitability, Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North West and West Midlands."
      The other four regions were those that were deemed to be not potentially suitable. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: This is not good enough. I had the opportunity last week to talk personally to Mr. Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission. Among other things, I discussed this matter with him. He made it plain that he thought that two pilots were enough. He accepted three at a stretch, but certainly he preferred two. He made his advice unequivocal and plain. The Minister has decided to discard that advice. Why?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is more circumspect in the way that he describes the position of the chairman of the Electoral Commission. I, too, had discussions with the chairman last week. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is disagreement about how we define a pilot—whether it is two, three or four regions.
      I return to the letter. The commission writes:
      "We named a further four regions that were potentially suitable as pilots. These were, in order of suitability, Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, North West and West Midlands."
      It felt unable to make a positive recommendation in respect of those regions, but it stated that they were potentially suitable. It is wrong to say that the commission was saying no to Yorkshire or no to the north-west. That is not the right characterisation of the commission's position.
      Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Leslie: I should like to make some progress—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
      Mr. Leslie: We shall have plenty of opportunity, if I might make some progress, to delve into some of these issues. I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Eric Forth: The right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Leslie: Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman. I shall do so later.
      We want to be sure, through piloting, that we can both increase the convenience of casting a vote and maintain public confidence in the security of our voting systems. That is what we are talking about. Piloting is about learning lessons. The more experience we have, the better will be the final outcome of policy. Pilots so far have been small in scale. We have always said that the Bill is about scaling up to regional level.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What representations has my hon. Friend had from local

      1285
      authorities, either through the leaders of those authorities or through the chief executives within the north-west, in support of a pilot scheme?
      Mr. Leslie: Later, I shall quote at length to show that we have had positive support, especially from authorities in the north-west of England, in favour of all-postal voting. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
      It is important that we underline the view of the Electoral Commission, which advised us about which of the regions would be the most suitable candidates. It did not merely recommend two regions that it considered suitable without referring to anywhere else. The commission made a number of recommendations and, broadly speaking, they were split into three categories. First were the regions that were positively recommended, second were regions that were potentially suitable and third were regions that were not suitable. We accepted those regions that were described as positively recommended back in December—the north-east and the east midlands. We then worked through those regions that were described as potentially suitable in the order of ranking as set by the Electoral Commission.
      Sir Michael Spicer: As the Minister has thrown the main conclusions of the Electoral Commission into the dustbin, why is he wasting the time of the House telling us other things that the commission has said when he obviously does not believe in much of its views anyway?
      Mr. Leslie: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening to what I am saying. I do not follow his intervention. Perhaps it will become clearer later.
      Mr. Gummer: What my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) says goes to the gravamen of the issue. Many of us are unhappy about the entire proposal. We think that, if people do not vote, it is because they think that the operation of the local authority is not sufficiently interesting to them, not because they cannot find the polling station. We are prepared to go along with the Minister to some extent if the independent Electoral Commission made the suggestions to which he referred. However, if he undermines what the commission has said, many of us who have been prepared to give the proposals a try will say to ourselves, "It has ceased to be an independent operation. Once again, it has become something manipulated by the Government for reasons which sometimes we do not understand but no doubt there is some reason for it." The Minister could say, "This is what the commission suggested. It has said that that is not suitable. Therefore, let us move forward on the two suggestions that it has made."
      Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman would be the first person to chastise the Government if we abrogated our responsibility and passed decision making to the Electoral Commission, rather than having the buck stop here with decisions being made in the House. Ultimately, the commission gives advice. We listen to
      1286
      that advice, but we have a responsibility to make our own decisions, for which we are accountable to the electorate. That is an important principle—I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to disagree with that.
      Mr. Gummer: There is a reason why matters of electoral reform should be decided as independently as possible. It is because no Government can pretend that they are not party politically pressed. When they make a change of the sort that is proposed, it must lead people to believe that the Government have done it for party political advantage. That is what Governments are about.
      Mr. Leslie: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's approach. The Electoral Commission has said that it does not wish to make final decisions. It gives advice but it is ultimately a matter for Ministers and Parliament to make decisions. That is a sensible constitutional approach.
      Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should all come to the debate troubled, in that an ever increasing number of voters are totally uninterested in what we and other representative organisations do? Does he also accept that we should seriously turn our minds to how we might bridge the gap between our electors and ourselves? As the Government have made the decision. regardless of whether it was exactly what the Electoral Commission said or whether it extended that advice. some local authorities have already begun to plan for the elections on the basis of what the House said would be the basis on which the elections would be held. It should trouble us all that perhaps next time a majority of voters will not even turn out to elect us. Would it not be good for the Opposition on this issue to accept that we are searching for different ways to engage with them?
      6 pm
      Mr. Leslie: My right hon. Friend articulates the position relatively well. We must all, regardless of party, be conscious that the lower turnouts in local and European elections are a matter of concern.
      Mr. Field: In general elections as well.
      Mr. Leslie: Indeed. One way of addressing that is through all-postal voting, and it is worth piloting that to try it out, which is what the Bill seeks to do.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Leslie: No, because I should like to make some progress.
      Mr. Bercow: I should be very grateful.
      Mr. Leslie: I will not give way.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. However grateful the hon. Member is, the Minister is not giving way.
      Mr. Leslie: I should like to make some progress.

      1287
      We considered the Electoral Commission's recommendations on which regions were potentially suitable in the order in which they were recommended. We considered Scotland in some depth, and held meetings with the regional returning officer and electoral administrators with view to allaying the concerns that they had expressed. Unfortunately, and despite Government assurances, Scottish administrators were not convinced that effective pilots could be held there, so the decision was taken not to impose a pilot in Scotland. Meetings with the regional returning officers and senior electoral officials from Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west, however, showed that both regions felt operationally capable of running a pilot.
      Mr. George Foulkes: We are disappointed that there is not to be a pilot in Scotland. In a recent by-election for South Ayrshire council at which there was a postal vote pilot, the turnout was higher than 60 per cent. more than twice what it was in the previous year's council elections. That by-election was a Conservative win because of the way in which the vote went on that particular day, and I make no protest at that, however foolish the voters may have been. However, we should all be pleased that more people voted in that pilot scheme. To hear Conservative Members say that we are carrying out the scheme for party political advantage is rich, coming from them. They want to stop people voting, for their party political advantage, and it is about time we shouted that from the rooftops.
      Mr. Leslie: I know that my right hon. Friend is disappointed that we are not proceeding with all-postal voting in Scotland, but we would have been wrong not to listen carefully to the views of the administrators on the ground—the regional and local. returning officers. It was on that basis that we decided not to proceed in Scotland. However, following discussions with officials in Yorkshire and the Humber and in the north-west, we decided after much thought that all-postal voting should be tested in those regions. We have worked as hard as we can to address some of the concerns of members of the Electoral Commission and others to make certain that we can proceed safely with all-postal voting pilots in Yorkshire and the Humber and in the north-west.
      Mr. Graham Stringer: I am following my hon. Friend's arguments carefully, and I shall vote in the same Lobby as him this evening. However, since the original debate in the House, the Disability Rights Commission has presented evidence to the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, showing its extreme concern that all-postal ballots are discriminatory unless specific alterations to the process are made. Has my hon. Friend had time to consider its recommendations?
      Mr. Leslie: I have had time to consider representations from various disability rights organisations. Some are keen on all-postal voting because there are physical impediments that make it difficult for some people with disabilities to go to polling
      1288
      stations. There are pros and cons on both sides, but the Government feel that to try out all-postal voting is a good way to proceed.
      Jon Trickett: On that point, many people in Yorkshire welcome this initiative, particularly those who represent coalfield areas. In my constituency, which is at the heart of the former Yorkshire coalfield, two out of five households include at least one person with a long-term sickness or disability. Those people want to be treated the same as the rest of the population, not differently, and it seems to me, speaking on their behalf, that an all-postal vote for everyone is the best way of removing discrimination. Does the Minister agree, and will he accept my assurance that we in Yorkshire are willing to proceed as quickly as possible?
      Mr. Leslie: Postal voting is popular for various reasons, some of which my hon. Friend articulates. I believe that it is now right to scale up piloting from local authority to regional level, which is, precisely and simply, what we are trying to do.
      Mr. Bercow: Given that, to most casual observers, a postal vote must necessarily constitute a vote cast by post—presumably on that, if on no other point, there is unanimity in the House—can the Minister tell us, with reference to proposed new subsection (4) in Lords amendment No. 1, in what circumstances one would use
      "other such means as is specified in a pilot order"?
      According to what criteria would such methods, rather than the conventional postal method, be chosen?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remark that interventions seem to be getting very long? As there is limited time for the debate, may I urge a little more reversion to the idea of an intervention, which is brief?
      Mr. Leslie: I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that the draft statutory instruments that we have already published, and on which we consulted the Electoral Commission, specify that although the elections will be all-postal, there will still be opportunities for people to leave their postal votes at designated drop-off points in a local authority area. I suspect that proposed new subsection (4) in Lords amendment No. 1 refers to that means of supplementing the postal system.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister turn his attention to the concern that many of us feel about the integrity and security of the electoral register and, what is more, to whether that integrity and validity would be subject to abuse in a postal vote? According to a conversation that I had with the chairman of the Electoral Commission, he is concerned that a system is not in place to prevent fraud and the abuse of the electoral roll and the postal voting process.
      Mr. Leslie: I am glad that Conservative Members have had conversations with the chairman of the Electoral Commission, which is heartening. The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points, the first of

      1289
      which concerns the electoral register. That is an important issue, regardless of whether we are talking about an all-postal or a conventional election. His second point, however, relates more directly to postal voting: concerns have been expressed about whether all-postal voting is more prone to fraudulence or malpractice.
      I want to consider the Electoral Commission's views. It has stated that the two additional regions of Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west are "potentially suitable", but that it does not feel able
      "to make a positive recommendation"
      on their suitability. It would therefore be useful to examine what held the commission back from making those positive recommendations, and what has now been done to address those issues. Starting with Yorkshire and the Humber, the commission noted positively that the region has "solid piloting experience", that it has
      "no particular barriers to service delivery and is served by good transport links",
      and that it has a
      "strong daily and weekly press…coupled with a clear regional identity".
      However, the commission raised queries about the fact that
      "some parts of the region have reported that fraud and the perception of fraud has risen since the introduction of postal voting"
      on demand, and said that
      "it is clear that Returning Officers would strongly prefer not to be involved".
      That is how the Electoral Commission explained why it held back from making a positive recommendation on Yorkshire. Its points are valid, and we have been working hard to address them. Much is being done at a national level, but it may be worth while to illustrate what is being done locally in Yorkshire. I recently wrote to its regional returning officer, as well as the regional returning officers in the other pilot regions asking them to update me on their preparations. On the subject of fraud, Paul Rogerson, chief executive of Leeds city council and regional returning officer for Yorkshire and the Humber said that
      "discussions between the Region's electoral administrators have been held regarding anti-fraud safeguards. The provisions within the Bill have been noted and welcomed and a number of specific measures are being considered for adoption, including sample checks of those shown as having returned ballot papers, the mounting of local elector awareness campaigns, the establishment of hot line contact points, regular liaison with the Police and the Electoral Commission, the training of staff in supported delivery points, arrangements for the safe delivery of papers to electors in houses in multiple occupation, and checks to be made where multiple requests for the redirection of ballot papers are received."
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Given that the Minister is quoting extensively from a letter that the House has not seen, will he undertake, particularly in light of the fact that he has already been caught out this afternoon indulging in selective quotation, to ensure
      1290
      that the full text of all correspondence on which he seeks to rely is placed in the Library, together with the full minutes of any meetings that he or other Ministers have had with any returning officers or the Electoral Commission?
      Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly make available to the hon. Gentleman the letters from which I am quoting, as they are useful to my case. Indeed, I wish I had time to circulate them to hon. Members during our debate.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister place them in the Library?
      Mr. Leslie: If I place them in the Library, perhaps hon. Members will be able to go and read them before we vote. I am not sure how efficient my officials will be, but we shall see what we can do. The important point, however, is that the regional returning officer in Yorkshire addressed concerns about fraud. In relation to the commission's point about whether returning officers were willing to participate in postal votes, he said:
      "I can report that preparations for the proposed pilot are well underway and that, as might have been expected, electoral administrators from across the region have responded to the challenge presented to them by last month's announcement with their usual diligence and commitment. Indeed, in this regard, I can advise you that, whereas the region's electoral administrators were not initially supportive of an all-postal pilot (for reasons with which you are familiar), the view of a significant majority of the same administrators today is that they would prefer to be allowed to proceed with arrangements for an all-postal ballot in June, than now be constrained to revert to planning for a conventional election."
      When discussing its recommendations, the Electoral Commission clearly does not rule out Yorkshire and the Humber as a pilot region and, indeed, has since said in discussions that the region and others marked as "potentially suitable" could deliver an effective pilot. In short, it is quite clear that any doubts about Yorkshire's suitability, whether over fraud or returning officer enthusiasm, have now been overcome.
      As for the north-west, the commission noted positively that
      "there is a strong record of piloting in the North West—18 of 33 authorities have piloted".
      It also noted that the north-west returning officer
      "has submitted his view that at the north West would be well placed to hold an all-postal pilot, and that he would ensure that appropriate resources were put in place to deliver the pilot scheme"
      It also noted that the region is diverse, has a strong daily and weekly press and ranks highly for the distinctiveness of its radio services. The commission had several worries however, and said:
      "There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years…Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting".
      It was concerned that
      "the support for a pilot scheme does not extend across the whole of the region, given the high number of local elections scheduled for 2004".

      1291
      Given that large number of elections, it was therefore concerned that
      "the complexity of the region would be a disadvantage".
      Dr. John Pugh rose—
      Mr. Leslie: I should like to address each of the commission's concerns in turn, but before doing so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).
      Dr. Pugh: As the Minister has partly suggested, 80 per cent. of the north-west has atypica1 elections using two different electoral systems, so their council elections are not characteristic. Is it not perverse to choose the northwest, as the complications are surely greater there than anywhere else?
      Mr. Leslie: As I shall seek to explain, if we shy away from complexity and conduct pilots in simple areas with single elections, we avoid the purpose of piloting, which is to learn lessons and build on experience. Complexity can therefore be useful to piloting.
      6.15 pm
      As for the fraud issue raised by the Electoral Commission, it will be useful to quote Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester city council and regional returning officer:
      "We are committed to taking every possible step to preserve the integrity of the postal ballot. As I have indicated before, Local Returning Officers are keenly aware that the potential for fraud is something which must be managed irrespective of whether a pilot takes place or not. The police have indicated to me that additional vigilance and early intervention are essential to reduce the opportunities for fraud. We are therefore all working hard with colleagues from the police to develop protocols and programmes on how best fraud can be prevented; this will include checks on returned envelopes and any additions to the electoral register; systems to alert us to a proliferation of proxies or changes of address, and special delivery arrangements to houses in multiple occupation."
      As for whether or not there was widespread support from local returning officers, Sir. Howard Bernstein wrote:
      "I have been very impressed by the consistent and positive attitude all Local Returning Officers have shown to the proposed pilot here in the North West…we convened a meeting of all LROs towards the end of last year to discuss the principle of a pilot and everyone present (42 of 43 local authority areas) committed themselves to work to a successful outcome … Since your announcement that this region should be a pilot we have met all LROs at a sub-regional level, and their positive approach to the issues has again been demonstrated. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the pilot is a complete success."
      I apologise for the length of the quotations, but I think that they are important, as they record the views of independent returning officers, who are responsible for administering all-postal voting in those regions. I have every confidence and faith in their ability to deliver and do the job that they have done in the past. As for the point about complexity, if all-postal voting is ever to move on from a pilot stage, we must be prepared to test in areas that are complex as well as those that are simple.
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: On a connected issue, is the Minister convinced that the postal services are capable of coping with the increased amount of mail that they will have to deliver? There is evidence in my area that they have not been able to do so in previous elections.
      Mr. Leslie: We have been in close dialogue with Royal Mail, and have had a number of assurances in writing, both at regional and national levels, from its officials that they are capable not only of living up to the challenge but of exceeding expectations. They have given a guarantee to run the scheme as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Bill, however, allows the Electoral Commission to study the pilots after they take place to make sure that they can verify exactly what happens in the June elections.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am still concerned about houses in multiple occupation, particularly groups of old people living together, and should like reassurance about the collection of those votes. Of course, Sir Howard's returning officers will commit themselves to a positive reaction—they would hardly commit themselves to a negative one.
      Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that there is enthusiasm on the part of returning officers, and it is helpful to ensure that they are keen. My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about houses in multiple occupation, an issue that we considered in Committee and on Report, and which was also dealt with in another place. We have been able to give assurances about delivery mechanisms and the extra attention to be paid to those issues. I will certainly make sure that we continue to monitor the plans that regional returning officers have for people living under one roof or in houses in multiple occupation.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Leslie: If I may make a little progress, it would help.
      The Electoral Commission has always said that it was up to the Government how many regions they wanted to pilot. In the statement issued by the commission on Report in the other place, it said that
      "it was open to Government to have further discussions … if they were minded to designate additional pilots".
      The House will be aware that there is a disagreement between the Electoral Commission and the Government over the definition of a pilot and whether a pilot can extend to four regions. It is important to examine the issue, as it quickly becomes clear that there are no substantive grounds for opposing four pilot regions.
      The scale of piloting that we propose is not too great or excessive. The four regions represent 31.6 per cent. of the UK electorate. I do not agree with those who say that that is too large-scale. The UK is made up of 12 electoral parts, of which we are choosing to pilot in four. That is a minority of the country and cannot therefore be caricatured as national roll-out. Nevertheless, it is a significant pilot, and rightly so—it needs to be, because this is the next stage after the local government pilots in the process of piloting.

      1293
      If we pilot in only two regions, that would not be scaling up. Previous pilots, which included all-postal voting as well as e-voting, have been going through a process of scaling up for a number of years. Pilots in 2002 were available to about 2.5 million electors. Experiments were scaled up in 2003 to make them available to an electorate of about 6.5 million. Were we to exclude Yorkshire and the north-west, as the other place suggests, pilots this year would be available to only just over 5 million electors— smaller number than before. If we are to learn lessons about the scalability of all-postal voting, we must test on an appropriately large sample. Larger-scale pilots are a means of testing the coordination and interoperability of suppliers and proving the capacity needed to support wide-scale all-postal voting. Only through this proper, reasoned, step-by-step process will we be able to gain the experience that will inform future policy.
      In any case, postal voting on demand is scaling up. The introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000 vastly increased the popularity of postal voting. More than 1.7 million postal votes were issued at the 2001 general election—an increase of roughly 87 per cent. on 1997. Some constituencies showed even more striking increases. Were such an increase to continue, we could almost see a de facto rolling out of all-postal voting in some elections. Clearly, the sort of testing of the postal services and other suppliers in a structured and ordered way that these pilots will allow is vital if that is to be achieved safely.
      Piloting in four regions is no more risky than piloting in three or two regions. It is a curious argument advanced by some that because all-postal voting is being piloted, it must necessarily be limited in scope to a couple of regions. Pilots should be held only where, after careful assessment, it is the judgment of those who are responsible on the ground that the election can be successfully delivered. Where that judgment is made and where resources are available, we should be able to pilot. To the extent that regional circumstances would allow the delivery of successful pilots, we should have as many pilots as our resources permit. In this way, we achieve the greatest benefit for voters now, for democratic engagement now, and for democracy in the longer term through the pilot outputs of lessons learned and confidence built.
      The Electoral Commission has not identified to us what the risks of scaling up from two or three to four regions would be. If, as the commission accepts, each region individually can deliver a successful pilot, there is no reason to think that each will not be successful if all four regions are chosen.
      Dr. Pugh: Can the Minister explain slowly for the benefit of the House—we must be a bit dull—what he expects to learn from four regions that he will not learn from two?
      Mr. Foulkes: Twice as much!
      Mr. Leslie: In many ways, there is virtue in recognising that the increased scale will enable us to learn more from the different parts of the country. I
      1294
      know that the hon. Member for Southport is concerned about complexity and would shy away from piloting in the north-west. It is important to deal with some of those challenges and recognise that if the Electoral Commission itself recommends that in future all local elections should be on an all-postal basis, we must test postal voting in areas that present complexity.
      Mr. Bercow: Increased scale underlines the importance of protection against fraud, just as it would in relation to voting in person. Can the Minister tell the House what is the mechanism to prevent someone from voting by post in two areas?
      Mr. Leslie: The same arrangement applies as in conventional elections. The electoral registration process is the bedrock upon which a ballot paper is issued in a conventional election or in a postal election. If people are registered incorrectly or improperly, that is clearly a matter for the regulations that relate to registration, not for the all-postal piloting arrangements.
      Hon. Members will be aware that in three of the four regions that we have selected, there will also be referendums on regional assemblies on an all-postal basis in October—a decision welcomed by the Electoral Commission. This is a relevant factor that should be borne in mind and which it would be odd to ignore. It cannot be thought helpful for major polls to be held four months apart on a differing basis. That would not benefit the electorate or the election administrators.
      I shall close with two further quotes from regional returning officers. In my letter I asked each of the RROs whether they had any concerns that they wished to raise. Paul Rogerson from Yorkshire writes:
      "Unsurprisingly, the earnest wish of all of my Local Returning Officer colleagues across the region is that there should be certainty about the basis upon which the June elections are to be conducted, as soon as ever possible."
      Sir Howard Bernstein from the north-west writes:
      "I realise that due process within both Houses must be undertaken to formalise the pilot, but I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I express the hope that these are concluded as quickly as possible so that we can plan with certainty, and in so doing, feel even more confident in delivering."
      I urge hon. Members to listen to these concerns and to recognise that we have painstakingly sought to allay worries wherever genuine concerns have emerged. I hope the House will allow pilots to take place in all four regions that are now willing and prepared.
      Parliament needs to settle the matter. If the Government are now decided on the issue and the Commons makes up its mind, we must be able to get on with planning and preparations. It is important for this elected House of Commons to take a view—a final view, I hope—on which regions should have electoral all-postal voting pilots. Hon. Members of this House are best placed to make decisions on elections policy. Although we must listen to the views of the other place as a revising Chamber, we must also weigh up the fact that we are accountable for Parliament's decisions and they are not. The House of Commons needs to make clear its views on improving our democracy and electoral systems. I commend the Government amendment to the House.
      Mr.Hawkins: Having listened to the Minister for 40 minutes on the first group of amendments, all I can say is how wise we were to vote against the programme motion. I know that he was generous in taking interventions, but the time that wt are left with will be wholly inadequate to discuss these important matters.
      We are defending what another place rightly decided to do. On this day, on which constitutional matters, the role of the second Chamber and the Government's threats to indulge in yet more constitutional vandalism are much in the public eye, it is well worth noting that another place defeated the Government on two key parts of the Bill by very substantial majorities. Those were not merely narrow defeats by one or two votes. On the first issue dealt with in this group of amendments, the Government lost in the other place by 169 votes to 111, and on the next, by 157 votes to 110.
      Why was that so? Why did so many peers— Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and a substantial number of Cross Benchers—feel that the Government had got it so wrong, and why will the veiled threats in the Minister's last few sentences fail to work when the matter returns to another place? Part of the reason, at least, is that the Government have so clearly ignored the firm views of their own Electoral Commission—a body intended to advise on these matters, which the Government created but choose to ignore. The Electoral Commission clearly recommended that there should be just two regions for all-postal pilots, but the Government seek to impose four regions against their own commission's advice.
      6.30 pm
      Another part of the reason is that the Minister's repeated statements to the House have been contradicted by the Government within just a fraction over four weeks. Let me refer to what he said not once, but on a number of occasions, as recently as 16 December, when the Bill was before the House:
      "We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions."
      He also said, using a phrase of which we have made much mockery:
      "In scaling up towards a multi-channal general election"
      he indulged in an equal neologism this afternoon in talking about scalability, whatever that is—
      "after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques…The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks."
      As recently as 16 December—the last time this legislation was before the House—there was no mention of four areas. He continued:
      "we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed."
      Apparently, he hoped to come to a conclusion soon on
      "which region or nation should be the third choice".
      Clearly, he was trying to hold out hopes to all his hon. Friends, who gave him such a hard time and so much friendly fire in pleading the cause of Scotland. He told us:
      "I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415. c. 1511–1514]
      1296
      Later, he said that the Electoral Commission had recommended that there should be three all-postal pilots. Of course, it did not make such a recommendation; the Minister himself made a mistake. The commission was asked to recommend three regions, including one for an electronic pilot, and it recommended only two, for very good reasons.
      Thus, as recently as 16 December, the Minister said not once, twice or three times, but about six times over five columns of Hansard that there would be three regions—the two that the Electoral Commission had recommended and a third that the Government would impose. Suddenly, though, it all changed. Who knows whether it did so for party political reasons? In a written statement on 21 January, he slipped out this announcement:
      "I can today announce… that two further regions will also hold all-postal pilots. These regions will be Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west."—[Official Report, 21 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 64WS.]
      It was announced that, effectively, a swathe of the country—half of England—would be involved. That is hardly a pilot.
      What caused the Government to ignore what the Electoral Commission had said about the proposed all-postal pilots for Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west, and what was the reaction of the Government's own Electoral Commission to that snub? We must now turn to what will undoubtedly become known as the Younger letter—a letter that has already been referred to in several interventions and that was drawn to the attention of the House earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who answers questions on behalf of the Electoral Commission.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but only after I have referred to the Younger letter.
      In an astonishingly strongly worded letter to the Minister, sent as recently as last Thursday, the chairman of the Electoral Commission says, among other things:
      "We felt unable to make a positive recommendation in respect of those regions",
      meaning Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the west midlands. That was the quote that we eventually extracted from the Minister when he was trying to indulge in selective quotation. Sam Younger goes on to state:
      "The guidance we were given by Government indicated that you wanted to run with three pilot regions and this view was reinforced by the statement issued in response to our report which accepted the two regions we regarded as most suitable, but added that you would look for a third from those who were potentially suitable."
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall do so when I have finished referring to the Younger letter, as I have already said.

      1297
      The chairman of the Electoral Commission also states:
      "We always recognised that it was open to Government to have discussions with those regions falling into the 'potential' category to see whether the reasons we had identified for not making a positive recommendation could be satisfactorily resolved. We understand those discussions took place, although the Commission was not involved in them."
      The Opposition are very concerned to hear that the commission was not involved in those discussions, and we are suspicious about their nature and extent. That is why I have asked the Minister—he noticeably failed to answer me—to place in the Library the full minutes of all meetings that took place involving him, the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Ministers. We believe that it is implicit in what Mr. Younger is saying that the Government have leaned on returning officers.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment: I have not forgotten him.
      Sam Younger's next passage is the most significant of all:
      "However, it does not follow that the Commission would be unconcerned about the number of pilot regions. As T have mentioned, we expected the Government to nominate three regions and were surprised to learn that the Bill was to be amended to name four regions.
      You are aware of our view"
      the view of the Government's own Electoral Commission—
      "that the rollout of all postal elections needs to be underpinned by a more robust statutory framework. We have recognised at the same time that pilots provide the means by which we can test and learn from new ways of voting and that of necessity they have to be conducted without the full range of new measures we would wish to see. in particular individual registration"—
      an issue to which we will certainly return this afternoon. Mr. Younger continues:
      "To date piloting has been on a limited scale, but you are aware of our view that so far as all-postal elections are concerned, most of the lessons have been learned. Nonetheless, we welcome their use on a regional basis in order to test issues of scalability"—
      the Minister's word. Mr. Younger also says:
      "But in our view pilots that cover over a third of the English electorate in June go further than we think necessary in order to address those issues".
      The Government's own Electoral Commission, through its chairman writing to the Minister, has said that holding pilots in June covering more than a third of the English electorate goes further than it thinks necessary. The letter is very strongly worded, and it goes on to say:
      "especially in the absence of the underlying legislative change we consider necessary. There is also in our view increased risk, with combined elections and in some cases new boundaries, in running on such a large scale and we are not persuaded that the risk is outweighed by what we might learn from four regional pilots as opposed to two."
      Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall do so only after I have given way to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in a moment.
      1298
      The letter concludes:
      "It is of course for Parliament to decide the number of all postal regions. But we urge that this matter is resolved as quickly as possible."
      The matter could be resolved very quickly if the Government returned to what the Electoral Commission itself recommended—just two electoral regions, which is what the other place voted for, as I believe it will do again.
      Mr. Foulkes: I despair of this pettifogging nit-picking from the Opposition. Why does the hon. Gentleman accept the views of an unelected Chamber rather(than those of an elected one? Why does he not want to make it easier for people to vote? Why does he not move into the 20th century, let alone the 21st? Is he aware that in the next general election in India, almost 700 million people will vote electronically? When will we catch up with that?
      Mr. Hawkins: We debated extensively in Committee the rejection by the Government's own Electoral Commission of their proposal to have electronic voting. I do not think that I would be in order if I went back over the ground that was covered in Committee in that regard, as it is not relevant to the amendments. We believe that the Government are behaving quite wrongly in overruling the clear and strongly expressed view of the Electoral Commission that they set up.
      Mr. Gummer: I invite my hon. Friend not to listen to the right hon. Gentleman who interrupted him and who misses the point entirely. It is not that we do not want more people to vote—
      Mr. Foulkes: Yes it is.
      Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman may keep his own ideas, silly though they are, and leave me to express mine.
      My hon. Friend may accept that we are concerned that we should constitute these changes in a proper way that deals with the dangers and is serious in its intent. If the Government want to have an independent Electoral Commission, would not it be better to take its advice rather than overruling it behind closed doors or listening to the silly views of the right hon. Member for the three Scottish places?
      Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
      Let us consider the detail of what the Electoral Commission said about the first of the extra two regions that the Government propose to add, Yorkshire and the Humber. At paragraph 2.117 of its December report, it said—[Interruption]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) appears to be developing a career as a sedentary sketch writer. For the sake of good order, I ought to persuade him to desist.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      1299
      The Electoral Commission said:
      "Returning officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all—postal pilot."
      That is repeated and stressed again at paragraph 3.9, which says:
      "The Commission notes the distinct—preference among returning officers and their staff to run the elections on conventional lines."
      That is why the Electoral Commission ruled against Yorkshire and the Humber being suitable, and why the Government should take its advice on the matter.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman rightly sets out what the Electoral Commission says, but will he not give any weight to what the chief executives of all the local authorities in the north-west said? Unanimously apart from two, they consider that it would be beneficial to the region to have a postal vote pilot scheme there and ensure a franchise for those who wish to vote by that method.
      Mr. Hawkins: I was referring to what the Electoral Commission said about Yorkshire and the Humber, but as the hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject of the north-west, let me remind him of what it said about that region. Its concerns are different from those that it expressed about Yorkshire and the Humber. In saying that it could not make a positive recommendation in relation to the north-west, it said, at paragraph 3.10:
      "Firstly, we are concerned that the support for a pilot scheme does not extend across the whole of the region, given the high number of local elections scheduled for 2004."
      A much bigger concern was raised in relation to fraud. Paragraph 2.84 of the December report says:
      "There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004. This will be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."
      That reinforces the concerns raised by a truly independent body, the Electoral Reform Society, which said:
      "The Society also notes the removal of some of the safeguards first introduced by the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation with regard to undue influence and bribery. Whilst these risks have always existed with postal votes, until now they could only affect a small minority of votes. Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course, this is not a guarantee that any such events will occur, but the risk is increased."
      Mr. Leslie: Nonsense.
      6 45
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister should take more notice not only of what the Electoral Reform Society said in its briefing to all hon. Members but of what Lord Greaves said—he is a man not of my own party, but one who spoke splendidly and in great detail in another place about exactly what had been going wrong in the northwest in his personal experience. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he was not being partisan, because in two cases at least, in Hackney and Havant, councillors of his own party had been convicted.
      1300
      Responding to what a Minister had said in the other place, Lord Greaves said:
      "I have to say that his basic thinking in relation to the North West and, indeed, in relation to Yorkshire, is wrong."
      He went on to talk about some of the corruption that had taken place in areas such as Bradford, and quoted the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). He said:
      "Mr. Rooney said he believed abuses of the system meant it was impossible to say that the poll was free and fair."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2004; Vol. 657, c. GC13–15.]
      He talked about how things had gone wrong in Blackpool, Oldham, parts of Manchester, Ashton-under- Lyne, Bury, Rochdale, Blackburn, Burnley, Pendle and certain other places.
      Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: Lord Greaves said that many elections in the region would be rigged.
      On the second day of Grand Committee in the other place, Lord Greaves went into a great deal of detail about what had happened in Pendle. He talked about what went wrong in terms of the delivery of postal votes to the home of a Labour candidate's cousin in a different town: 61 postal votes were sent to two addresses in Rochdale. He said that there had been television documentaries and articles in The Guardian about postal vote fiddles in various areas, including East Lancashire. "Channel 4 News" had interviewed a voter whose vote had been stolen, as well as a young Asian man whose voting papers had been delivered along with 44 other postal votes to 126 Chapel street, which it claimed was the home of a Labour candidate's brother-in-law. That year, a lot of complaints were made at polling stations, and Pendle borough council's returning officer made a report.
      Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: In the case of one family living at Fir street in Nelson, none of whom had applied for a postal vote, six votes were sent to 77 Barkerhouse road. Lord Greaves set all that out in tremendous detail in another place, describing precisely the dangers of electoral fraud that the Electoral Commission referred to in its report as the main reason why it felt that the north-west was unsuitable. We agree with Lord Greaves in thinking that there are very good reasons why Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west are completely unsuitable for postal pilots.
      Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: We believe that this House should support another place in returning to the original two regions, and only those two.
      Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman might have considered giving way, because he might have been able to tell us which of those examples of fraud took place where there were pilots for the proposals, and which took place under the existing system. I would suspect that 90 per cent. of the examples that he gave took place under the present system.

      1301
      I should make it absolutely clear to the House that I am speaking now because it is very important that my constituents be able to vote in this summer's elections by post. I have been encouraging people in my area to register for postal votes under the current system, and it has been very hard work. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) complained about one of the ways in which I have been doing so, and I should make it clear that if I have thereby breached any of the rules of the House, I unreservedly apologise. But I make no apology for wanting my constituents to be able to vote by post, because I firmly believe that it is essential in a democracy that we achieve a high turnout.
      I was obviously very pleased with the result of the last general election, but I was horrified to find that less than half the people in Denton and Reddish had voted. That problem affects not just local and European elections, but elections such as general elections, and in many ways the issue is the way in which the campaigning is conducted. I want briefly to illustrate the point by explaining what happened to me on the Tuesday before the Thursday's general election poll. I went to an area that was probably fairly strong for the Labour party, accompanied by a significant number of canvassers. We walked down the streets, and for me, as a candidate, it was brilliant. People came out of their houses and they wanted to shake my hand, and they wanted posters and autographs. We felt great.
      That was a marvellous experience, but when I went back down the same streets on polling night with a loudspeaker, no one emerged from their front doors and there was no sign of anyone going to the polling station. On reaching the count, it was very obvious that we had put up more posters in those streets than we had gained votes. So far as the people of that part of my constituency were concerned, there was no contest. They had listened to the media and they knew what was going to happen nationally. They had received no literature from the other political parties, and they felt no excitement and no pressure to vote. One can well understand why it was easier for them to stop at home— easier, for example, not to put their small children into the pram and take them to the polling station. It was better to stay in, have tea and watch the television than to turn out, because they assumed that the election was a walkover, which, in effect, it was. That is one of the problems: in terms of local electioneering, less and less is happening in many parts of the country. People do not get the feeling that the election is close and that their vote will make the difference.
      If we move to a postal voting system, many people will be able to vote at a time that suits them. They will not have to worry about the baby that is crying or the meal that must be prepared, so there are very strong reasons why we should move to such a system.
      Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that what gets people voting is a close contest, but how will voting by post make it any closer?
      Andrew Bennett: If people are affected by a measure of inconvenience, they have to weigh up the importance of their vote and consider whether it will make a difference.
      1302
      If we make it easy for them to vote—as postal voting would—the question of the pressures caused by other activities does not arise. It should be easy for people to cast their postal vote at some point in the week or so in which they would be allowed to do so, whereas having to visit a polling station can cause more of a problem.
      I want to make it clear that I recognise that the possibility exists of malpractice in postal voting. Indeed, the argument in favour of the pilots is to make sure that such a system is as reliable as the polling station system. But let us be clear: there has been some fraud at polling stations, and in some parts of the United Kingdom it still goes on. We need to ensure that we develop a postal voting system that is as fair as the current one.
      Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is the distinguished Chairman of a Committee of the House—a Committee that has produced written evidence that should be read by every Member taking part in this debate. I do not want him to pre-empt the views of his Committee, but does the evidence it has received lead him to the view that there are serious electoral fraud issues that need to be addressed as part of the pilot process?
      Andrew Bennett: Yes, and I was about to come to that point. I want my constituents to be able to vote by post, but I do not want the system to fall into disrepute as a result of the introduction of fraud.
      I have seen no evidence to suggest that more fraud has occurred in the pilots conducted so far than is already possible under the postal voting system. We have published the evidence to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Minister referred, and we will take oral evidence tomorrow morning. I want to encourage anybody who has a view on the possibility of fraud to let us have such evidence. However, we should be able to design a postal voting system that is at least as good as the current system, and hopefully we can design one that is better. Disabled groups have advanced arguments about the problem of disfranchisement. I have always accepted that problems arise with postal votes in old people's homes, because it is difficult to ascertain whether the vote is being cast by the old person in question, or by someone who is assisting them. But that problem is not confined to the new proposal; it already exists.
      My plea to this Ho use and to the House of Lords is to let us have some more pilots, and to let us learn from that experience. I hope that I can present to the House a Select Committee report that makes recommendations on some of the things that need to be done to ensure that we have a secure and fair voting system.
      Mr. Heath: I excuse the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) from what I am about to say because he has made a very important contribution to the debate, but I should say that I find this debate and the circumstances in which we are holding it profoundly depressing. The more I listened to the Minister, the more I felt that a measure of shabby expediency was being dressed up in matters of high electoral principle. I am afraid that that simply will not wash.
      Setting aside for the moment the Minister's overruling the independent advice of the Electoral Commission—I shall return to that because it is

      1303
      absolutely crucial to our deliberations—I find particularly offensive the continuning misrepresentation of the commission's views by Ministers in this House, either directly or by partial quotation. During Question Time earlier today, I drew that point to the attention of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who answered questions on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. I also drew attention to the comments of the Leader of the House, who said that the Electoral Commission
      "has said that we should go ahead with two schemes and, if we judge that there are sufficient resources and so on to enable four pilots to be held, that we should go ahead and hold those as well. That is exactly what it said."—[Official Report, 4 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1066.]

      That is exactly what the Electoral Commission did not say. It said anything but that it wanted to go ahead in the other regions. It said that there were significant problems with doing so, and that it could not make a positive recommendation, as has repeatedly been pointed out.
      There has been a process of partial quotation of the letter from Mr. Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, to the Under-Secretary, most of which has been read out today. However, it is worth drawing attention to its opening sentence, which states:
      "When we met earlier this week with you and other ministers, concern was expressed that the Commission's position on the pilot regions was being misinterpreted".
      Mr. Leslie: By you.
      Mr. Heath: That is not what the letter suggests. It suggests that we know only too well what the Electoral Commission was saying, and that the commission is seriously put out by the fact that Ministers insist on saying that it included in its recommendations matters that it clearly did not.
      Mr. Leslie rose
      Mr. Heath: I shall give way to the Minister, so that he can apologise for that omission.
      7 pm
      Mr. Leslie: I have already said clearly that we have a disagreement with the Electoral Commission about the definition and scale of a pilot, and that the commission made a positive recommendation for two regions. My point was that there was a middle category of recommendations, with some regions that the commission said were potentially suitable, but that that was being misrepresented to suggest that it had said no to Yorkshire and the north-west, which is not the case.
      Mr. Heath: I hope that hon. Members who intend to take part in the Division later will go to the Library and read the letter from the Electoral Commission, because it is incapable of the interpretation that the Minister is putting on it. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has already pointed out the declaratory statement in the letter, which cannot be interpreted as the Minister has interpreted it. In the view of the Electoral Commission,
      1304
      "pilots that cover over a third of the English electorate in June go further than we think necessary in order to address those issues, especially in the absence of the underlying legislative change we consider necessary."
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is making an excellent speech and referring to the letter accurately and truthfully, what the legislative programme is that needs to be in place before a new system of all-postal voting could be more appropriate? To my mind that is a critical factor. Are there sufficient safeguards, some of which may need to be implemented by legislation, to ensure that an all-ostal voting system will be fair, and will not be subject to massive fraud?
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I shall not go into the totality of the Electoral Commission's proposals to reduce fraud, but it drew attention to a number of ways in which electoral law needs to be improved to satisfy the requirements for a fair election.
      I entirely accept that, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, those strictures apply equally to postal votes under the current arrangements. However, the problem with all-ostal ballots is that they multiply by a considerable factor the capacity for fraud to have a significant impact on the electoral outcome. Perhaps that is not the case with European parliamentary elections, because of the extraordinary mechanism that we have for them, but the European elections in June will be combined with those for many local authorities, and the capacity for the outcome of local authority elections to be distorted on that basis is considerable. Hon. Members should be aware of that danger.
      The Government's position has changed almost continually. When the idea was originally proposed, they simply wanted, for obvious administrative reasons, to bring together the date of the local government elections and that of the European parliamentary elections, so as to maximise the turnout for both. That seems an entirely laudable aim, and that was the limit of their expectations. Then we heard the suggestion about the three pilots. It was repeated again and again that the Government were looking for three pilots; indeed, that was the advice that they gave the Electoral Commission.
      I understand that there may have been some disappointment in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister when the Electoral Commission said that there were only two, rather than three, regions that it could positively recommend. On Report, the Minister said that he thought that the Government would consider a third region with a view to bringing it into the net. I do not think that anybody who contributed to that debate or listened to it thought that that meant anything other than that the runner-p would be considered.
      As we know, the Electoral Commission judged that the next most suitable region was Scotland. Scottish Members argued strongly that Scotland should be included. Instead, however, the extraordinary and shabby outcome is that the northern English regions will be included, with no apparent logic, ahead of Scotland. I strongly suspect the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister here. I suspect that he has insisted that, for what purpose I do not know, he will have an all-postal ballot in his part of the country —Yorkshire and the Humber. That is probably the single determining factor.

      1305
      In taking that view, the Government have set aside their own original criteria. The Minister said that he disregarded complexity, and did not believe that it was an issue that needed to override other considerations. Indeed, he thought that there was a positive benefit to including a complex region. If so, why on earth did the original criteria given to the Electoral Commission expressly say that regions that were over-complex should be omitted, because so many local authority elections were happening on that day? If those are the criteria that the Electoral Commission was asked to consider—they were the Government's idea, not its own—why are the Government now taking a different view?
      I understand that some Members are keen to have all-postal ballots in their areas. We all want innovation that really increases voter turnout, but we have to ask ourselves: when is a pilot not a pilot? The answer is: when the pilot includes almost half of England, and almost half the local authorities that will hold elections on that day. Those with an historical bent might recognise that the whole of the Danelaw will have all-postal ballots but that no part of Wessex or Anglia will have that benefit.
      I do not suppose that ethnic considerations from the middle ages have come into play, but I do wonder why an all-postal ballot is considered appropriate for areas that the Government feel have a higher propensity to vote for the Labour party, but not for areas that tend to vote for the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative party.
      In an earlier intervention it was suggested that postal voting was an important issue for coalfield communities. If the issue is important for retired coal miners in the north, why is it not so for retired coal miners in the Rhondda, or in Kent, or in my constituency? Why are they not to have postal voting? If the logic is that we can extend the pilot to any level, why not include the whole country? Let us have a single electoral system for the whole country.
      That view is not being taken, however. We are to have one law north of the Trent and another south of it. That cannot be an acceptable way to run an election in which the campaigns will be conducted on a national, not a local basis. Those are the considerations that lead me to recommend in the strongest possible terms that my right hon. and hon. Friends hold firm to the position of our noble Friends in another place and resist the Government's blandishments—not because we do not want electoral practice to be reformed, but because the Government are making the changes for their own ends, not for the stated objectives.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I took great exception when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that Yorkshire and the Humber should not have the right to hold an all-postal ballot in June because of the stream of wrongdoing and breaches of electoral law that he read out. I suppose that such things do not happen in places like Surrey or Somerset, or anywhere else. I take exception to that being cited as the reason for opposing the idea.
      If Opposition Members are relying on arguments about fraud and breaking electoral law, it would be more consistent if they argued not that two regions
      1306
      should have the systems proposed for the east midlands and the north-east in June, but that no regions should have them. To my knowledge, that position has not been put in this House or in the other place, and there would be greater consistency if it had been. I find it difficult to accept that that position is being put in the Lords amendment.
      One reason why we have gone from two assemblies to four is that in October this year there will be an all-postal vote for a referendum on whether there will be regional assemblies for the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber. That is why the Government have acted and I support them—that is a sensible way to approach the issue, and I am in favour of it. Many things have been said in this House and the other place about fraud and the breaching of secrecy. Given the arguments that we have heard in the past hour, it would be more consistent to argue for stopping all postal voting, never mind all-postal votes. However, those arguments are wrong.
      The other issue I want to take up is what the Electoral Commission said about Yorkshire and the Humber. Returning officers prefer not to change conventional methods of voting, but that is not peculiar to Yorkshire and the Humber. I have stood in five general elections, and in the first three. of them the returning officers in Rotherham borough said that it was impossible to count the votes from the Rother Valley and Wentworth on the Thursday night of the general election. They used to leave us until the next day and just count the votes from Rotherham on the night. I had to run a campaign to get that changed in 1997, but the returning officers said that it could not be done. In the public sector—and, indeed, the private sector—if people are asked to change how they work and interact with one another, the first thing that they always say is, "We cannot do that. It cannot be done." I understand that the returning officers in Yorkshire and the Humber have changed, and that pleases me. There is no reason why we should not pass legislation to improve turnout at elections, and at local government elections in particular.
      Mr. John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman should know that some Conservative Members think that postal voting will increase turnout, and if all things were equal we would recommend it. However, such a widespread experiment cannot proceed until the real issues of impersonation, pressure and fraud are dealt with. That is our case tonight; we are not against postal voting in principle.
      Mr. Barron: The Electoral Commission published a report in July last year called "The shape of elections to come", which covers the local government election pilots that took place last May. It states that fraud is no more likely in an all-postal vote than it is under the current system where people go to the polling station. I do not have the report with me; it is in my constituency office.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath shakes his head, but I read that report and I shall tell him why I read it. Last May, Rotherham metropolitan borough council had an all-postal vote for local government elections for the first time in the 25 years that I have been involved in

      1307
      politics. The all-postal vote was the best thing that has ever happened to local elections because it improved the turnout to more than 50 per cent. In one of my wards, turnout was just over 20 per cent. in 2000; under the all-postal vote, it more than doubled to over 53 per cent.
      7.15 pm
      After the publication of "The shape of elections to come" and before a decision was taken on whether there should be all-postal votes for the local government and European elections this year, I wrote to the Electoral Commission to say that it would be completely consistent for it to extend its pilot scheme in Rotherham last May to this year's local government elections. I said that for numerous reasons, but one of them was that the Electoral Commission itself was saying that the future of local government elections is likely to be all-postal ballots. Indeed, the executive summary of "The shape of elections to come" states:
      "Our evaluation of the all—postal pilot schemes suggests that this approach is effective in boosting participation rates at local elections—to an extent that was largely underestimated when the pilots process first began, and which appears to be sustainable."
      If hon. Members do not support the amendment in lieu, turnout in my constituency will be knocked back and it will be a retrograde step for this year's local government elections. It makes sense to use all-postal voting in June and in the referendum vote later in the year. I do not say that for party political reasons but to get people actively to participate in local government elections. All hon. Members know that there have been by-lections in some parts of the country where turnout has hardly reached double figures, and we have seen reduced turnouts in local government elections year upon year. If we do not start to get serious about increasing participation, people will not bother to vote.
      I have read all the arguments put in the other place on 23 February, and most, if not all, of them are party political. Two councils were mentioned in the other place and they are both against all-postal votes: Liverpool council in the north-west, which is Liberal; and Bradford council in Yorkshire and Humber, which is Tory.
      I believe that Lord Rennard is a Liberal Democrat—I looked him up in "Dod's"—and he gave three reasons why we should not get involved in all-postal votes. He said,
      "First, concerns about lack of secrecy and privacy in voting, which some people believe undermine the basic principles of the Secret Ballot Act of 1872. Secondly, there are considerable concerns about potential fraud with all-postal voting, particularly in relation to homes in multi-occupation …. There are also concerns about the timing of all-postal voting mechanisms. We now understand that in these all-postal voting pilots in June, the ballot papers will be delivered between 25 and 29 May".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 February 2004; Vol. 658, c. 15.]
      Ballot papers are, of course, delivered between 25 and 29 May, and anybody can work that out. Some of the Opposition parties in my constituency did not work it out in May last year. We were leafleting at the end of April, but they were not—they did not realise that votes come early in a postal vote system. Under the current system where there is no all-postal voting, ballot papers still fall on people's carpets a bit before the election, and it is up to political parties to organise their leafleting.
      1308
      Lord Rennard went on to say that notwithstanding those reservations it is right to have all-postal votes in two regions but not in four. If he believes that all-postal votes undermine the Ballot Act 1872, lack secrecy and privacy and raise concerns about potential fraud, why does he believe that they should happen in two regions only and not in four?
      Dr. Pugh: The Electoral Commission did not mention fraud as a serious consideration in the two areas that it proposed, whereas it mentioned fraud in the north-west.
      Mr. Barron: In "The shape of elections to come", the Electoral Commission states that all-postal votes are no different from the current system. One cannot argue that all-postal votes should not happen in the north-west or Yorkshire and the Humber because of the potential for fraud. That is an argument not to have all-postal ballots at all.
      I mention the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber because of the referendum that will happen later this year. The Bill will introduce an all-postal ballot, which makes sense. I do not know why the Electoral Commission does not see that. Its document about all-postal voting, published in July, states:
      "Indeed, there are real risks that if Returning Officers in areas with repeated experience of all-postal elections are obliged to revert to use of polling stations alone, voters will express considerable frustration and disappointment."
      The point is that we cannot keep chopping and changing. Rotherham has had one all-postal vote that doubled the turnout in local government elections. Going back to using polling stations in June—I know that the elections are also European elections—could decrease participation by half. It would be nonsense then to change back in October.
      Conservative Members know that they are playing party politics, and that is also what is being played in the other place. I hope that they lose, because they are wrong to use the issue for party political reasons. This is about more active participation in elections and nobody who is elected to this House should vote to discourage that.
      As for those non-elected people in the other place, I shall not express what I feel about them, except to say that they are playing the issue for party politics. The debate on 23 February showed that from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives alike. It is a shame, because it will set back participation greatly if amendment (a) is not accepted or if it is rejected again in the other place. However, that would confirm my belief that I was right to vote for the amendment a year ago to abolish the other place. If the Lords reject the amendment, people in my constituency will probably agree that they should be abolished, because that would remove people's rights to vote and lessen their participation. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment and that the four pilots will mean that local government elections in all constituencies will all be all-postal votes in years to come. That is what the Electoral Commission expects.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I sincerely hope that all-postal votes will not become the norm. It is certainly a novel

      1309
      concept that only the Labour party is approaching the issue from a non-partisan point of view—pull the other one!
      The Minister was allowed to range widely on the issue, and I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to do so also. On the specific issue of the Electoral Commission, it is a great pity that the Minister has reacted as he has. It is a good thing if those who determine the way in which elections are conducted are kept at arm's length from this place and from politicians of all parties. That is why I have always supported the strictly impartial position of the boundary commissions. Sometimes they have made inconvenient recommendations. One such report was extremely inconvenient for me personally in 1997 because it took away the best part of my former constituency. I was left with a lovely area, which I am delighted to represent, but the area that I lost—it is now represented by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—was the best bit, electorally speaking. I make no complaint about that and I did not contest at the inquiry the boundary commission's right to recommend it. However, I slightly regret that the Electoral Commission does not follow more closely the boundary commission model in its responsibilities and its constitutional relationship to the Government. I accept that this House determined otherwise—indeed, with the Government's vast majority, what else could we determine?
      I have known Sam Younger for a long time, and long before he became the chairman of the Electoral Commission. Indeed, his late father, Kenneth Younger, was a distinguished Labour Member of Parliament for my home town of Grimsby, and he was one of my early parliamentary idols as well as a rival. I had a very high regard for him. Sam Younger is a man of total impartiality and integrity, and nobody would dispute that. I have met most of his fellow commissioners, and I believe that they are of similar quality and calibre. It is regrettable that when the commission made it plain that it wanted two pilots—
      Mr. Leslie indicated dissent.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, it did. It is pure sophistry and untypically disingenuousness of the Minister to pretend otherwise. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) have made it plain—and I have talked to Sam Younger about the matter—that the commission was happy to recommend two pilots, but it was not happy with more. It conceded that the Government would want a third pilot, but it certainly did not expect the Government to propose four. Mr. Younger has made his position plain beyond any equivocation in the letter that is now in the Library. The letter has been quoted extensively in the debate, so I shall not quote it again.
      I have talked to Sam Younger about the wider issue involved and I shall put it to the House. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said that he had fought five general elections, but I have fought 11—nine of them successfully. When I started fighting general elections in 1964 it was difficult to get a postal vote. For some time, the categories of people entitled to
      1310
      a postal vote were very limited. It was a Conservative Government who allowed those who were going on holiday to have postal votes. At the time, there was some opposition from the Labour party because it was thought that Conservatives went on more holidays than Labour people and that it therefore was a party political move. I do not believe that and, indeed, the change was wise.
      Postal votes should be available on request, without having to prove that one travels on business, will be on holiday on polling day or is sick—all the criteria with which we are familiar. I am much less happy with the idea of compulsory postal voting. I would personally prefer compulsory voting. We all want to increase the turnout, and that is the method that is used in some other countries. Making voting compulsory does not mean that one has to cast a vote for a party. An option on the ballot paper could allow voters to say, "A plague on both your houses'', or words to that effect. However, everybody would have to vote, either by post or in person.
      If we look back at history, we can see how people struggled to obtain secret ballots and then to extend the franchise. Women in particular struggled to get the vote. The right to vote is precious and it should not be too lightly taken for granted. There is much to be said for making going to the polling station or applying for a postal vote a conscious act. It is not wrong for the House to consider alternatives. We are talking about pilots, although they would cover a third of the United Kingdom and almost half of England. That is a massive amount of people who would have to vote by post. I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to consider what that would mean if it was extended to a general election. I concede that the argument is different for local elections, but if extended to general elections, it will mean the abolition of polling day—[Interruption.]Yes, it will. People have to vote by a certain date—perhaps 9 June, 1 May or whatever—and they have to vote in advance.
      7.30 pm
      We all know from our experience of fighting elections that, whether it be the result of a Sheffield rally or some other event, opinions can be swayed and people can be persuaded to change their minds. They may either stay at home in greater numbers or even switch their votes. Abolishing polling day—that is effectively what it means—will change the whole way in which elections are conducted. It will change how we all campaign, and in general elections— again I concede that it is different for local elections—it will mean much more voting for the party, or perhaps for the potential Prime Minister, rather than for the individual local Member of Parliament.
      I believe that there is not a single Member—either present tonight or not—who fails to cherish and relish his or her relationship with that part of the United Kingdom that he or she has the good fortune to represent. We all like to conduct our campaigns in our own way, and I am sure that we all like to tell electors that they are not voting for Sir Alec Douglas-Home or

      1311
      Mr.Wilson, "but for me". We take pride in that, but it will be a casualty of any decision to move towards wholly postal elections—it truly will.
      Mr. Barron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about compulsory voting. I remember arguing the same point from the Opposition Benches back in the early 1980s, and there were few takers, when the example was a country such as Australia. He says that postal voting will abolish general election day, but it will not. Depending on the sort of pilot, it is not compulsory postal voting. People in my constituency who wanted to vote in a ballot box for local government elections last year could go along on the day and deliver their vote in the polling station as they had in the past. Not every polling station was open, but the votes were taken to the count and counted in the same way as the others. It made no difference to the final result. It will not result in the abolition of how things were done in the past.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree. If we move towards all-postal elections, that is what will happen. I must tell the House that we should examine our elections on the merits of individual cases. I can concede that there is a case for a postal ballot in local elections. I am much less happy when it comes to European elections, and I am deeply unhappy about the current conduct of such elections where we vote for a party rather than an individual. The old European constituencies were large, but people nevertheless identified with an area and different parts of the country were represented. Now, however, there are many MEPs for the west midlands, but not one has a specific commitment or responsibility to any particular area. I do not like that system at all, and it will be made worse by having compulsory postal ballots in half of England or a third of the UK.
      Every Member present should be thinking about the impact on general elections. The next general election will not be affected, because there will not be enough time. However, if we move down this road—I have already said that it will mean th abolition of a set polling day, because most people will have voted, 10, nine or seven days beforehand— we will change the whole nature of campaigning and of democracy in this country. Before adopting that course, I beg the House to think seriously about the better alternative of compulsory voting.
      I end where I began with the merits of the specific amendment before us. Many disparaging remarks have been made about Members of the other place, but I believe that they bring knowledge and objectivity to the debate—[Interruption.]They certainly do. After all, electoral registration officers, whom the Minister prays in aid, are just as unelected and unrepresentative as Members of the other place. The use Members bring objectivity and knowledge—in some cases based on years of service in this House—to debates, and I believe that that they cast their votes wisely and that this House would be ill advised to reject what they have recommended. I say that for two reasons: first, for the reasons advanced in the other place; and, secondly, because we would be backing the Electoral Commission, which the Government, sadly, are not.
      Mr. Terry Rooney: There has been much talk about corruption in elections, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) specifically mentioned my city of Bradford. I should like to highlight a few incidents that have taken place under the present system, but we should also acknowledge that corruption in elections is perpetrated by political parties and by people acting on their behalf. If we got to grips with certain types of people in political parties, we would not have these problems.
      One candidate in the 1992 general election—I stress that it was not connected with my campaign—was offering £5 for a polling card. When that was brought to my attention, we encouraged people who were going to vote to retain their polling cards. After they had voted, they delivered their cards to that candidate and collected their £5. It must have cost him about £2,000, but he did not get a single vote out of it. That happened under the present electoral system.
      More recently in Bradford, large gangs of thugs perhaps 50 or 60 people— have congregated around several polling stations in the inner city area. They have intimidated electors, telling them how to vote and threatening them with physical violence if they do not accept their advice. That is what is happening on the ground under the current system.
      In 2001, the first election for which the new system of postal votes was in place—and bearing in mind that it was not necessary to have a medical or other specified reason to apply for a postal vote—there was a 500 per cent. increase in the number of Bradford electors using postal votes. What were the problems and difficulties experienced in Bradford in 2001, that drew national attention at the time? The problems were mainly connected with registration for postal votes, which does not happen in all-out postal votes where there is no application stage. In 2001, we once again had gangs of thugs going around collecting signed application forms for postal votes, then redirecting where the votes were sent to. One gentleman—I use the terms loosely—was arrested. He had 31 blank ballot papers in his pocket, but the police said that he had not committed any offence. That is happening under the current system.
      In Bradford, four wards out of 30 had problems, and I am talking about the general election and two subsequent local elections. In Yorkshire, nine wards out of 400 experienced difficulties. That is no reason to deny the vast majority of the population the right to an all-out postal vote. Some argue that, the greater the turnout, the more the impact of fraudulent practices is diluted. There is a ceiling to how many people can be conned and corrupted, and a big turnout helps to overcome the problem.
      I have said it to the Minister before, but the police and returning officers must take fraud and corruption more seriously. On numerous occasions over the years, West Yorkshire police have not regarded such incidents as a priority. That is a fault of the system; it is not to do with an all-out postal vote. It is a problem with applying the law, taking action, prosecuting people and, if necessary, sending them to jail.

      1313
      As we all know, the root of democracy is the right to vote. The real issue is the absolute sanctity of the secret ballot. People who try to abuse that should spend a long time in custody at Her Majesty's pleasure. Such offences should be a priority for the police and returning officers. If the law needs amending, let us amend it.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this very important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on being able to quote useful examples relating to his constituency. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) also did so.
      A great deal of the debate has concentrated on how to increase turnout, whether in referendums, local government elections or at European parliamentary elections. I pose the following question to the House: is achieving an increased vote what we are about? Is an increased vote achieved merely by increased convenience? Does an increased vote mean that there is increased interest in politics and what is going on in the local council, in Westminster, in the United Kingdom or in the European Parliament? I wonder whether an increased vote indicates an increased interest and an increased desire to be involved.
      I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bradford, North when he said that if we move to an all-postal electoral system, the limited amount of current fraud will not be multiplied. In that regard, I associate myself entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who made an excellent speech that reflected what will happen in an all-postal system.
      As somebody who has fought 10 parliamentary elections—one fewer than my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack); I associate myself with the totality of his remarks—I have some understanding of what makes the electorate tick and what encourages them to turn out. I have great admiration for the Minister, who is one of the most able and articulate Ministers in the Government. I do not say that lightly; I have listened to many of his speeches and he has sought to advance his case in an able, constructive and articulate way. However, I happen to have reached a different conclusion from his. I believe that fewer and fewer people have voted in recent elections because they no longer believe that Parliament is relevant.
      Shall I tell the House why? It is because successive Governments—including the current one—have sought to bypass Parliament. Indeed, many Labour Members are concerned about the way in which their Government are trying to diminish the relevance of this place to debate legislation. If this place is deemed irrelevant, people will rightly ask why they should vote for those who stand for election to it. I refer to the Executive of the day and not just the present Labour Government. In some ways, although not quite so blatantly, my party when in power sought to abuse, undermine and bypass this place in order to get on to the statute book the legislation that it required. We have only to look at the way in which Select Committees are appointed—
      7.45 pm
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member would now address his remarks to the amendment.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: Indeed; that is why I believe that the other place was right to reduce the number of pilot projects from four to two. I accept that their lordships expected the Government to increase the number proposed by the Electoral Commission from two to three, but they are certainly most unhappy about the increase from two to four—for the reasons that so many hon. Members, have given during this debate.
      I hope that you will allow me a little discretion, Madam Deputy Speaker. In addition to the Government's bypassing of this place, which makes people not want to vote because they do not think that the House is relevant, the political parties have played a part. The parties have sought to take away the independence of Members of Parliament in genuinely believing in or opposing an issue and in seeking to represent the best interests of their constituency or constituents. Given that the Executive of the day bypass the House and that the political parties seek to dominate and use their members merely as cannon fodder, why should people vote?
      Therefore, I disagree with some of the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, North, as I did with those expressed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for whom I have the highest regard. Let us consider why people are not voting instead of trying to make it more convenient for them to vote, especially given that an increase in voting is not an indication of more interest in politics and in what is going on in this place, in local councils and in the European Parliament.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, I am concerned that the Government have sought modestly to misrepresent the views expressed by the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, who is clearly not happy that a third of the United Kingdom should be involved in a pilot scheme. Almost half of England is to be involved. That can hardly be described as a pilot project.
      I am not sure whether the Minister is winding up the debate, but I hope that he is and that he will respond to my intervention on what positive steps are being taken to ensure that there are adequate safeguards not only to minimise any abuse of the postal voting process, but to guarantee the integrity of the electoral register. In doing so, we must bear it in mind that the incidence of abuse could dramatically increase in an all-postal election and that there could therefore be major distortion of the results in some parts of the country.

      Many people are concerned that it is now very easy to get a name on an electoral register for an address. No such person lives at that address, but they have been registered by the individual who completes the form each year. Surely we want honest, fair and transparent elections. We do not want just to try to make it more convenient for people to vote. What thought has the Minister given to the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire about the impact of the new system on campaigning? As there will be a period between when postal votes have to be sent

      1315
      back and the actual polling day, at what stage will it no longer be worth while for a candidate to continue campaigning? I am deeply worried that our unique system—the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents—will be broken—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. We are looking at a specific amendment, which deals with the method of election rather than campaigning. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks accordingly.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: I greatly respect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will seek to honour your ruling and your request.
      The electoral system has a bearing on the matter. Because the Electoral Commission was concerned about the impact of the change, it wanted to limit the pilot project to two regions rather than extending it to almost half of England. There is a grave risk—
      Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman—a closeish neighbour in the north-west.
      Andrew Bennett: When the European elections are held under the proposed system, I should not want the hon. Gentleman to feel that he was redundant. I am sure that he will be happy to continue knocking on doors for the Conservative candidate in those elections right up to polling day, to ensure that all the postal votes are returned.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: That is one of the friendliest interventions that I have taken in almost 33 years in this place. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and am only sorry that he is standing down at the next election. No doubt that will give him an opportunity to come to Macclesfield to encourage whichever of his party's candidates stands against me.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman be Lord Denton or Lord Reddish?
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure.
      I believe fervently in the personal relationship between the elected and the electorate and I am worried that a system of all-postal elections will break that down. I am particularly concerned about the security and integrity of the electoral register because of the fraud that may arise under the new process. If the Minister can give me some assurances I shall be grateful, but as things stand I shall most certainly vote to uphold their lordships in their amendment.
      Dr. Pugh: My remarks will be brief. I have a strong sense of déjá vu. On a previous occasion, I suggested that choosing the north-west as a pilot area was not a good idea and I suggest the same today.
      Returning officers in the north-west certainly have concerns, not about their own efficiency but about the confusion that will be created in the mind of the
      1316
      electorate. In the north-west, we have 80 per cent. voting on atypical, all-up local council elections—not by thirds and not on the usual boundaries in every case—while the European elections are held according to a completely different system. That is complication upon complication, which in normal circumstances would create a lot of extra work for polling clerks. It is innovation piled on innovation.
      The Government expect that people receiving a mountain of paper—explanatory notes and so on—will feel more motivated to vote and more confident in doing so. However, a sane person would predict much confusion and a high number of errors. The system will give no assurance to the electorate and it will certainly not reassure candidates in tight contests. The Government have put forward a new argument today developed for the purpose—that complication is actually an advantage and can help the pilots.
      The Electoral Commission agrees fundamentally with me and Opposition Members. It has serious concerns about fraud and said that the north-west was not ready for such a pilot. In our last debate on the measure, I concluded my speech by observing that, given the evidence and the comments of the Electoral Commission, anyone who went against its views would seem to be acting purely from naked party political objectives. That is still how it seems.
      During our previous debates, I was —strangely —impressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who, like some Government Members, argued that decisions about the voting system are properly the matter of Parliament, not of the Electoral Commission. He drew the logical conclusion that there was little point in the Electoral Commission at all —there was no point in its making recommendations or even existing.
      There is a serious weakness in the Government's position, because they allow the Electoral Commission to make recommendations so that any proposal will be free from the taint of party political advantage and will have a degree of independence, yet when push comes to shove and those independent recommendations are not to their liking, they overrule them for—it is suggested—party political advantage. If that is the case, the Electoral Commission is simply being reduced to a fig leaf for straightforward brutalist politics. If I were the chairman of the Electoral Commission I should be considering my position. A resignation would certainly force the Government to come clean on the issue.
      Some Labour Members suggest that the all-postal system does not so much help Labour but shores up the democratic vote against the likes of the British National party, to prevent it from winning a Euro seat, and that could be the hidden plan, for all I know. Stopping the BNP is a laudable objective, but an all-postal ballot is no more likely to achieve it than other means. The defeat of the BNP in the north-west will be secured neither by that means nor by taking a media circus to confront it in Burnley. To defeat the BNP in the north-west, we need to out-campaign it, as the Lib Dems largely do in

      1317
      Burnley. I was privileged to assist the Lib Dems there recently when the BNP had a seat taken from it by good old-fashioned campaigning; the BNP was defeated at the ballot box.
      I suggest to Labour Members that they will not defeat racism by skewing the voting system; we defeat racism by winning the arguments against it.
      Mr. Barron: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about taking on any party—that is what campaigning and politics are about. However, it is fundamentally wrong to say that an all-out postal ballot would skew politics. My experience is the opposite; such ballots encourage participation. Of course, we shall have to wait and see, but if the tide is running against a political party—no matter which one—a higher turnout means that it will be drowned faster.
      Dr. Pugh: I agree that an all-postal ballot would not actually skew politics, but to go against the advice of the Electoral Commission looks like strange and shameful shenanigans. Equally, there is a certain degree of feebleness in believing that one cannot beat the BNP in any other way.
      In conclusion, we may—oddly enough—need the non-elected Chamber to uphold democratic values in this case.
      Mr. Leslie: With permission, I should like briefly to respond to the debate. I apologise to the House for having spoken at length in opening the debate, but I thought it important to set out in detail the Government's case and I sought to give way to a number of hon. Members. I hope that that was a useful process, even though I may well not have persuaded some Opposition Members, but I live in hope.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) reiterated his opposition to all-postal piloting. I explained the rationale behind selecting the four regions that we have chosen. We very much followed the ranked order of the potentially suitable regions suggested by the Electoral Commission. He also repeated a number of allegations that were made in the other place about impropriety in the north-west, many of which are unsubstantiated. Certainly, no convictions have resulted from any all-postal piloting experience. That is also an important point to put on the record.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said that he is a keen advocate of postal voting. He made his views loud and clear, and they are now on the record. It is useful that his opinion has been aired in the debate.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (M r. Barron) made an important point in quoting the Electoral Commission's opinion that there is no evidence that postal voting is any more prone to fraud than conventional voting.
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made an interesting and wide-ranging speech. He mentioned his possible attraction to compulsory voting, which, compared with all-postal voting, seems even more radical, but his views are also on the record.
      1318
      8 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) highlighted again the flaws of the conventional voting system. Indeed, postal voting will continue to be part of the conventional voting system. He also highlighted some of the possible advantages that may well flow from all-postal voting.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) thought that we should consider other ways to encourage participation in our democracy. For example, he wanted to assert the House's importance to the wider world. If the House reaches its own decision on all-postal voting tonight, I hope that the other place will allow the House to have its way. That is an important part of the process.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: When I mentioned Parliament and the House, I was referring to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I have the greatest regard for their lordships in the other place, as an amending and delaying Chamber.
      Mr. Leslie: With that little footnote to Hansard, I am sure that the House will note that view.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned his concern about the need for anti-fraud measures. The new offences that we have. included in the Bill—for example, extending the offence of personation outside polling stations for the first time—will go some way, with the extra efforts that regional returning officers are making, to ameliorate concerns is about fraud.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that he had a sense of déjà vu about his own speech—so did other hon. Members. It is a pity that he feels that the Electoral Commission should be the decision maker in this matter. It advises on such matters, but Government and Parliament make the ultimate decisions. We are accountable to the electorate, and the Electoral Commission is happy with that situation.
      All-postal piloting is worth while. We are trying to make participation easier for all electors. None of the obstacles that hon Members have raised about Yorkshire or the north-west seems insurmountable, and regional returning officers there are now keen to proceed. The point of extending the scale of the pilots is to test systems and capabilities and address some of the security concerns. There is no evidence at all to suggest that including Yorkshire and the north-west as pilots will cause any risk or harm.
      I hope that we can resolve this matter today, and allow regional returning officers to get on with the job. The elected House of Commons should have the final word on which regions to pilot, and I urge hon. Members to support Government amendment (a).
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 269, 166.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment, No. 2 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      PILOT ORDER
      Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Lords amendment No. 3 would require a declaration of identity to be used as part of the pilot schemes. That issue was discussed at great length in another place and the Government made clear their intention to mandate it within the pilot order that a ballot paper must be validated with a security statement signed by the elector alone. We have considered the issues raised and do not intend, as the amendment suggests we should, to require electors additionally to obtain the signature of a witness.
      We have taken our lead from the Electoral Commission in this case. In its report entitled "The shape of elections to come", it identifies a number of reasons for utilising the security statement with a single signature in place of the declaration of identity with a witness signature from a third party. The commission feels that the requirement to complete a declaration discourages some electors from voting as it could be difficult to find a witness, meaning that there is a risk of disfranchisement for some. It also feels that the need for a witness, involving another person in the process, could increase the risk of a breach of security, as the witness may see the elector's vote, which would mitigate the measure as a safeguard against fraud.
      The commission roported that, in 2003, all the local authorities carrying out all-postal pilots for the second year running would have preferred to dispense with the declaration of identity with a witness signature, as in their view it unnecessarily increased the number of rejected ballot papers. The commission noted:
      "In Trafford (in 2003), just 414 ballot papers were rejected out of a total return of 84,613, Last year, with a declaration of identity, 2,164 ballot papers had to be rejected."
      That equates to 2.5 per cent. of the total turnout. Piloting is about learning lessons, and the clear lesson that has been learned from previous pilots is that the use of a witness requirement in all-postal ballots risks increasing disfranchisement and compromising secrecy and security.
      Mr. Forth: I understand that the Minister might want to curtail his remarks in this part of the debate, but he did skate rather quickly over the analysis that he gave us. Did Trafford authority plain why it thought that ballots with a sole signature were more easily accepted than those signed by a witness? Why were so many more rejected in the second case than the first, and does that give us some clues about what is going on?
      Mr. Leslie: All that I can go on is the report of the Electoral Commission, which surveyed local authorities

      1323
      and found that they said that they would prefer to dispense with the declaration of identity and witness signatures. I suspect that that is because of the extra complexities and hurdles that that creates for an elector, such as finding a witness, ensuring the, a the witness form is filled out correctly as well as the ballot paper and so forth.
      That is not the only reason why a witness requirement is not needed. It might discriminate again those who are disabled or people who find it difficult to get a witness. There might he a specific need to consider the impact of witness requirements on people with disabilities. Officials from my Department recently met representatives from Scope and the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which expressed the strong view that a witness requirement provides another obstacle that bars many disabled people from voting in secret at their convenience. Scope felt so strongly about the issue that it wrote a letter expressing its views, which stated:
      "We are clear that requiring voters to have their ballot witnessed by another person not only increases the likelihood of people spoiling their ballot or returning them uncompleted but also puts many disabled and older voters, who are more likely to be more isolated or live alone, at a substantial disadvantage."
      I thought it important to state Scope's view to the House.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister explain how the presence of a witness to verify a signature would make it more likely that a voter would spoil his or her ballot paper because I do not understand that logic? Will he guide me through that, because I would have thought that the contrary was the case? Surely the process would be easier for a person with a visual handicap if a witness were present than if there were no witness?
      Mr. Leslie: People with a visual impairment might well require somebody to help them to cast their ballot, but returning officers can assist these voters. However, the requirement would put a specific hurdle in front of electors who did not normally come into contact with people who could witness their ballot paper, especially if they wished to cast their vote in secrecy.
      The forgery of one signature does not preclude the forgery of a second. It has been argued that a declaration of identity would be a more effective deterrent against fraud than the security statement with a single signature that we propose. However, it must surely be the case that people prepared to risk the consequences of forging an elector's signature would not be put off by the need to forge a witness signature on a declaration of identity. I trust that the House will disagree with that aspect of the Lords amendment.
      The Lords amendment would also require returning officers to send out receipts or acknowledgements to everyone whose vote was received. I urge the House to resist that suggestion. The pilots are designed to build on the experience of previous schemes. The use of acknowledgements has not been piloted before and the Electoral Commission has not recommended that approach. Acknowledgements are not provided for postal votes returned in a conventional election. It would be extremely risky to pilot acknowledgements for the first time on such a large scale given that we have no experience to draw on.
      1324
      Additionally, such a measure would be extremely costly and would put a significant additional administrative burden on returning officers and their staff. Initial estimates put the total cost throughout four regions at between £2 million and £2.5 million, and I am sure that Opposition Members would not want that additional spending to be incurred. That assessment is also reflected in the views of the Electoral Commission, which, in a statement produced for Report in another place, wrote:
      "the requirement to send individual acknowledgements will place a considerable burden on Returning Officers and their staff at an extremely busy time, and it would be difficult to guarantee a swift acknowledgement. Any delay in acknowledgement could generate unfounded anxiety on the part of voters; and generate further work for the Returning Officer in dealing with queries."
      It is thus clear that opposition to the amendment comes not only from the Government but from those with practical experience of running and assessing pilots.
      It is doubtful that the receipt process would be an effective anti-fraud measure. We are taking steps to reduce risks in such situations as houses in multiple occupation, but an individual who is willing to accept the consequences of fraudulently taking an elector's vote might well put in place contingencies to intercept any acknowledgement. There are thus many ways in which the measure would not be as strong an anti-fraud measure as it might appear to be. We feel very strongly about that.
      Mr. Brady: The Minister says that the Government are taking steps to prevent fraud in houses in multiple occupation. Will he tell us what those steps are?
      Mr. Leslie: I certainly will. Regional returning officers have already considered the matter in some detail. They are looking at houses in multiple occupation in their geographical areas. They are noting and visiting them and ensuring that there are mechanisms through which ballot papers can be delivered to individual apartments within the curtilage of houses in multiple occupation, if necessary. Regional returning officers have been paying great attention to the matter, which was discussed in Committee and on Report.
      We feel strongly that the receipt and acknowledgement process would be unnecessary. It would be expensive and would not represent a useful anti-fraud mechanism. I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) implies, not on the strength of what the Minister said—it was very weak—would Conservative Members agree to overturn a provision that the other place rightly put in the Bill. As I have already said, the Government lost the vote on the amendment in the other place heavily—by 157 votes to 110. I wish to refer to what was said in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, and by the Liberal Democrats, Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves.
      Conservative Members believe that the dangers of fraud and personation could be significantly reduced if, as the amendment provides, a signature on the declaration of identity were required. The matter was debated in Grand Committee in another place on 26 January 2004, and debated again on 23 February 2004,

      1325
      which is when the vote took place. On 26 January, Lord Rennard spoke for the Liberal Democrats and pointed out that in all-postal voting pilots, his party, like mine,
      "regard it as absolutely essential that there are necessary and proper safeguards, as far as they can be introduced, to deal with some of the abuses"
      to which Lord Greaves had referred—I cited them in the previous debate. Lord Rennard continued:
      "Those of us who have … had to deal at first hand with … real problems with our electoral process are … more sceptical"
      than Ministers are
      "about the problems that will occur if postal voting"
      or all-postal pilots are
      "rolled out in future. Postal votes need to have a witness to say that the person receiving the postal vote is the person for whom the postal vote was intended."
      As he rightly said, the measure
      "would be an effective deterrent against fraud."
      Mr. Gummer: Is not the central issue raised with the Minister that of houses in multiple occupation? I did not find his explanation convincing. It seems that nothing is being done; the matter is only being considered. Can my hon. Friend think of anything that would be more effective than ensuring that a ballot paper is given an endorsement each time so that people do not pick up at least half a dozen votes, vote in one place, then send them off in the post?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is right. I was coming to what was said in another place about houses in multiple occupation, and his intervention is helpful. I agree that the Minister is not saying that anything is being done. There is nothing to that effect on the face of the Bill. We tried to debate the matter in Committee and to introduce more safeguards, which another place has been successful in achieving.
      In Grand Committee, the noble Lord Rennard talked about the protection needed in particular for people in houses in multiple occupation. He said:
      "Houses were mentioned where perhaps 10 postal votes were put through a communal letterbox and left in the hallway … The first person who picks up those 10 postal votes will be able to fill them in and send them back."
      It would be
      "a significant deterrent if those votes were not counted unless there were 10 separate declarations of identity, filled in by the person by whom it was intended that the postal vote should be received and witnessed by another person. Indeed, if there were 10 people in the property, that should not be very hard to do."
      I entirely agree. He went on to say:
      "Such a measure would make the intimidation and fraud" —
      examples of which were given by Lord Greaves and which I mentioned earlier —
      "very much harder. It is one thing if one could simply go to someone's house and say, 'I have come for your postal vote—take it away and fill it in in your own good time, and there is no record of identity'. It will be very much harder for someone to go to your doorstep and say, 'I have to take away your postal vote. By the way, I also need you to sign this piece of paper that confirms you are the person to whom the postal vote was sent; that I know who you are and that you have filled it in yourself."
      1326
      Again, I entirely agree, as my noble Friend Baroness Hanham did. Lord Rennard concluded:
      "The declaration of identity is essential for us to agree with this principle of all-postal pilot experiments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2004; Vol. 657, c. GC24–25.]
      He said that it would also be helpful to send out receipts. If a receipt is sent to the elector, it gives the elector confidence that the process is working properly, which he or she would not otherwise have.
      Mr. Forth: I sense that my hon. Friend is in only his preliminary remarks and will come to a more profound analysis as we make progress. I hope that he will comment on the Minister's astonishing assertion that people with disabilities would find it more difficult to find someone to witness their signature than others would. Surely people with disabilities are more likely to have carers who are interested in and concerned with their welfare, and are therefore much more likely to be supported in that regard than those of us who are not in that condition. Will my hon. Friend comment on the Minister's rather facile assertion?
      Mr. Hawkins: I was surprised that a couple of charities, mentioned in another place, suggested that this relatively straightforward and simple precaution would cause problems. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the regular presence of carers would make the position easier for disabled people.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister, who made a convincing case, did not simply give his own view. He mentioned Scope, which is not just another charity. No organisation has done more work to encourage access to voting and polling. I think its views should be taken more seriously.
      Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have great respect for his views. We always consider carefully what respected charities propose, but it is still possible to disagree, as my right hon. Friend has done. However, I was not seeking to belittle Scope's submission. The right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I always take the views of respected charities and, indeed, his views, seriously.
      The concerns raised by Opposition Members here and in another place about the extra precautions that need to be included in the Bill to prevent personation are serious. My noble Friend Baroness Hanham referred to the concerns expressed by senior police officers in the west midlands about the increase in personation. The noble Baroness Gould of Potternewton described some of the tactics employed by Militant Tendency in the 1980s in respect of personation at polling stations. Other noble Lords, such as Lord Alton of Liverpool, mentioned what had gone wrong with personation in Liverpool in the 1980s. There are abuses and examples of fraud in a number of places. That is why another place was right to insist that the extra precautions should be included in the Bill. We think that they should be upheld in that, and we will certainly vote to that effect.
      Joyce Quin: I strongly supp1ort what my hon. Friend the Minister said in giving the Government's view on the changes introduced in another place. I am disappointed with the Lords amendment and regret the determination of Opposition parties to do their utmost to prevent all postal ballots. They seem to think, that such ballots cannot be conducted without large scale fraud. As a result, I am starting to feel somewhat insulted on behalf of my constituents, who have had three successful experiments with all postal voting without any fraud taking place. Given the success in such areas, I wish that Opposition Members would look much more at the evidence than at unfounded fears.
      I was very disappointed that the noble Lord Rennard, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said that without the changes even the north east should not be a pilot region, despite the fact that more than 50 per cent. of its population have experimented successfully with all postal ballots. It is important to bear that statistic in mind.
      Ministers here and in another place have made the important point that the Electoral Commission does not favour the added hurdles that are being proposed. Given that Opposition Members extolled the commission's role, it is ironic that they are prepared to fly in its face on this issue.
      I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said.He thought that a great deal of party politicking had occurred in another place, and that is regrettable. People of all parties in my area have very much welcomed the change to all-postal ballots. They will be extremely disappointed if the amendment is upheld tonight.
      Mr. Heath: Judging by the comments of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), for whom I have a great deal of respect, a casual listener to the debate might assume that the addition of a new barrier to postal voting was being proposed. However, it is in place already. It is exactly the position that the right hon. Lady had with her all-postal ballot. It is the position that will apply for half of England, all of Scotland and all of. Wales in June when the elections take place.
      I note that the right hon. Lady shakes her head, but what I have said will be the case. That is what will happen in every area outside the pilot regions with postal ballots. Those who use the postal ballot will be required to have a countersignature of a witness to declaration of identity. It is hardly a novel approach that is being advocated. It is a continuation of current practice.
      Joyce Quin:Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that when we are having all-postal ballots the scale of what is involved is extremely important. My local authority—Gateshead—has been extremely successful in this context but has been very much opposed to these procedures. It feels that they will make it extremely difficult to have an all-postal ballot in the area in time for the elections.
      Mr. Heath: I can only observe that it has not been an obstacle until now for the councils that have undertaken all-postal ballots.
      We must have a care in the House not to provide opportunity for electoral fraud where that opportunity is currently reduced. I accept that there is a better way
      1328
      of doing things. I accept that that is personal registration with the electoral registration officer, by means of providing proof of identity that is individual to that person rather than requiring an intercession by a witness. That is what I would like to see universally applied as the authentication of postal ballots. However, we are not yet in that position.
      In the circumstances, it seems perverse to throw away the rather rudimentary and not entirely acceptable precaution that we have, in the absence of a replacement that I think would be much better. That seems to be the right precautionary approach to take. It is the approach taken by my noble Friend Lord Rennard, which happily secured the support of others.
      I accept that there are real issues to do with people with disabilities. The House knows that I do a fair amount of work with the RNIB, which has serious concerns, as has Scope. Not all those concerns are focused on the issue of identity being verified by a witness. People with visual impairments could easily be provided with templates to enable voting to take place. Another issue is single-channel voting and whether alternatives should be available for people with visual impairment.
      I accept that there are issues concerning the secrecy of the ballot that involve people with disabilities, which we should take seriously. Equally, we should take seriously the possibility of fraud in postal ballots that is not confined to the pilots and not to all postal ballots. However, they might be multiplied in their effect and might take place within current voting arrangements.
      If right hon. and hon. Members read the evidence given to the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, they will see at least anecdotal evidence, if not objective evidence, of potential for fraud in houses of multiple occupation. There is at least anecdotal evidence that increases in turnout are not largely effected by an increased number of households voting, but by more people within households voting.
      That should be a matter of at least suspicion if not concern. It suggests that the head of a household, or some person within a household, has rounded up the entire family rather than there being a genuine widening of the franchise into new areas.
      I want to see these experiments succeed, and I want also to encourage ways of voting. However, I ask the House to consider carefully, before removing the precautions that are now in place, the effect of voting against the amendment from another place. It is to remove for half of England—not the other half, not for Scotland, not for Wales, not for the elections in London and not for the elections in most of the country next June, but just for the pilot areas—a precaution that has hitherto been thought necessary to avoid electoral fraud. I do not think that we should do that. We should resist the Government's attempt to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Wilkinson: This appears to be a modest amendment in the Government's view, and an unimportant one. However, the issue at stake symbolises all that is worst with this Administration. Their instinct is to play fast and loose with our democracy, and they do not particularly care whether there should be effective controls against impersonation.

      1329
      8.45 pm
      Impersonation is a problem that is traditionally endemic in elections in Northern Ireland. In the first constituency in which I stood—I can speak about this, because I lost that February 1974 election—a great Pakistani friend came up to me and said, "Mr. John, Mr. John, I have done so very well. I have voted as my uncle in Pakistan and I have voted as my brother who is dead." I was somewhat taken aback by that and explained that it was not the normal way of doing things, but he had been able to go to the polling station and impersonate in person. It is much harder to impersonate in the privacy of an individual's home, and the wise Lords amendment No. 3, from that old fox Lord Rennard, seeks to ensure that that is the case. I trust that old fox in the other place much more than I trust the promising Minister who is gabbling his lines without any great credibility.
      Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I wonder why we need to call into question the status quo in the conduct of postal ballots. The postal voting system has worked entirely well, and it is a normal procedure to verify identity. For example, we seek a witness for passports and driving licences to corroborate the fact that impersonation is not taking place. Why should we debase the electoral process by seeking lower standards? We should improve standards and enhance controls against fraud and impersonation, rather than the contrary. What is the reason for doing the contrary, as is the case here? It can only be party political. The Labour party makes a facile assumption, to use the word that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) used, that everything has to be laid on easily for its supporters. If anything is difficult!—
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 163

      Division No. 77

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Alexander, Douglas

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allen, Graham

      Austin, John

      1319

      Banks, Tony

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Barnes, Harry

      Foster, rh Derek

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

      Bayley, Hugh

      Rye)

      Beard, Nigel

      Foulkes, rh George

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bennett, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Goggins, Paul

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Grogan, John

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Hanson, David

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Wallsend)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Browne, Desmond

      Rhymrey)

      Bryant, Chris

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hendrick, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Burgon, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Heyes, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Casale, Roger

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Caton, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Challen, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chaytor, David

      Hutton, rh John

      Clapham, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pentlands)

      Jamieson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Johnsor, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hatfield)

      Chryston)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cohen, Harry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Coleman, lain

      Kemp, Fraser

      Colman, Tony

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Connarty, Michael

      Kidney, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Cummings, John

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Larnmy, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lepper, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      David, Wayne

      Levitt,Tom (High Peak)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis,Terry (Worsley)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Linton, Martin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Denham, rh John

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dobson, rh Frank

      McCabe, Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McDonnell, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

      MacDougall, John

      Efford, Clive

      McFall, John

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Farrelly, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      McNulty, Tony

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      1320

      McWalter, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Short, rh Clare

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simon, SiÓn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Finsbury)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Martlew, Eric

      Lunesdale)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Miller, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mole, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Mountford, Kali

      Lochaber)

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Organ, Diana Owen, Albert

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig, Don (Islwym)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      E)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Ward, Claire

      Dinefwr)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Watts, David

      Pumell, James

      White, Brian

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rammell, Bill

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Winnick, David

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Bellshill)

      C)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wishart, Pete

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Woodward, Shaun

      Anniesland)

      Woolas, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Wyatt, Derek

      Chester)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Gillian Merron and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. John Heppell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Barrett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Amess, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Bercow, John

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Baker, Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      1321

      Brazier, Julian

      Lamb, Norman

      Breed, Colin

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Burnett, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Burstow, Paul

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Lidington, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Cameron, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Fife)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, rh David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Barnet)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Clappison, James

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atcham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Maude, rh Francis

      Conway, Derek

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Coldfield)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Moore, Michael

      Stamford)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Howden)

      Norman, Archie

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Őpik, Lembit

      Doughty, Sue

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Pa ice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fallon, Michael

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Redwood, rh John

      Westminster)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Flight, Howard

      Rendel, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      M-Kent)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Goodman, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

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

      Greenway, John

      Kincardine)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gummer, rh John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hague, rh William

      Spring, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hancock, Mike

      Steen, Anthony

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Stunell, Andrew

      Abingdon)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Harvey, Nick

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Taylor, John (Sollhull)

      Heath, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Holmes, Paul

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Tredinnick, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Inverness)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilkinson, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Willetts, David

      1322

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Willis, Phil

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      (Macclesfield)

      Mr. John Randall and

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Division No. 78

      [8.47 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brennan, Kevin

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tiy NE)

      Wallsend)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Bryant, Chris

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burgon, Colin

      Austin, John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Battle, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Challen, Colin

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Blizzard, Bob

      Pentlands)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Chryston)

      1330

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Clelland, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Coaker, Vernon

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Kemp, Fraser

      Coleman, lain

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Colman, Tony

      Kidney, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Cummings, John

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coveritry S)

      Lammy, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Wonkngton)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lepper, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      David, Wayne

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Linton, Martin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Denham, rh John

      Love, Andrew

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McCabe, Stephen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Efford, Clive

      McDonnell, John

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      MacDougall, John

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      McFall, John

      Farrelly, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fisher, Mark

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, rh Derek

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      MacShane, Denis

      & Rye)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foulkes, rh George

      McWilliam, John

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Grogan, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Mole, Chris

      Rhymney)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mudie, George

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Hesford, Stephen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Heyes, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Organ, Diana

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Owen, Albert

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Perham, Linda

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Picking, Anne

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hutton, rh John

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      lllsley, Eric

      Pollard, Kerry

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Jamieson, David

      E)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Prescott, rh John

      Hatfield)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dinefwr)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Purnell, James

      1331

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Stringer, Graham

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rammell, Bill

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Bellshill)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Thomas,Gareth (Harrow W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Anniesland)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Rooney, Terry

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Chester)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watts, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      White, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Short, rh Clare

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

      Williams Betty (Conwy)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Finsbury)

      C)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Wishart, Pete

      Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Yarmouth)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Wyatt, Derek

      Lochaber)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Allan, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Amess, David

      Barnet)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Clappison James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bacon, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baker, Norman

      Collins, Tim

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Conway, Derek

      Barrett, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Cotter, Brian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bercow, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Stamford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howden)

      Brady, Graham

      Djanogly. Jonathan

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Doughty, Sue

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Breed, Colin

      Evans, Nigel

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Burnett, John

      Westminster)

      Burstow, Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Burt, Alistair

      Forth, rh Eric

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cameron, David

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Fife)

      Garnier, Edward

      Carmichael, Alistair

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      1332

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Page, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Paice, James

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Grayling, Chris

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, rh John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Greenway, John

      Rendel, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gummer, rh John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Hague, rh William

      M-Kent)

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hancock, Mike

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Abingdon)

      Ruffley, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heath, David

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Holmes, Paul

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Kincardine)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Teather, Sarah

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lidington, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Loughton, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wiggin, Bill

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Maples, John

      Willetts, David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Atcham)

      Willis, Phil

      Mates, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Maude, rh Francis

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Mercer, Patrick

      (Macclesfield)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Coldfield)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Moore, Michael

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Norman, Archie

      Mr. John Randall and

      Őpik, Lembit

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to
      Lords amendment disagreed to
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 50 agreed to
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 3; Geraint Davies, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Christopher Leslie and Ms Bridget Prentice to be members of the Committee; Mr. Christopher Leslie to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
      The House divided. Ayes 266, Noes 124.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill [Money]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      9.19 pm
      The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

      (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

      (a)any expenditure incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department or by a body performing functions on behalf of the Crown, and

      (b)any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act, and

      (2)the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

      On Second Reading, I confirmed that the Government were content for the Bill to proceed, and the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), agreed to work with us in Committee to ensure that the detailed provisions deliver both his and the Government's objective: a reduction in the exploitative activities of gangmasters.
      Let us be clear: gangmasters play a necessary role by providing the flexible labour supply required to underpin the production and supply of food. However, for far too long that flexibility has been delivered at the expense of the workers involved, and the current approach fosters illegal working.
      The Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill seeks to tackle those abuses through the introduction of a licensing scheme and the creation of a register of licensed gang labour providers. It will introduce welcome transparency to the labour supply chain and ensure that the supermarkets and other purchasers of fresh and other produce can insist that their suppliers use only licensed labour providers.
      The Bill will create two new offences—supplying labour without a licence and using an unlicensed labour provider—and the Secretary of State will be authorised to appoint officers to enforce those provisions. Final decisions on the precise role and nature of the body responsible for issuing licences have yet to be taken. We are discussing the best way to work with the industry, trade union representatives, the National Farmers Union and the retail trade. It is clearly in everybody's interests to harness their knowledge and experience and that of legitimate gangmasters who want to work within the law and who should be able to compete effectively in the market while doing so. It is in their interest and ours to work together to create an effective licensing body rather than merely a top-down bureaucratic structure, and I am delighted by the co-operation that I have received since Second Reading.
      The code to be observed by licensed gangmasters will be important.
      Geraldine Smith: On enforcement, does the Minister agree that if the Bill is to be successful, we need a robust system of enforcement and a lead Minister to take responsibility for it?
      Alun Michael: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on the legislation. My hon. Friend knows that the Department for Work and Pensions leads on Operation Gangmaster, which has been successful in enforcing the law in a number of ways but is not enough on its own. That is why we support the legislation and the introduction of the licensing system, which was a point argued by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire when he introduced the Bill.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than he did in answering the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith)? Which Minister in which Department will supervise this important Bill and ensure that it gets on to the statute book?
      Alun Michael:Responsibility for the legislation and the licensing system lies with DEFRA, so the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible and I deal with the Bill in this place. My noble Friend Lord Whitty has played a considerable part in promoting co-operation on Operation Gangmaster, but I am accountable to this House, as I was on Second Reading and will continue to be as the Bill goes through Parliament.
      As I indicated, important issues include not only the question of the licence but the expectations and requirements placed on licensed gangmasters. We are examining the outcomes of the best practice project run by the Ethical Trading Initiative with DEFRA and industry support, which will inform the licensing system and help us to calculate the cost of an adequate monitoring system. Those outcomes will also show us what ethical audit can and cannot do, which will help us to create the right environment to enable enforcement to take place. Lord Whitty and I met representatives this morning for an update on the work of the project.
      However it operates, it is intended that the licensing process should be self-funding with a fee charged to cover the cost of the licence applications and periodic renewals. An applicant's business will also be audited to ensure that procedures are compliant with the terms of the licence, which again raises the issue of exactly what the requirements should be.
      Andrew George: The Minister and the Government will not want to involve themselves in unnecessary expense. In view of that, does he agree that it would be far better for the Government to use existing provisions and regulations—for example, the agricultural compliance unit in the Inland Revenue—rather than creating new organisations or regulations when an effective method is already available?
      Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that point applies to a number of areas. The Inland Revenue has a considerable interest in ensuring that people pay their tax and national insurance. We have a strong interest in ensuring that the minimum wage is observed and that agricultural rates are paid. The point of the licensing system is that it would draw a line between those who are legitimate and working within the system, and those who are outside it. That would make easier
      1338
      the enforcement of such matters as the payment of tax. The current situation makes it easy for people to operate in an exploitative way.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I am worried by what the Minister said a moment ago. In east Kent, we have two problems—a high number of immigrants looking for work and an impoverished farming community—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I do not wish to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that his question will relate to the money resolution.
      Mr. Gale: Yes, absolutely. The Minister said that the licence would be self-financing. To me, that means that the farmers in east Kent will end up paying, and they are on the breadline already.
      Alun Michael: the hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point that I have been making in our discussions with the industry. We want something that is effective but that does not put excessive burdens on industry. On Second Reading, we discussed the level of fee that might be charged and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) mentioned the figure of £3,000. That should not be necessary and, indeed, a much lower fee should be achievable. We do not want to increase bureaucracy. Rather, we want to work with those who know the industry and how it works—the trade unions and farming organisations—to ensure that bureaucracy is kept to a minimum and effectiveness is maximised. Resources already allocated to the matter must be properly and effectively deployed, and that is why I make the point that the costs involved would be determined, in part, by the conditions attached to the licence. The costs are provisional, but are likely to be considerably less than the figure mentioned on Second Reading.
      Robust cost estimates will be prepared once the consultation on the detail of the licensing provisions has been completed, and we will be able to discuss the issue in full in Committee. Much of the detail will have to be worked out in Committee, but we are engaging vigorously with people in the industry to create a scheme that works for the industry, protects those who are currently being exploited and allows legitimate gangmasters to work within the law without being undermined by those who work outside it.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: The Minister said that robust estimates would be prepared and that the scheme would be self-financing. Can he give a rough estimate of the public funding that will be required before the cost is covered by fees?
      Alun Michael: I cannot do so at the moment, because we are in discussion with the organisations involved about the best way to use the strengths of the industry and those of Governn ent to work together. If the issue of gangmasters could be dealt with easily—if we could wave a magic wand—it would have been done years ago. It is a complex situation, with people working in a complex market to provide labour for farmers such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). It would be possible to create a very bureaucratic structure that did not even hit the target.

      1339
      I am pleased by the way in which some legitimate gangmasters, the National Farmers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union have proved so prepared to sit down with us and tease out the most effective way to achieve the aspirations set out in the Bill. While the Government must have a commitment to meeting the finance necessary to implement the Bill, we must also ensure that costs—there will of course be setup costs that will affect the industry—and the impact on the industry are kept to a minimum.
      Andrew George: The Minister talks about using the strength of the Government. He will recall his intervention on me during Second Reading and the focus at that time of the debate on the need for Departments to break down potenial barriers such as data protection. It was argued that farmers and gangmasters should not be asked to replicate forms and information to different Departments separately. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in other Departments to ensure that that does not happen?
      Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I did say on Second Reading that we would seek to achieve that. That is not a requirement in the Bill, but we should use existing resources and powers in other legislation and ensure that they are co-ordinated effectively. Where co-ordination has been tried—in Lincolnshire, for example, through Operation Gangmaster—we have seen the benefits and learned lessons from it. It has also helped us to understand the best way of running a licensing system and the requirements that would be placed on licensees.
      Overall, it is not anticipated that the Bill will lead to any significant net increase in Exchequer expenditure, because the additional resources allocated to enforcement activities will be offset by savings to the Exchequer in respect of lost tax, national insurance revenue and reductions in benefit fraud.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: On that point, significant savings could be made in comparison with the sort of operation that had to be mounted—successfully—by the Department for Work and Pensions on the Deeestuary last year.
      Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right, and I am aware of his interest in ensuring that problems on the Deeestuary are properly tackled in a manner that will last. That is the concern of many hon. Members. For some time, we have seen an effort to co-ordinate work across several Departments and enforcement agencies. I gave more detail about that on Second Reading, when it was more appropriate. Those efforts have had some success, but clearly more is needed. That is why we supported the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire to introduce legislation, and we welcome the opportunity to work with him and with organisations on both sides of industry to produce effective measures.
      Clearly, it is developments occurring in parallel with the legislation that will create the licensing system and a clear line between those who are licensed and those who are not. That will allow us to create a simple offence of operating while not licensed to do so. All that will make a difference to the geography of activities, though it will
      1340
      not detract from the complexities of some offences or of the market, which is far from simple. Nevertheless, the line will be created, and all hon. Members accept that that is important.
      Geraldine Smith: On unpaid tax and national insurance contributions, does the Minister agree that in Morecambe bay it was estimated that there were between £6 million and £8 million worth of cockles, and that probably very little of that was paid back in taxation?
      Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which shows the value of individual enforcement agencies such as the Exchequer being involved in enforcement processes. The point of the licensing system, however, is to create the division between those acting illegally and those acting under a licence. That leads to a simple offence, whereas many other offences that have to be pursued require a considerable collection of evidence and drawn-out enforcement processes. The Bill will create two very simple offences, which should create an impetus towards virtue, if I may put it that way, within the farming industry and in the activities of gangmasters. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
      9.34 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: Over my 17 years in this place, I have worked out that something curious happens every day. Today's curiosity is a Whip speaking from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps it would be helpful to say that this is not my first outing at the Dispatch Box. My first and only other outing was on Friday 15 March 2002. On that occasion, our usual channels agreement nearly foundered because the business that was due to run until 2.30 pm ended a few seconds early, and it fell to me to fill those seconds. I managed 91 words before being cut off in my prime. This time I will manage more than 91 words and prove why I was given a non-speaking job in the Whips Office.
      This debate is not about the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill. The Minister made some fair points and I very much welcome the opportunity to agree with much of what he said and to discuss the issues, but I am fairly sure that if I did so it would not be long before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, told me that the debate was not about the Bill but about the money resolution. Having said that, I should like to say—probably—just one sentence about the legislation because it is important to set in the context of the Bill my comments on the money resolution.
      When the Bill was debated on 27 February, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) made it clear that
      "The Opposition are wholly committed to ending the shameful activities of criminal gangmasters as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 27 February 2004: Vol. 418, c. 554.]
      I and my colleagues tonight stand four-square behind that commitment, but our commitment to that principle does not justify our allowing this money resolution to pass on the nod.
      The money resolution raises some important issues, so I listened carefully to the Minister in the hope that he would address those that concern us. I had hoped that

      1341
      he would tell the House how much taxpayers' money he wants us to authorise, yet he said that he could not be clear, so he did not do so. I had also hoped that he would tell us what the Government will spend that money on, but he was not quite sure about that either. It is because he did not answer properly either of those questions that I would contend that he is asking us to sign a blank cheque.
      Before we decide whether to support the money resolution, we need to know a number of things. As far as how much is concerned, all we have to go on at the moment is what the Minister said, and he said a number of things. He said that the legislation may or may not be self-funding; he hopes that it will, but he is not sure. Then he said that he will try to keep expenditure to the minimum, but did not say what that will be. He said that the fee might be £3,000 or it might be less; he was not sure.
      Alun Michael: I referred to £3,000 because Conservative Members had cited that figure during the previous debate. Estimates of the cost of funding a licensing system have ranged in some work that I have seen between £1,000 and £2,000, but that is not sufficiently robust for me to come before the House and say, "That's what I think the figure is." That is why we are working with the industry to try to ensure that the figure is as low as possible and that the system is as effective as possible. We want an effective licensing system, but we need to ensure, as one of his hon. Friends said, that it does not impose an unreasonable burden on industry.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting that, but it does not matter who cited the figure. All that is clear is that we do not know how much the system will cost—regardless of whether the Minister or the £3,000 figure that I use is correct. He said that the cost might be £1,000 or £2,000. That is a 100 per cent. variation.
      Geraldine Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cost of doing nothing was the death of 20 young people? What price will he put on their lives?
      Mr. Wilshire: Of course, I accept that, which is why I made it crystal clear at the outset that we are four-square behind the attempts to get rid of that criminal activity. I am not raising these points on the basis that we should spend nothing. The House is being asked to vote on a money resolution for an unknown quantity of money, and we should know how much we are being asked to authorise before we authorise it. That is all I am saying; I am not arguing that we should never authorise anything.
      Mr. Fallon: No one objects to the Minister proposing a money resolution; that is why he is here—to ask for more money, and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) clearly wants that money spent. The confusion is that, on the one hand, the
      1342
      Minister said that the scheme was self-financing, yet on the other he said that there would be no significant net expenditure. All we are asking is: what will be the net expenditure? If my hon. Friend or the Minister can help us on that point, we might foreshorten the debate.
      Mr. Wilshire: I cannot help my hon. Friend. I hoped that the Minister would help us. He shook his head when the phrase "self-funding" was used, but I wrote down his words. He said that the scheme might be self-funding but that he would need robust cost estimates for the information that he needed
      Alun Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little bit muddled. Fees will be charged for the licensing system, which we expect to be self-financing. That is why it is sensible to hold discussions between the Government, the promoter and sponsors of the Bill and the industry to ensure that the fees are sufficient to be effective but as low as possible to avoid burdens to the industry. That is the self-financing element. The establishment costs and the amount that might be needed for additional enforcement would of course fall to Government and they will depend, to some extent, on the outcome of those discussions. That is perfectly self-evident.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. He confirms the point that I was making: he does not know what the scheme will cost, which underlines the importance of the House asking him that question, because I at least do not like signing blank cheques. Until the Minister gives us the figures, the only factual information we have to go on is in the motion, which refers to
      "any expenditure incurred under the Act".
      Any expenditure means a blank cheque and that is why we need more information.
      Mr. Gale: This debate is being held against the background of the highly emotive and terrifying circumstances that occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). No one has any quarrel with that. However, the Minister is saying that the measure will be self-financing and we all know what that means: the cost will be passed on.
      In east Kent, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), farmers harvest cauliflowers,potatoes, top fruit and soft fruit, and their businesses operate at the margins of sustainability. If the costs of the measure are passed on to them, there will be another death—the death of those industries. We need the answers before we vote for the motion.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes my point for me very well indeed. That is exactly why a blank cheque is wrong. It is also why we need to know how much the cost will be, so that we can make up our mind whether it is a sensible amount, which will achieve a very laudable objective, or wasting money. That is the only point the Minister needs to address.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the cost of the licensing scheme for gangmasters, which operated for most of the lifetime of the last Conservative Government. was unreasonable?
      Mr. Wilshire: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to the existing regulations in a moment, but we need to deal with one more thing before we decide whether to vote for the money resolution. We need to know in some detail what taxpayers' money will be spent on. We have heard a general comment or two, but we are still not clear about everything.
      Mr. Brown: In fairness, a licensing scheme was in place for most of the lifetime of the last Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman must have supported that scheme when the Conservative party was in power. Was the cost of that scheme unreasonable?
      Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself for a moment. I should like to deal with things in the order in which I set out to deal with them, and it will make much more sense if he allows me to do so. We have to decide what taxpayers' money will be spent on, but we do not even know that. The Minister referred—again, I noted this down—to the fact that the code will be important, but the Government have not yet worked it out, so how can we decide whether spending money on the preparation of a code is sensible until we know what it is? On other occasions during his introductory remarks, he said that decisions have yet to be taken.
      Alun Michael: I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman, because it seems to have escaped his notice, that the motion relates to a private Member's Bill. The Government have responded very rapidly by saying that we will help that private Member's Bill to become law. We have come before the House to say that we want the House to agree that money can be spent from public funds in support of those purposes, and it is clear what public money needs to be spent on: the establishment and enforcement of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman, by the way that he is approaching the issue, rather undermines his claim to support the efforts to deal with the mischief and evil perpetrated by some gangmasters.
      Mr. Wilshire: Absolutely not. I predicted that, sooner or later, a Government Member would try that one. However worthy a cause, nothing justifies signing blank cheques or telling the Government that they can do what they like. It is all very well for the Minister to say what he thinks the motion means. All I have got to go on is what the motion says. The preamble states that money can be spent
      "for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill",
      not just what the Minister says it will be spent on. It could be spent on anything—it is another wide-open opportunity for the Government to spend money.
      Geraldine Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the National Farmers Union, when it says that it
      1344
      "believes that running the licensing scheme system is a function which government is best placed to undertake … and its establishment should be publicly funded."?
      Mr. Wilshire: I would love to debate that sort of issue, but I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would tell me that such issues arise under the Bill, not the motion.
      Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament in government, as well as in opposition. Can he tell me on how many occasions he intervened in debates on money resolutions to complain about the nature of their drafting when he was a member of the Government?
      Mr. Wilshire: No, I cannot, and I do not need to do so. The Government are dead keen on modernisation. They want their procedures to be brought up to date, and I have taken them at their word and decided that the modern way to deal with such things is to ask the Minister to answer sensible questions about how much he will spend and what he will spend it on. Until he answers those questions, all that we can go on are the words of the motion.
      Mr. Gale: We are now into Alice in Wonderland country. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the scheme would be self-funding, and we are now accused of trying to wreck a private Member's Bill. We are told that this is merely a Government money resolution, putting in taxpayers' money. Well, taxpayers' money comes from the public, but that is another story. The scheme will either use taxpayers' money that comes from central Government or it will be self—funding. I want to know whether it will be self-funding—if so, it will place a cost on the farmers—or will taxpayers' money that comes from central Government be used? It cannot be both.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly what all Conservative Members would like to know, but we are not getting any sort of answer, so we cannot make up our minds whether what the Ministers is asking us to do represents a sensible way to solve a genuine problem or whether it is just another way to spend taxpayers' money. To make matters worse, paragraph (1)(b) of the motion refers not to any purpose of the Act, but to
      "any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act".
      That can include not only new expenditure, but an increase in current expenditure. Therefore, the spending commitment is wide open and we need more information on it.
      It gets worse still. On Second Reading—this picks up on the point that the Minister made about the private Member's Bill—the Minister said that he backed the Bill in principle but that the Government would need to make changes before they could let it reach the statute book. I understand that. The problem is that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque not for the private Member's Bill, which is what the Minister said to me a moment or two ago, but for a Bill the contents of which we do not know yet.
      The Minister has said that he will make changes to the Bill but has not told us what they are, yet we are supposed to let him have the money to do whatever he

      1345
      likes. That seems to be a silly way of trying to run a Government. If we do not have those details, if we do not know how much, if we do not know what it is to be spent on, if we do not know the changes that the Minister wants to make, how on earth can the House decide whether this is the best way of achieving what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) properly wants and what we on the Conservative Benches want to help her to get? How can we decide without that information?
      Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is attributing some weight to paragraph (1)(b) of the money resolution. If we were precise now, and if the Minister had told us what the provisions of the Act were likely to be, we would already know what the increase attributable to those provisions was likely to be. Surely it is incumbent on the Minister to help my lion. Friend to specify what those provisions will be, so that we can judge what the increase attributable to those provisions will be.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes. I have known the Minister some time and I thought that he might want to help us but it appears that he does not. He sits there and appears to be refusing to tell us how much, what for or what the changes will be
      One other issue concerns me about the money resolution. It asks us to authorise yet more public expenditure on top of the huge increases that the Government have already agreed to. This is particularly relevant when we consider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on Second Reading on 27 February. He made it clear that there is existing legislation that, if properly enforced, might have prevented the Morecambe bay tragedy and could solve other problems.
      I am no expert. I cannot say whether that was right or wrong, but my hon. Friend is an expert and I am entirely content to accept what he says. He also pointed out that enforcing existing legislation properly would lead to immediate improvements, whereas going down the route of new legislation would mean delay. Therefore, another reason why we have to be cautious of the money resolution is that perhaps we should be exploring the existing legislation route before signing a blank cheque for any new legislation.
      There is one other reason for exploring the use of existing legislation.
      Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that existing legislation is costing the taxpayer a small fortune? He heard me intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister. Did the hon. Gentleman know that the exercise conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions last year involved in excess of 500 public servants from seven or eight Government Departments? Surely he thinks that we need some consolidated legislation to stop that happening in future.
      Mr. Wilshire: I find that an interesting point of view but all I can say is that, if the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that what is being proposed tonight is a money-
      1346
      saving exercise, the Minister would have told us that. However, the Minister did not suggest any such thing, so I can only assume—
      Alun Michael: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman obviously has not listened to what I said because I referred to the savings to the Exchequer from proper enforcement. He seems to be making an extremely mealy-mouthed attempt at justifying opposition to the Bill. If he opposes the Bill, if he opposes the money resolution, which is in typical terms for a money resolution of this sort, and if he opposes the Government supporting a private Member's Bill on this issue, why does he not have the honesty to say so?
      Mr. Wilshire: I have made my position perfectly clear. The Minister makes my point for me. He says that there will be savings from proper enforcement, which is exactly the point that I was making to the House. He did not say that there are savings to be made by scrapping existing legislation.
      Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a difference of opinion among Conservative Members about regulation? Labour Members accept that minimal—yet appropriate and relevant—regulation is important. When regulation is relevant, as the Bill is, does it not cost? Surely the Opposition should finally say, "Actually, it is the right thing to do".
      Mr. Wilshire: As I said at the outset, I would be more than willing to debate that with the hon. Gentleman and to explain to him why he is wrong, but that would be to debate the terms of the Bill, not those of the money resolution. I do not want to fall foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so if the hon Gentleman would like to meet me in Strangers Bar after the debate, I shall have a go at sorting him out and,explaining things to him. For the time being, however, I must ask him to bear with me.
      We must consider the whole question of using existing legislation. Although such legislation exists, we are told that it has not been used properly and that if it were used properly, it would avoid delay. However, there is another reason why we should use existing legislation, because I assume that the House has authorised the spending of taxpayers' money on it. Rather than wasting expenditure on existing legislation, we should ensure that we get proper value for money from the original money resolutions passed by the House.
      Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that rather than sorting each other out, we need to sort out the problem with gangmasters? Does he accept that no matter what Government are in power, sorting out such problems costs money? The money resolution is important to ensure that something effective is done while there is such a problem in this land.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is again debating the Bill, which is not what we are here to do. We are here to get answers from the Minister about how much money will be involved, what he wants to spend it on and what changes he wants to make
      Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilshire: No, I will not. Before the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will give us the answers.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Eric Forth. [Interruption.] Order. It is customary for hon. Members who wish to catch the eye of the Chair to rise in their place. Only one right hon. Member rose in his place, so I have called the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mr. Forth: I want to follow on from the theme with which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) initiated his speech. I have armed myself with quotations from the other day's Second Reading debate to try to illustrate with great clarity the confusion in the Minister's mind—and thus, sadly, in ours—about the substance of what we are considering.
      On Second Reading on 27 February, the Minister said, "There are a variety"—well, I shall stop right there because that is typically bad grammar from today's ministerial team. I would prefer the phrase, "There is a variety", but I am a bit old-fashioned about such things. The Minister said:
      "There are a variety of concerns about the Bill as drafted, including the level of charges that might emerge, the operation of the licensing body and the engagement of the industry."
      He went on to say:
      "I am not convinced of the need to set up a new agency … We should consider in Committee the option of nominating or establishing an agency".—[Official Report, 27 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 566.]
      I cite the Minister's quotes from Hansard to illustrate the fact that we are being asked to agree to a money resolution despite the fact that the Minister does not know what Bill will emerge from Committee, which reinforces the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I shall return to further quotes from the Minister in a moment, if I may, but rather than quoting from the Hansard report of Second Reading, I shall now give a few examples of what the Minister said in this debate. He said that robust cost estimates will be prepared—note that they have not been prepared, so there are no robust cost estimates o support the money resolution. He then said that there will be set-up costs, which he also confirmed in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The Minister also said that there will be no significant net increases in Exchequer costs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) emphasised. Finally, he said that the costs will be offset by increases in tax revenues. So a confused picture is emerging. All those different statements take us in a completely different direction with regard to the costs that the Bill will incur.
      Let us consider one or two of those statements because they are contradictory. When the Minister said that there will be no significant net increases in Exchequer costs, he was implying that the revenues will be met by the licensing regime, of which we do not have any detail, although he assumes that that will emerge from the Standing Committee. We do not know what the charges will be, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said.we are in the invidious position of being asked to agree a money resolution without knowing the set-up costs, although the Minister
      1348
      hinted that he had a fairly good idea of the set-up mechanism. but without a costing, because the robust cost estimates will be prepared. He is telling us either that he knows the costs, but will not reveal them, or that he does not have a clue about the costs, but wants us to agree to the money resolution anyway.
      Mr. Fallon: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. He clearly told the House that there will be no significant net costs, and we have to take his word for that. We have to assume that he has made some measurement of the costs because he has led the House into believing that the net costs of the set-up of the whole new regime, before the annual enforcement, will not be significant. Therefore, he must know roughly what they will be.
      Mr. Forth: You would think so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but it is more complicated than that. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) frequently says, the key is enforcement. If we are to believe that the Bill or, indeed, any other measure will be truly effective, the key to that is the effectiveness of enforcement, as hon. Members said on Second Reading, but we do not know how much money in the resolution will be guided towards enforcement or set-up, and how much may be offset by the costs of the licensing regime because the Minister is coy about that as well.
      Here is the question: will the licensing charges be set at a level to cover all the set-up and enforcement costs, or will they be set at a reasonable level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet would prefer, so that the activities can continue to be viable, but perhaps not cover all the costs? There is a dilemma that the Minister has been unable to resolve. He is saying, "Trust me. We'll go into Committee. I'll do deals with the Bill's promoter", and the scheme will emerge in some as yet unknown form for debate on Report and Third Reading, which we all look forward to very much because that will be key to everything. In the meantime, the money resolution remains formless and shapeless. We have no idea where the emphasis will be laid when the Minister juggles, as he has had to do up to now, between covering the costs, presumably keeping faith with the restraints that the Exchequer has laid on the matter—
      It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills).
      Question agreed to.

      VISITOR FACILITIES
      Motion made,
      That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.—[Vernon Cooker.]
      Hon. Members: Object

      NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES
      Motion made,
      That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:

      (1)In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert `to which that paragraph applies'.

      (2)In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 10, leave out from 'under' to or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order).'—[Vernon Cooker.]

      Hon. Members: Object.

      Antisocial Behaviour (Cambridge)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Cooker.]
      10.4 pm
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to have secured the debate. Antisocial behaviour is of grave concern to many of my constituents. I am pleased to have the opportunity to air those concerns publicly.
      For some time, I and Labour councillors in Cambridge have been working hard with the police and council officers to try to combat some of the worst effects of antisocial behaviour. We have had moderate success in the Arbury area, where I worked with councillors such as Mike Todd-Jones and Ian Kidman to identify locations where drug; dealing was taking place and, in one case, where a council flat was being used for prostitution. That has now stopped, which has brought some relief to my long-suffering constituents. However, there are other locations in the city where drug dealing is taking place, and the problems still need to be tackled.
      Earlier today, I heard about a number of massage parlours in the city that are being used as brothels. They cause immense nuisance and intimidation to residents living nearby. I regret that the police find it difficult to collect the evidence necessary to close them down.
      The Minister will be pleased to hear that I recently organised a big conversation event on antisocial behaviour in Kings Hedges, an area of the city that has been blighted by antisocial encroachment in recent months. Residents tell me that they want quite simple improvements such as lists of telephone numbers so that they know how to report antisocial behaviour easily. They want street lights repaired promptly. They also want broken glass swept up quickly so that it does not become a hazard to children and animals. In addition. they want a sympathetic response from their local council housing office when they report noisy and antisocial neighbours.
      Residents warmly welcome the extra police officers, the new community police officers and the street wardens. They recognise that the Government's antisocial behavior legislation can lead to improvements in the quality of their lives. We have a good set of community beat managers in Cambridge, who do a magnificent job when they are allowed to get on with it. I have recently spoken to the chief constable of Cambridgeshire about the problems that occur when community beat managers are pulled out of their neighbourhood to other neighbourhoods to solve burglary and car crime incidents. I and Labour city councillors believe that community work that addresses antisocial behaviour has much more beneficial longterm effects.
      I single out for particular praise two local community beat officers—Constable Nick Percival and Constable Mark Rabel. Nick Percival was allocated to the East Chesterton ward in Cambridge as community beat manager about 18 months ago. The ward was experiencing severe problems with gangs of children breaking windows, starting fires and stealing cars. The area has been transformed. Nick is known by all the children in the area as PC Nick, and they like and respect him. Although the area is by no means problem free, it has become a much more pleasant place to live.

      1351
      A few months ago, PC Mark Rabel was appointed as an extra police officer—funded by the city council—specifically to deal with street-life people. He has served two antisocial behaviour orders for aggressive begging. He has spoken to and profiled 200 people living on the street in the city. He has made a number of arrests for aggressive and intimidating behaviour. The action taken by Mark has had a significant impact on one area of the city where aggressive begging and drug taking is a big problem. He has been hampered, however, by the city council's reluctance to implement appropriate legislation to deal with antisocial behaviour. Although there is an improvement in the situaition, local residents and traders are concerned that with the return of the warmer weather and the lighter evenings, they will once again be plagued by large groups of aggressive street-life people drinking and shooting up outside their homes and businesses.
      Of course, many people who cause us such anguish have serious problems, and I am not unsympathetic to their plight. I have met the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which says that a drug addict can receive treatment within one week of making a request. In Cambridge, addicts have to make their way to the drugs centre on Mill road for supplies of methadone. I am told that that does not provide the same buzz as heroine and cocaine, so a top-up drink of Special Brew is often taken as well. Following my complaints, the police have prosecuted one shopkeeper who was selling Special Brew illegally, although the problem continues. I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend whether there are plans for more alcohol rehabilitation centres, as that is a major issue, quite apart from drug rehabilitation. Another problem in Cambridge that there is no wet centre where addicts could go to drink during the day or at night.
      Most street-life people have council flats, and accommodation can be found for those who have recently arrived in Cambridge by one of the excellent homelessness agencies in the city. Local people have always responded compassionately and sympathetically to the problems of homelessness but compassion has been eroded in recent months by sheer numbers and by the way in which groups collect regularly on street corners to drink, quarrel, shout abuse and inject themselves with drugs. There is also a problem with used needles, which are discarded in bushes and alleyways, and left at the roadside. Although there is still sympathy and willingness to help, local people believe that street-life people must behave in a way that is compatible with the needs of society and that much of their behaviour at present is simply unacceptable. There is also concern that because Cambridge is an attractive location, with no drinking ban in force, with many good agencies to support and counsel street-life people and with easy pickings for anyone prepared to beg, it is a target for street-life people. Certainly, numbers have increased markedly on those of a year ago.
      In October, I was invited to attend a meeting organised by former superintendent John Fuller, who had been brought out of retirement by the Cambridgeshire police to tackle the specific problems of antisocial behaviour in three different areas of the city. There were about 90 residents and traders at that meeting, all very angry about drinking and aggressive begging in Mill road, a problem that had arisen since the
      1352
      police decided to get tough with people begging in the city centre. Several arrests had been made in the city centre, which had displaced the problem to Mill road and Mitcham's corner.
      At that meeting, I launched a petition asking for a city-wide designated public places order to be put in place. We asked for a city-wide order, not realising the full extent of the legislation at the time, to try to stop the displacement from the city centre into Mill road and Mitcham's corner. It is obvious that many of my constituents agreed, because in a short time, we had more than 2,000 signatures. Labour city councillors called for a special meeting of the city council on 19 November to discuss the matter.
      I am sorry to report that the Liberal Democr-controlled city council overruled Labour proposals for a designated public places order—DPPO—and decided instead to introduce its own byelaw. Its stated reasons were, first, that
      "a city-wide ban was preferable to action on specific streets",
      but was not possible with a DPPO. That is probably correct, and I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that it is. The second reason, which I find rather surprising, was that the Liberal Democrats
      "regarded the DPPO powers as unacceptable in principle",
      and drew comparisons with the "sus" laws of the 1970s and 1980s. They referred to a particular case in Oxford in which they believed DPPOs had been applied inappropriately. The leader of Cambridge city council has referred to the Oxford example on numerous occasions, and cites the case of a young man celebrating his successful graduation by drinking champagne at a table outside a pub. It is claimed that he was told to stop drinking by the police because of the existence of a DPPO, which led the Liberal Democrat-controlled city council to believe that DPPOs are draconian, and that it is not necessary for people to behave in an antisocial way for the police to stop them drinking.
      At that meeting, Labour councillors pointed out that urgency was the most significant issue for people who were suffering from the antisocial effects of street drinking, and that the DPPO could be put in place before Christmas. They said that the debate about whether the ban should be city wide should not be used as an excuse for delay. I offered to meet Ministers with council leaders to discuss the way in which rapid progress could be made. In the meantime, on 17 December, I received from my hon. Friend the Minister a reply to a letter that I had sent her. She said:
      "While section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables councils to make byelaws, this is not applicable where there are express provisions in other legislation to deal with the subject matter. It is therefore not an option for the council to make a byelaw dealing with the consumption of alcohol in public places."
      I passed that information on to the city council, and asked what it proposed to do. The answer was not very much, and three months later, when the Liberal Democrats appeared not to have made any progress and had not bothered to use my offer of assistance, I arranged to meet the Minister for Local and Regional Government on 4 February, along with council representatives. Councillor Ben Bradnack, acting Labour leader, and Councillor Catherine Smart, who stood in for council leader Ian Nimmo-Smith, attended that meeting, together with two city council officers. My

      1353
      right hon. Friend repeated the advice given to me by my hon. Friend the Minister, and explained that in Cambridge's case, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 makes provision to tackle antisocial drinking in the form of a DPPO. He went on to say:
      "Indeed, the Council agree that a DPPO could be used to tackle the problem in areas like Mill Road where there is clear evidence of anti-social street drinking. In relation to those areas therefore it is simply not an option for the First Secretary of State to confirm a byelaw".
      Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I read in the local paper the next day that Councillor Catherine Smart had said that grave concerns remain over the DPPO and that she continued to favour a byelaw.
      Earlier today, I spoke to PC Paul Phillips, a police officer working in Oxford, where a DPPO was introduced 18 months ago. He said that the specific areas that had been causing problems were tackled first, and another section was bolted on later, so the DPPO now covers the whole central area of Oxford. He was very enthusiastic, and described it as a cracking piece of legislation. There has been a significant reduction in crime in the city since the DPPO has been in place. I have to report, however, that there is desperation about the issue in Cambridge. Residents associations in Petersfield, Romsey and West Chesterton are angry and frustrated at the delays. In just over four days, Labour councillors collected another 500 signatures for a petition requesting that the Liberal Democrat-controlled city council hold a special meeting to discuss a drinking ban. That meeting will take place on Thursday 11 March, and I hope that the council will be made to see sense.
      Before that meeting, however, it would be helpful if the Minister spelled out the answers to some of our questions. First, could a byelaw or DPPO be used in areas where the police believe that incidents of antisocial drinking may be displaced? Secondly, is it possible to use a byelaw in cases where a DPPO presents a viable alternative? Thirdly, is it possible for people to be arrested for drinking in a designated public place when they are not committing a nuisance to anyone else? Fourthly, what are the relative police powers under DPPOs and byelaws, and which would my hon. Friend consider preferable? Finally, will she give her views about the degree of responsibility of Liberal Democrat-controlled Cambridge city council and the council's prevarication? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could advise me and the hundreds of people in my constituency who, I know, will be watching the debate.
      10.20 pm
      The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing the debate, and commend her for organising the big conversation that took place in her constituency. It is vital that we not only listen to the concerns of our constituents. but are seen to be acting on those concerns and making a difference on the ground. I intend to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend raised in relation to street drinking. As she said, we have been in correspondence about the matter for some time, but first I shall say something about the background to
      1354
      the antisocial behaviour powers that the Government put on the statute book, and about the action plan and the Together campaign, which help to set the scene.
      Antisocial behaviour affects far too many people. It is true that the great majority of people behave in a way that does not cause alarm, harassment or distress to others, but in some communities there are a small number of people who do exactly the opposite. It is the norm for them to behave badly and to intimidate those around them. Consulting communities about these issues is vital to identify the problems that are damaging our public spaces, and to find solutions to help the community reclaim our towns, cities and rural areas.
      Antisocial behaviour issues recognise no limits. It is important that immediate action be taken to deal with problems such as begging, prostitution and street drinking. People want to be able to see and experience the difference it can make when the powers are used. It is important that that action should be incorporated in a wider long-term strategy to address problems on the streets and improve the environment.
      We need a new drive and new commitment to turn the words into action, and we need to do far more for the victims of antisocial behaviour. That is why the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I recently launched the Together campaign and an action plan to tackle antisocial behaviour. We are backing that plan with £75 million over the next three years. There will be an antisocial behaviour co-ordinator in every crime and disorder reduction partnership in the country. We want to make sure that there is a single point of contact to which the community can refer a range of antisocial behaviour issues that affect them.
      There will also be help and support for frontline practitioners—housing officers, environmental health officers, wardens, social workers and police officers to help them tackle antisocial behaviour. We have just set up the Together academy, which will provide hands—on training for all the practitioners involved in dealing with these issues. We had the first regional event in Birmingham last week, which went extremely well. Over the next couple of months, we will train some 3,500 practitioners in how to use the new powers that the Government have put on the statute book.
      That is a key difference in relation to the legislation. We have not simply passed an Act and issued a traditional Government circular. We have the action plan and the academy staffed by expert practitioners who can advise people on how to use the powers, how to get the evidence and how to use the law. My hon. Friend raised some interesting issues about the law, particularly in relation to street drinking.
      As well as the academy, we have the action line—a telephone line staffed by experts, whom people can contact with their problems and get on-the-spot advice about how to take action. We have new powers to disperse groups. I understand that these powers are currently being considered in Cambridge. It is rather ironic that the local council administration, which is Liberal Democrat-controlled, is considering the dispersal powers, when those powers were opposed vigorously in Parliament by the Liberal Democrats as being far too much of an incursion into the civil liberties of people who choose to congregate in groups. Those powers of dispersal are important to enable

      1355
      communities to reclaim the streets from intimidation and antisocial behaviour. In the places where dispersal powers are used, both police and, community support officers will have the power to disperse groups where their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public being harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed.
      We have also brought in new powers to issue penalty notices for disorder to people making excessive noise and participating in drunken behaviour in the evening. Environmental health officers now, have the power to shut down, with immediate effect, establishments that persistently create noise nuisance; and there is a new offence of selling spray paints to young people under 16, as well as more robust powers for local authorities to deal with fly-tipping, graffiti and fly-posting.
      I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about street drinking. City and town centres should be clean and safe, and make everyone feel welcome in using the facilities that are available. People have a right to feel safe in their communities, and we simply cannot have situations in which people are afraid to use our public spaces and facilities such as cash points or shops because they feel threatened by individuals and groups hanging around. In too many areas, local surveys have shown us that large numbers of people are now reluctant to use their city centres and to go out and enjoy themselves, using the facilities, because of intimidation.
      The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides the police with a much more consistent set of powers, including the power of arrest, which was not available in the previous byelaws, for enforcing designated public places orders. The measures contained in the 2001 Act have been widely supported by local authorities, police and crime reduction agencies to tackle antisocial and under-age drinking, which is also an increasing problem, not least in the areas identified by local authorities where there has been evidence of alcohol-related nuisance. Since the introduction of those powers in September 2001, almost 100 authorities in England and Wales have introduced designated public places orders to tackle the problem, which makes me feel somewhat at a loss as to why the difficulties are so acute in Cambridge. Some 98 authorities have introduced the powers.
      I have written to my hon. Friend about Cambridge city council's proposal for a byelaw to control street drinking in Cambridge. As she said, under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, byelaws cannot be made for a purpose for which provision has already made under another enactment. I understand that that advice has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government, in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
      I would also draw to my hon. Friend's attention the provisions of section 15(3) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001:
      "In so far as any byelaw made by a local authority and to which this subsection applies still has effect at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this subsection comes into force, it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period in relation to any public place."
      In ordinary language, the provision means that where there was a byelaw purporting to regulate street drinking, it will have expired five years after the Act
      1356
      came into play. Clearly, the intention is to ensure that the legislation to designate public places is used in future instead of byelaws, which were traditionally a difficult, time-consuming and lengthy way for local authorities to proceed.
      I believe that the designated public places order legislation is providing an extremely useful tool for local authorities and the police. Unlike the old Home Office byelaw, the arrangements include a police power to confiscate alcohol from people who are drinking and causing a nuisance in a designated place. The police have the power to require a person in such a place not to drink alcohol there when the officer reasonably believes that the person is doing so, has done so or intends to do so. He can also require them to surrender any alcohol or alcohol containers in their possession. It is not an offence to drink alcohol in a designated public place, but failure to comply without reasonable excuse with an officer's requirements in respect of public drinking or surrender of alcohol is an arrestable offence.
      With the introduction of section 155 of the Licensing Act 2003, the confiscation powers now relate to both sealed and opened alcohol containers. The police find the power extremely useful, and I am sure that they would find it useful in Cambridge. I understand that local police would prefer to see a DPPO imposed, which would enable them to require people to stop drinking and to hand over any sealed or opened containers of drink, as that removes the problem, which is the alcohol. Rather than using the dispersal powers, the police can use a straightforward power to confiscate the alcohol and stop the problem quickly, which is what local residents want. My hon. Friend will be aware that a DPPO can be implemented within 28 days.
      My hon. Friend asked about alcohol rehabilitation centres. She will know that we have been working on the alcohol harm reduction strategy for some time, and publication is imminent. It will certainly deal with questions of treatment and referral. Wet centres are operating successfully in some areas. I recently designated a wet centre as a place to which the police can take drunken people rather than holding them in custody. That is a worthwhile use of such centres.
      My hon. Friend asked whether displacement could be taken into account in designating an area under a DPPO. I confirm that that is a relevant issue for local communities. Before designating an area, local authorities should make an assessment of all the areas to which nuisance or disorder may be displaced, ensuring that everyone affected by the designation is appropriately consulted. That is to allow consideration of the consequences of the order on a neighbouring authority. It might be appropriate for a local authority to designate an area beyond the site of the immediate problems caused by antisocial drinking if police evidence suggests that the existing problem may be displaced when the DPPO is in place. In that case, the designated area could include the area to which problems might be displaced.
      Again, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has offered assistance from officials in drafting the order, in the light of the experience of the other 98 authorities that

      1357
      are already operating the system successfully. Unfortunately, the offer has not so far been taken up, but it remains open.
      My hon. Friend asked whether someone could be arrested if they were drinking and no problem was caused. A constable may ask for the alcohol to be surrendered, and if someone refuses to do that without reasonable excuse, they can be arrested. Clearly, it will be for the courts to determine the facts.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the balance between using DPPOs and using the appropriate byelaw. The DPPO is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation, carrying strong arrest powers that have proved very useful. The powers under any byelaw would depend on how it was drafted and how it was interpreted. I hope that she feels that there is sufficient information for local people to decide on a way forward. The offer of assistance from officials remains open.
      1358
      I know that dispersal powers are being investigated in Cambridge. The police view is that the power of dispersal under section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, while better than no power at all, would simply displace the problem to other areas, whereas the DPPO removes it entirely, by requiring people to cease drinking immediately and hand over their alcohol.
      It was right of my hon. Friend to raise this issue. The approach that I have outlined to tackle antisocial behaviour generally provides a good foundation on which to rebuild a civic culture of respect in our communities. We are absolutely committed to developing local people's skills and confidence to tackle the problem themselves and to reclaim local areas on behalf of the decent majority. In my view, too many people have put up with the problems of antisocial behaviour for far too long. It is time that we used the powers to tackle—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Leader of the House what recent changes there have been in the use of the Welsh language in the conduct of public business by the House; and if he will make a statement. [158026]

  Mr. Hain
  The most recent change in the use of the Welsh language in the formal proceedings of the House followed the First Report of the Procedure Committee in 2000–01 (HC 47). On 5 March 2001, the House endorsed the Committee's recommendation that Welsh could be used by Select Committee witnesses giving evidence in Westminster, as well as in Wales.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [160094]

  Mr. Hain
  Since its creation in 1999 Westminster Hall has proved itself a popular and valuable debating chamber covering a wide variety of political issues. Government Departments take into consideration the topic of the debate and the division of ministerial responsibilities when deciding which Minister should respond. It is not necessarily the case that the Minister most suited to responding will be the most senior Minister in any given Department. However, all Ministers who respond to debates in Westminster Hall do so with the full authority of the relevant Secretary of State.

TRANSPORT

  Air Quality
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government are taking to improve air quality, with particular reference to use of alternative road fuels. [159326]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Alternative fuels receive considerable support from Government, in the form of significant fuel duty incentives, grants for vehicle conversions under the PowerShift Programme, and reduced rates of Vehicle Excise Duty and company car tax for cleaner vehicles. In the December 2003 pre-Budget report, the Chancellor published the Alternative Fuels Framework, which sets out the basis on which support will, in future, be provided for clean, low carbon road transport fuels. In particular, it includes a commitment to provide three-year certainty on duty differentials for all alternative fuels from Budget 2004.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in descending order airlines using British airports by their air safety records. [159313]

  Mr. McNulty
  The safety of UK airlines is overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority to a high standard. Foreign airlines operating to the United Kingdom are required to be operated in accordance with the minimum safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. They are regulated by aviation authorities of their home states.

  Alternative Fuels
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of changes in grants for people to convert vehicles to run on liquefied petroleum gas. [159322]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Currently, grants are available for the purchase/conversion of vehicles to run on liquefied petroleum gas under the Powershift and CleanUp programmes administered by the Energy Saving Trust. In 2003–04 these two programmes provided grants for the purchase/conversion of around 3,000 vehicles. In response to this year's increase in demand for these programmes, the Trust have discussed the appropriate level of Powershift and CleanUp grants for next year with stakeholders, and estimate that a similar number of vehicles will be converted/purchased during 2004–05.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government is taking to meet its targets on use of(a) compressed natural gas and (b) hydrogen as road fuels. [159323]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our plans for encouraging the promotion and use of clean, low carbon vehicles and fuels are set out in the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy, published in July 2002. The Government has no formal targets for the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) or hydrogen as road fuels. But it supports the development and use of these and other clean, low carbon fuels in a number of ways, including through fuel duty differentials and other fiscal incentives, and by means of purchase grants to offset the additional cost of vehicles operating on these fuels. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed in the Pre-Budget Report in December 2003, for example, that compressed natural gas (CNG) would continue to benefit from the very low fuel duty levels it currently enjoys for at least another three years. We are also currently supporting the trials of three hydrogen-powered buses in London, and subject to the outcome of these trials the Government intends to exempt hydrogen from fuel duty for a limited period in the future to encourage further development and uptake.

  Bardon Signal Box
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost of the planned alteration work to Bardon Signal Box on the Leicester to Burton railway line is. [158609]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail. I have passed this question to Network Rail, for them to respond directly to the hon. Member.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each local authority the cost of a bus pass for pensioners. [159349]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the Transport Act 2000, all local authorities are required to issue a bus pass free of charge to older and disabled people entitling the holder to local bus travel within their district for at least half the single journey bus fare. However, local authorities are able to offer more generous schemes or alternative schemes to the statutory minimum if they wish. Many local authorities offer alternative travel schemes, which

  Table: Local authorities that in 2001 charged a fee for an alternative concessionary travel scheme in addition to the statutory minimum half fares with a free pass

  Name of authority

  Annual fee (2001)

  Alternative concession

  Basildon, Essex

  £100

  Free travel in district

  Bracknell Forest UA

  £40

  Free travel for those aged 75 or more.

  Braintree, Essex

  £110

  Free travel in district

  Brendwood, Essex

  £54

  Free travel in district

  Bridgnorth, Shrops

  £30

  Free travel in whole county

  Colchester, Essex

  £159.45

  Free travel, plus travel tokens

  Darlington UA

  £52 or £62

  £52 for free travel in urban area, £62 for free travel in all UA

  Dartford, Kent

  £5

  Fee to get flat fare of 20p within borough

  East Staffordshire

  £10

  Free travel

  Eden, Cumbria

  £5

  Free travel in district

  Harlow, Essex

  £33

  Free travel in district

  Hertsmere, Herts

  £36

  Free travel in district

  Ipswich, Suffolk

  £1

  District scheme for 25p flat fare

  Maldon, Essex

  £150

  Free travel

  Middles brough UA

  £10

  Fee for fare reductions

  North Wiltshire

  £5

  For reduced rate travel

  Preston, Lancashire

  £10

  For free travel for those aged 70 or over

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  £12

  Fee for fare reductions

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  £20

  Fee to get flat fare of 20p

  Shrewsbury and Atcham, Shrops.

  £115

  For free travel in the borough, half fare in the county, also produces a £15 permit for reduced rate travel

  Slough UA

  £30

  Fee to get free travel in UA

  South Buckinghamshire

  £20

  Permit gives free travel from age 70

  St Albans, Herts

  £57

  Free travel in district

  Stevenage, Herts

  £25

  Free travel in district

  Stockton on Tees UA

  £5

  Fee for fare reductions

  Suffolk Coastal

  £ 13.50

  Fee for fare reductions

  Telford and The Wrekin UA

  £80

  Free travel throughout UA, half faro in Shropshire and to some towns beyond

  Three Rivers, Herts

  £25

  Free travel in district

  Worcester City

  £8

  Allows 25p flat fare or 40p return fare

  Wyre, Lanes

  £5

  Reduced rate travel

  Computerised MOT Test
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) expected in-service delivery date and (b) cost of the computerised MOT test were when the contract was let; and what they are expected to be
  now. [159594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  in the original contract the expected start of roll-out date for the computerised service was May 2002 at a transaction charge per recorded test of £1.07.

  the current contract stipulates that roll-out of the service should have started by mid-February 2004 with no increase in transaction charge. The start of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency's (VOSA) testing has been delayed following slippage in SBS Software and an independent review of progress has
  1238W
  entitle older people to greater travel benefits and in some cases an annual fee is charged for the pass for these alternative schemes. The cost and extent of the alternative pass varies from one local authority to another. Those that charged for the pass for an alternative scheme, following the introduction of the statutory minimum scheme in June 2001, are listed in the following table, which is reproduced from Transport Statistics Bulletin "Concessionary Bus Fares Schemes England 2001", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. This is currently being updated and the latest information will be published later this year. Other authorities providing an alternative scheme may offer the pass free of charge.

  recommended changes to plans to reduce risk and allow for additional testing. In the light of the review team's recommendations VOSA are discussing a revised programme with SBS. Discussions are not yet complete—but on current expectations the service is unlikely to be rolled out until late 2004.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what penalty clauses are available for his Department to invoke should Siemens fail to deliver the computerisation of the MOT test(a) on time, (b) within cost estimates and (c) to the specification. [159595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a PFI contract between my Department's Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and Siemens Business Services (SBS) and SBS bear the risk of late or unsatisfactory delivery of the service. The contract provides that if MOT Computerisation is not delivered:
  1239W

  on time—SBS would not receive payments under the contract until the computerised service is available to MOT stations and delay would reduce the term of the contract. Therefore SBS would be penalised by extra costs as well as reduced income and profit;

  within cost estimates—under the contract SBS would bear the risk of increased development costs. They could also be subject to claims for liquidated and other damages for extra VOSA costs if they are responsible for delays;

  to the specification—the system will not be rolled out to MOT stations until it has satisfactorily completed field trials against the specification. SBS would bear the cost of corrective action to meet the specification and of consequent delays and would not receive any payments until the service is operational. Under the contract VOSA can withhold some transaction payments from SBS if the operation of the system does not meet specified minimum service levels.

  As with any PFI contract VOSA has termination rights in specified circumstances.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Government are planning to focus resources on the provision of a bicycle-friendly road network within its 10 year Transport Plan. [156866]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authority investment in cycling has increased by more than a third since 2001—02 and we will continue to encourage such investment. The Department has also obtained reports on highway authority provision for, and promotion of, cycling, with a view to encouraging specific actions to increase cycling levels. The Department's design guidance will also be updated.

  Dibden Bay Container Port
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received from the promoters of the Dibden Bay container port proposal a legally binding undertaking for an environmental mitigation compensation scheme in the vicinity of Dibden Bay. [159499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  Disabled Drivers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government has to address road fuel poverty(a) in remote and rural areas and (b) for disabled drivers. [159324]

  Mr. McNulty
  Transport and accessibility are vitally important factors in social exclusion in remote and rural areas. The Government's strategy for improving access to jobs and key services for people in remote and deprived areas is set out in the SEU Report "Making the connections" which the DfT is responsible for implementing. The strategy contains 37 key policies, which crucially do not just involve improving transport but changing where and how services are delivered. Sixteen of the policies have already been implemented 1240W
  and a further thirteen policies and initiatives are under way, including a project to improve travel information and journey planning for job seekers.

  Fuel duty rates and other forms of motoring taxation are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes decisions on a Budget by Budget basis taking a range of economic, social and environmental factors into consideration. Some disabled people, for example, are able to claim an exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty, which can mean a saving of up to £165 a year.

  Driving (Mobile Phones)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's message of safer driving with particular reference to using mobile telephones while driving. [156865]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Good progress is being made on the government's message of safer driving, which is taken forward under the THINK! road safety publicity campaign. THINK! uses a range of media channels—TV, radio, press, posters etc.—to provide a national platform to complement regional police and local authority activities. In addition it encourages broader support from private sector partners and works to generate media interest in road safety issues. Current awareness of THINK! stands at 71 per cent. among all drivers and 89 per cent. among male drivers under 35-years-old.

  The THINK! campaign covers various themes throughout the year. The dangers of driver distraction caused by use of mobiles phones while driving was a key safety message in spring last year. More recently, we ran promotional activity to publicise the new regulations regarding hand held mobile phones introduced in December 2003.

  Activity included national radio advertising, national press advertising, e-mail information to the top 1,000 UK companies/central and local government departments, a national press release, plus use of Variable Message Signs on motorways. We also produced new guidance, including leaflets, posters and information on the THINK! and DfT websites, for road safety officers in Local Authorities and others.

  Research carried out for the Department by TNS in February 2004 showed that 96 per cent. of drivers were aware of the new mobile phones law. The research also showed that, there was an increase in the number of drivers claiming to keep their mobile phones switched off while driving, from 17 per cent. in November 2003 to 23 per cent. in February 2004.

  The Department will continue to re-iterate the dangers of driver distraction surrounding the use of mobile phones, focussing on the simple message "Switch off before you drive off". Radio advertising ran in January 2004 and advertising in cinemas runs from 5 March 2004 for three weeks.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving theory tests were booked in each year since 19 December 2001; and what proportion of such tests was booked online. [159329]
  1241W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The total number of theory tests booked, and the proportion booked online, since 19 December 2001 when the facility to book via the Driving Standards Agency's website became available are:

  Total number of theory test bookings

  Percentage booked online

  December 2001

  56,460

  0.278

  2002

  1,484,944

  9.382

  2003

  1,486,261

  24.497

  2004 to date

  129,326

  39.761

  Emissions Regulations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce statutory regulation on emissions from(a) motorcycles and (b) powered two-wheel vehicles. [159179]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Emissions from new motor cycles and other powered two wheeled machines are already regulated by the Motor Cycles Etc (EC Type Approval) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999 No. 2920) as amended by The Motorcycles Etc. (EC Type Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. The former mandates the emissions standards in EU directive 97/24/EC to be met by all new machines entering service from 17 June 2003. The 2003 regulations mandate the more stringent two stage standards in EU directive 2002/51/EC for new motorcycles entering service from 1 July 2004 and from 1 January 2007.

  Flying (Urban Areas)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received for changes to be made to the Rules of the Air to limit helicopters and other recreational aircraft from flying over urban areas. [159319]

  Mr. McNulty
  I receive letters from time to time, from individual members of the public, requesting for reasons of safety, privacy and nuisance that helicopters and light aircraft should be restricted from flying over urban areas.

  A number of respondents to the consultation in 2000 on "Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft" suggested that the height restrictions specified in Rule 5 (Low Flying) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 should be tightened so as to lessen noise. However, that consultation did not specifically encompass the Rules of the Air regulations, which are primarily safety-related.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the danger and nuisance of(a) helicopters and (b) other recreational aircraft from flying over urban areas. [159877]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today (ref 159319).

  Greener Vehicles
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department is working with the Treasury to provide greater purchase incentives for smaller, cleaner vehicles. [156867]
  1242W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government provides a number of incentives to encourage the purchase and use of clean, low carbon vehicles. The Vehicle Excise Duty regime, for example, is structured so that those who choose the cleanest, most fuel efficient vehicles can save themselves up to £110 a year (or up to £165 if they choose a fully electric car). The new company car tax system introduced in April 2002 provides very large incentives to encourage the purchase of clean, fuel-efficient cars. Early evidence suggests that it has already had a significant impact in the company car market. And, under the Government's Power Shift programme, which is administered by the Energy Saving Trust, purchase grants are available to incentivise the market for clean, low carbon vehicles and technologies. Officials in my Department work closely with their colleagues in the Treasury and Inland Revenue on these and other transport taxation issues.

  Hybrid Cars
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hybrid petrol/electric cars were sold in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997. [159314]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table, based on vehicle registration data, sets out the number of hybrid electric cars sold since 2001—the earliest year for which this data is available.

  Number of cars sold

  2001

  568

  2002

  281

  2003

  373

  The Government support the take-up of clean, low carbon vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles, primarily through purchase grants and fiscal incentives, including the CO2-linked graduated Vehicle Excise Duty and Company Car Tax systems. New hybrid electric models have recently been launched, and manufacturers are predicting total sales in excess of 2,000 vehicles for 2004.

  Post Buses
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government financial support is available to post buses. [159032]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities are able to use the Department's Rural Bus Subsidy Grant to support post bus services. These services may also be eligible to claim Bus Service Operator's Grant from the Department. Post bus projects have been awarded funding under our Rural Bus Challenge competition. I understand that the Countryside Agency has also provided funding to support post buses. In addition of course local authorities may use resources from the Revenue Support Grant for this purpose.

  Rail Services (Gloucester)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the viability of a new railway station in Gloucester. [159792]
  1243W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority is looking into the business case for and operational implications of a new parkway station near Gloucester. A report on the work is due to be completed shortly.

  Recovery Vehicles
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government have taken to give accredited recovery vehicles(a) higher priority in congested traffic and (b) permission to run on the hard shoulder as set out at paragraph 3.143, of the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". [159409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: Following discussion between the emergency services, officials from the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency and representatives of vehicle rescue and recovery operators, in November 2003 the Association of Chief Police Officers produced agreed guidance on use of the hard shoulder. The guidance makes clear that general use of the hard shoulder by recovery vehicles would not be appropriate where traffic is free flowing or where congestion has been caused by an unplanned incident. Where the latter has occurred, priority must be given to the emergency services. However, it identified certain circumstances where recovery services could be permitted to use the hard shoulder, for example where drivers or passengers of broken down vehicles are considered to be at risk and traffic is stationary or very slow moving for an extended period. Authority for such use is granted on a case by case basis by the police.

  Road Accidents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries there have been in road accidents in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in each of the last five years. [158660]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Killed and seriously injured road casualties by London borough: 1998–2002

  Casualties

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Barking

  Killed

  3

  7

  6

  3

  9

  Seriously injured

  126

  99

  107

  108

  92

  Barnet

  Killed

  10

  16

  8

  13

  14

  Seriously injured

  268

  247

  249

  234

  249

  Bexley

  Killed

  7

  7

  5

  8

  8

  Seriously injured

  136

  145

  130

  127

  114

  Brent

  Killed

  12

  11

  14

  10

  5

  Seriously injured

  229

  216

  200

  176

  176

  Bromley

  Killed

  10

  14

  10

  9

  9

  Seriously injured

  239

  216

  178

  187

  215

  1244W

  Killed and seriously injured road casualties by London borough: 1998–2002

  Casualties

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Camden

  Killed

  5

  10

  8

  9

  8

  Seriously injured

  230

  198

  241

  216

  223

  City of London

  Killed

  5

  1

  4

  2

  3

  Seriously injured

  63

  61

  42

  53

  48

  Croydon

  Killed

  8

  7

  15

  8

  13

  Seriously injured

  254

  250

  240

  256

  224

  Ealing

  Killed

  8

  17

  8

  16

  18

  Seriously injured

  235

  226

  192

  201

  180

  Enfield

  Killed

  9

  8

  15

  15

  9

  Seriously injured

  261

  219

  232

  222

  200

  Greenwich

  Killed

  10

  4

  4

  13

  11

  Seriously injured

  199

  192

  182

  192

  173

  Hackney

  Killed

  10

  4

  9

  8

  10

  Seriously injured

  181

  192

  179

  236

  162

  Hammersmith

  Killed

  6

  6

  4

  6

  4

  Seriously injured

  156

  152

  141

  141

  118

  Haringey

  Killed

  2

  2

  7

  13

  12

  Seriously injured

  178

  148

  202

  181

  168

  Harrow

  Killed

  6

  8

  10

  5

  4

  Seriously injured

  106

  98

  109

  100

  83

  Havering

  Killed

  4

  14

  10

  13

  7

  Seriously injured

  227

  144

  144

  152

  168

  Hillingdon

  Killed

  5

  15

  10

  6

  7

  Seriously injured

  247

  196

  187

  197

  180

  Hounslow

  Killed

  9

  8

  7

  12

  12

  Seriously injured

  228

  174

  178

  179

  191

  Islington

  Killed

  7

  9

  10

  8

  8

  Seriously injured

  219

  180

  207

  218

  167

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Killed

  8

  6

  5

  7

  7

  Seriously injured

  177

  154

  181

  145

  141

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Killed

  6

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Seriously injured

  115

  79

  71

  90

  88

  Lambeth

  Killed

  14

  3

  11

  16

  10

  Seriously injured

  295

  274

  263

  245

  267

  Lewisham

  Killed

  8

  6

  7

  14

  9

  Seriously injured

  217

  215

  209

  207

  202

  Merton

  Killed

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Seriously injured

  126

  102

  95

  104

  103

  1245W

  Killed and seriously injured road casualties by London borough: 1998–2002

  Casualties

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Newham

  Killed

  2

  6

  3

  8

  6

  Seriously injured

  198

  137

  153

  142

  123

  Redbridge

  Killed

  5

  8

  14

  10

  11

  Seriously injured

  193

  170

  162

  172

  152

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Killed

  4

  4

  2

  2

  7

  Seriously injured

  130

  111

  102

  82

  102

  Southwark

  Killed

  9

  7

  10

  14

  8

  Seriously injured

  235

  200

  237

  234

  214

  Sutton

  Killed

  3

  8

  7

  5

  6

  Seriously injured

  132

  99

  120

  107

  92

  Tower Hamlets

  Killed

  6

  14

  15

  5

  10

  Seriously injured

  196

  126

  150

  154

  141

  Waltham Forest

  Killed

  7

  5

  11

  12

  6

  Seriously injured

  198

  152

  185

  180

  144

  Wandsworth

  Killed

  6

  9

  9

  6

  6

  Seriously injured

  230

  178

  178

  203

  168

  Westminster

  Killed

  8

  12

  19

  15

  15

  Seriously injured

  420

  347

  374

  360

  322

  Greater London

  Killed

  226

  264

  286

  300

  281

  Seriously injured

  6,644

  5,697

  5,820

  5,801

  5,390

  Road Safety
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents took place in 2003 where interference by children distracting bus drivers was a contributory factor to the accidents. [159033]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities use pre-wetted salt when road salting, broken down by Highways Agency area. [159345]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not collated centrally. Local authorities decide upon their de-icing techniques and the materials they will use in the light of local climatic conditions and the nature of their highway network.

  Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) UK and (b) foreign ships failed port side inspections in the UK in each of the last five years; and how many people have been employed to undertake port side inspections in each of the last five years. [158949]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of ships which failed port side inspections in each of the last 5 years was as follows.
  1246W
  (a) UK inspections of UK and other Red Ensign Group flagged ships:

  Number of ships Detained

  1998–99

  12

  1999–2000

  13

  2000–01

  4

  2001–02

  11

  2002–03

  4

  (b) Port state control inspections of foreign ships:

  Number of ships Detained

  1998–99

  155

  1999–2000

  106

  2000–01

  116

  2001–02

  118

  2002–03

  132

  Specific information about those employed for ship inspection work was collected from 1999. Since then the number of people employed to undertake port side inspections each year was as follows:

  Staff compliment

  1999–2000

  94

  2000–01

  94

  2001–02

  101

  2002–03

  102

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to protect UK merchant ships from piracy and armed attacks. [158950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has taken the following actions in recent years to counter piracy, and to raise awareness among the international community.Ensured that the topic is covered in the biannual meetings of the UK National Maritime Security Committee. This provides a forum for senior staff in the UK maritime industry and trade associations to consider action to tackle the problem.
  Participated in several IMO regional Missions and Seminars, presenting UK government actions and chairing working groups and syndicates. These seminars have played an important role in raising awareness of the incidence and impact of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Often the work is to make the regions where the "pirates" are based accept that there is a problem.
  Jointly, with the FCO, provided the UK financial support for the IMO programme of Missions and Seminars, including funding the participation of two Metropolitan police officers with expertise in investigating acts of piracy.
  Jointly, with the Metropolitan police, prepared an IMO draft Code of Practice on the investigation of acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea DfT Chaired the IMO Correspondence and Drafting Groups and the Code has now been issued as an IMO circular (MSC Circular 984) and this was adopted at the MO General Assembly in November 2001.
  DfT has also produced an IMO draft paper on the problem of "Phantom" (stolen) ships and this has also been issued as an IMO Circular and adopted at the IMO General Assembly.
  Produced and ensured the widespread availability of the Marine Guidance Note (MGN 241) advising UK ship operators and seafarers on steps to protect against attack by pirates/armed robbers at sea. This advice was issued in November 2002.

  1247W
  Taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of piracy in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) annual resolution on the oceans.
  Raised the topic in bilateral meetings with officials and ministers from overseas countries.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of fees from speed cameras in Essex was reinvested in road safety measures in each of the last five years. [158786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Essex has been participating in the safety camera cost recovery scheme since April 2000. Receipts from safety camera fines resulting in areas participating in the scheme may be applied solely to the installation and operation of approved safety camera installations. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 53W, to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) for details of the receipts received by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership. Other investment in road safety measures is funded within local authorities I and national road programmes. Before the setting up of the safety camera cost recovery scheme in April 2000, fine revenue from camera activity in Essex accrued in whole to the Consolidated Fund.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2004,Official Report, column 343 W, if he will list the partners in each partnership. [159636]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The partners comprise the relevant police authorities, highway authorities and magistrates courts committees, and for some partnerships local health authorities also.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what percentage this is of total staff employed; and how much the Department 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. [158246]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. Due to Machinery of Government changes information on temporary staff working in DfT(C) is only available from December 2002. At any one time the Department employs approximately 47 temps through employment agencies which represents approximately 2. per cent. of the total staff employed. For the period December 2002 to March 2003 the total cost paid to employment agencies was £277,855 and £793,542 for the period April 2003 to January 2004.

  Track Maintenance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate whether Network Rail's planned activities in respect of clearing trackside vegetation in the Westerleigh area are(a) consistent with Network Rail's environmental policy and (b) no more than is required for safety purposes. [158908]
  1248W
  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]This is an operational matter for Network Rail. I have passed this question to Network Rail, for them to respond directly to the hon. Member.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many car owners failed to pay for car tax discs in each year since 1997. [159315]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Vehicle excise duty evasion is measured by roadside surveys. The last two were carried out in 1999 and 2002. The best estimate of total unlicensed stock in GB in 1999 was 1.52 million vehicles and in 2002 1.76 million vehicles.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the capacity of the combined heat and power unit run by her Department is: [154208]

  (2) when she last conducted an environmental audit on the combined heat and power unit run by her Department; [154209]

  (3 )what assessment she has made of (a) the sustainability, (b) the effectiveness and (c) the efficiency of her Department's combined heat and power unit; [154210];

  (4)what the latest figure for cost per unit of operating the Department's combined heat and power plant is; [154211]

  (5)what estimate she has made of damage to (a) information technology equipment and (b) stationery within her Department caused by the Department's combined heat and power unit; [154212]

  (6)when she will reply to the questions on her Department's combined heat and power unit of 5 February from the hon. Member for Vale of York, reference 154208, 154209, 154210, 154211 and 154212. [156341]

  Alun Michael
  Defra currently operates one combined heat and power system on its estate. This is at its Weybridge site occupied by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

  The capacity of the system is 1 megawatt, it was installed in 2000 and to date no environmental audit has been conducted on it. While no assessment has yet been made on its sustainability it is proving effective being very reliable and producing electrical power for the site at a cost per unit of 0.709p per kwh. A study is currently underway to review its efficiency.

  Since the plant has been in use no damage has been caused to information technology equipment nor stationery.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total
  1249W
  Government expenditure on agriculture was in each of the last five years; and what proportion of each total required payments under the Common Agricultural Policy. [155889]

  Alun Michael
  Total public expenditure on agriculture and EU receipts under the CAP over the past five years are provided in the table. The increase in expenditure in 2001–02 was due to the foot and mouth crisis.

  Financial year

  Total public expenditure on agriculture £million

  EU receipts under the CAP £million

  EU receipts under the CAP as a proportion of total public expenditure on agriculture Percentage

  April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  3,482

  2,941.7

  84.5

  April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  3,161

  2,674.4

  84.6

  April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  3,042

  2,534.8

  83.3

  April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  4,663.9

  2,320.3

  49.75

  April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  3,119.2

  2,619.2

  84

  Source:

  The total public expenditure figures provided in the table have been taken from the relevant Agriculture in the United Kingdom publications and the EU receipts from the relevant Annual Report and Accounts of the Intervention Board and Rural Payments Agency (founded October 2001).

  Illegal Animal Products
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the pilot project using detector dogs to find illegal animal products will be concluded. [158831]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]The pilot using detector dogs began in September 2002 and ran for six months to end March 2003.

  Net farm income by country and type of farm

  Average net farm income per farm, (£per farm)

  Accounting years ending on average in February

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  2002–031

  2003–042

  At current prices

  England

  Dairy

  9.4

  14.0

  30.7

  18.3

  20.5

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  5.3

  5.8

  7.9

  18.0

  19.0

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  0.5

  -0.4

  —

  5.8

  4.5

  Cereals

  11.7

  6.2

  4.1

  12.1

  32.0

  General cropping

  8.0

  18.4

  17.9

  14.5

  43.5

  Pigs and poultry

  -4.4

  32.6

  21.5

  49.5

  57.5

  Mixed

  5.5

  7.5

  5.4

  13.3

  19.5

  Wales

  Dairy

  14.2

  12.3

  29.6

  18.6

  18.5

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  3.1

  3.7

  1.7

  12.5

  17.0

  Cattle and sheep (low land)

  0.6

  0.7

  2.2

  9.1

  8.5

  Scotland

  Dairy

  1.9

  13.6

  33.1

  5.1

  9.0

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  2.7

  5.6

  5.8

  13.3

  16.5

  Cereals

  10.6

  0.7

  -0.6

  -1.6

  17.5

  General cropping

  3.6

  8.4

  8.0

  -1.9

  19.0

  Mixed

  3.6

  5.9

  12.6

  9.5

  24.0

  Northern Ireland

  Dairy

  7.0

  14.6

  17.5

  6.5

  13.0

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  -1.6

  0.7

  4.0

  4.6

  6.0

  United Kingdom

  Dairy

  9.0

  13.9

  27.9

  14.9

  17.5

  1250W
  The dogs were found to be effective and were taken on permanently by HM Customs and Excise when they took over enforcement responsibility of anti-smuggling measures in relation to illegal imports of products of animal origin on 11 April 2003.

  Milk
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the farm-gate value of cows' milk produced by the dairy herd in England was in the last year for which figures are available. [157936]

  Alun Michael
  Defra collects farm-gate price information for England and Wales. As the figures are based on data supplied by the purchasers of raw milk, as opposed to the producers, we are unable to provide a regional breakdown of price or differentiate milk produced on farms located in England and Wales.

  We have estimated the farm gate value of cow's milk by the dairy herd in England and Wales for 2003 to be £2,034 million.

  Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which problems English farmers face affect farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differently. [156111]

  Alun Michael
  The following table illustrates variations in Net Farm Income between the four UK countries. It highlights a welcome overall recent upward trend in Net Farm Incomes in each of the four countries. One of the most important drivers of UK farm incomes has been and will continue to be the exchange rate which has had a positive impact on all countries within the UK in recent years.
  1251W

  Net farm income by country and type of farm

  Average net farm income per farm, (£per farm)

  Accounting years ending on average in February

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  2002–031

  2003–042

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  2.2

  3.9

  4.5

  12.0

  14.5

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  0.1

  -0.1

  0.8

  5.8

  5.5

  Cereals

  11.5

  5.4

  3.3

  10.0

  30.0

  General cropping

  6.7

  16.3

  15.7

  10.9

  38.0

  Pigs and poultry

  -3.9

  29.1

  19.4

  44.9

  52.0

  Mixed

  4.4

  6.8

  6.3

  11.7

  19.0

  All Types (excluding horticulture)

  5.7

  7.8

  11.0

  12.2

  20.5

  In real terms (at 2002–03 prices)

  United Kingdom

  Dairy

  9.7

  14.4

  28.4

  14.9

  17.0

  Cattle and sheep (less favoured areas)

  2.4

  4.1

  4.6

  12.0

  14.5

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  0.1

  -0.1

  0.8

  5.8

  5.0

  Cereals

  12.3

  5.6

  3.4

  10.0

  29.0

  General cropping

  7.1

  16.8

  16.0

  10.9

  37.0

  Pigs and poultry

  -4.1

  30.1

  19.7

  44.9

  50.5

  Mixed

  4.7

  7.1

  6.5

  11.7

  18.5

  All types (excluding horticulture)

  6.1

  8.0

  11.2

  12.2

  20.0

  1 Excluding farms subjected to compulsory foot-and-mouth disease cull.

  2Provisional.

  Further information on the situation of agriculture in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be found in the following publications

  Defra, on behalf of the UK Agricultural Departments, publishes the annual report "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" (AUK). This describes agricultural and environmental developments during the previous year, reporting on each of the main agricultural commodities and containing information on agricultural incomes. Details on the circumstances of Agriculture in the four UK countries are given in tables 2.3 and 2.4 of AUK. Copies of AUK are placed in the House Library and more information can be found on the Defra website at: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp

  In addition to this, a more detailed breakdown of information on agriculture in each of the UK countries is provided in the following specialist publications:

  England: Farm Accounts in England http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publjcations/fab/default.asp

  Wales: Aggregate Agricultural Output and Income 2002 http://www.wales.gov.uk/kevpubstadsticsforwalesheadline/content/agriculture/2003/hdw20030227-e.htm

  Northern Ireland: Statistical Review of Northern Ireland Agriculture 2002 http://www.dardni.gov.uk/econs/spub0018.htm

  Scotland: Scottish Agriculture-Output, Input and Income Statistics http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5Agri/oiis02.pdf

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU member states regarding proposals to reduce cetacean by-catch in the past year. [155945]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The importance of reducing dolphin and other small cetacean by-catch has been raised by the UK at ministerial level with the Fisheries Commissioner on a number of occasions and bilaterally with France. In particular, the UK has pressed in February 2003 for the 1252W
  introduction of a observer programme across the EU to broaden the information available about which fisheries, and which vessels, are involved in the dolphin by-catch problem.

  Following this, the Commission published, on 24 July 2003, a draft Council regulation concerning the incidental by-catch of cetaceans in fisheries. Discussions on this proposal are currently taking place at official level and will come to a future Council of Minister's meeting for adoption.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to place observers on UK fishing vessels to examine the causes of the cetacean by-catch. [155947]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of Defra-funded research, the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) has in recent years placed observers on UK vessels in a number of fisheries to monitor small cetacean by-catch.

  As part of a new five year Defra-funded contract which started in 2003, SMRU has continued to place observers on UK vessels in the offshore bass fishery and plans to monitor other pelagic trawl fisheries and selected gillnet fisheries. This work is intended to provide improved estimates of annual by-catch levels of harbour porpoise and common dolphins, and to improve our understanding of how, where and why such events occur.

  Market and Coastal Towns Initiative
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest estimate is of the costs of the Market and Coastal Towns Initiative in each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [156600]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural White Paper stated that £37 million over three years (2001–04) would be made available to fund regeneration in market towns. This funding has been delivered through

  (a) the Regional Development Agencies (£32 million) and matched with funding from partners; and

  1253W

  (b) the Countryside Agency (£5 million) for work on Health Checks for individual Towns, the Beacon Towns Network, and the Best Practice Programme.

  When the announcement of the funding was made, it was envisaged that 100 towns would benefit from this funding. I am pleased to report that, through the innovative methods used in each of the regions, currently 227 towns are receiving support.

  Future funding is being reviewed as part of the Modernising Rural Delivery process. At the same time Defra is working with the Countryside Agency to assess the outcomes from the initiative, with a report due in June, and are in discussion with the Regional Development Agencies on evaluation of the initiative in the regions.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations with groups representing people with disabilities she had before issuing her consultation document, Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of Way. [159259]

  Alun Michael
  Last December I met a number of groups representing people with disabilities, under the banner Countryside For All, to discuss rights of way issues. We will look carefully at the responses from such groups to our consultation document.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent responses from groups representing people with disabilities she has had on her consultation document, Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of Way. [159261]

  Alun Michael
  By 4 March we had had responses from the Kent branch of the National Federation of the Blind; the Access Group for Kent and Canterbury; and County Mobility in Cheshire.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for section 34(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. [159694]

  Alun Michael
  I made a written Ministerial statement to the House on 9 December 2003,Official Report, column 81WS. The Government will not be implementing section 34A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. New proposals have been put forward in the Government consultation paper, "Use of mechanically propelled vehicles on Rights of Way".

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she issued the Departmental Circular on Traffic Regulation Orders described in Proposal 1 of her consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. [159273]

  Alun Michael
  We will issue the Departmental Circular shortly. The Circular will explain the range of powers available to regulate the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, including the power to make traffic regulation orders.

  Varroa Mites
  Chris McCafferty)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in developing an effective treatment against highly resistant varroa mites. [157781]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Recent experience both on the European Continent and in North America has shown that there is a spread of resistance to most medicament treatments applied to control the varroa mite. Misuse of proprietary products or use of illegal treatments has been found to be the cause of resistance in most cases.

  In the UK, resistance to the two pyrethroid-based varroacides, Apistan and Bayvarol, was first detected in Devon in 2001. Resistance was detected early through the monitoring programme conducted by the Central Science Laboratory's (CSL) National Bee Unit. This enabled action to be taken prior to the widespread colony collapse which has been experienced in other countries. Continued monitoring by beekeepers and CSL demonstrates that resistance is still localised. In many parts of the UK pyrethroids retain their high efficacy.

  The introduction to the UK market in 2003 of Apiguard. a non-pyrethroid-based treatment for varroa, now means that beekeepers are able to apply this product to their colonies, ideally as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to combating pyrethroid-resistant mites.

  Measures funded by Defra to protect bee health include training and technical advice to beekeepers in order to help them become more self-reliant through improved bee husbandry, in particular dealing with varroa. Defra is also currently funding research investigating the use of entomopathogenic fungi as possible microbial control agents of varroa.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commission for Africa
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the members of the Commission for Africa were chosen. [159379]

  Hilary Benn
  The members of the Commission for Africa have been personally invited to participate by the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Commission for Africa will take evidence in Africa. 159381]

  Hilary Benn
  Yes. The Commission will be seeking evidence from African institutions, civil society and citizens including through seminars, participation in debates and commentary on work in progress. Commissioners such as Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, Finance Minister Trevor Manuel of South Africa and K.Y. Amoako (Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission on Africa) will also bring African perspectives to the debate.
  1255W

  HIV/AIDS
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations his Department has received from(a) the UN, (b) the EU and (c) NGO sources on channelling more aid money towards fighting malaria in sub-Saharan Africa on the basis that HIV/AIDS rates in sub- Saharan Africa were stabilising; [156423]

  (2) what representations his Department has received from (a) the UN, (b) the EU and (c) NGO sources that HIV/AIDS rates are stabilising in Africa. [156437]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has received no representations to channel more aid assistance towards fighting malaria on the basis that HIV/AIDS rates are stabilising in Africa, or, any specific representations about trends in HIV/AIDS rates. The global UNAIDS epidemic update of December 2003 (available at www.unaids.org) records that among some populations in sub-Saharan Africa, for example in Zambia, and groups, for example, pregnant women, HIV rates are stabilising. However, UNAID's overall conclusions are that we are not witnessing a decline in sub-Saharan Africa's epidemic. Even if prevalence rates stabilise it may not mean that infection rates have dropped. Rather, it may mean that a persistently high number of new infections is offset by an increasing number of deaths. In such cases it will still be necessary to fully support prevention programmes, while scaling up provision for treatment and care. In terms of African countries where the UK's support is predominantly through budget support, decisions on the balance of investment between different public health priorities are for country governments to make

  DFID has contributed £48 million over the period September 1999 to March 2004 to Roll Back Malaria who operate globally but with priority given to sub-Saharan Africa where the burden is highest. We have committed $280 million over eight years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

  Malaria
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with countries affected by malaria on the economic impact on(a) public services and (b) the stability of their societies. [157792]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Malaria is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in many poor countries, limiting social and economic development. The UK, as part of an international effort, is committed to reducing the impact of malaria. We support the Roll Back Malaria partnership, and look to it to inform us on the impact of malaria in developing countries

  £000

  Financial year

  Technical co-operation

  Project or sector aid

  Grants/other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance

  Total DFID programme

  1999–2000

  11,119

  2,092

  1,636

  —

  14,847

  2000–01

  13.686

  2,742

  1,267

  —

  17,695

  2001–02

  18.750

  1,805

  659

  2,201

  23,414

  2002–03

  24.599

  2,038

  1.156

  94

  27,887

  1256W
  DFID is in regular contact with health officials in developing countries and provides assistance through its support to developing country programmes. As part of the international effort, we are working to ensure that the Roll Back Malaria partnership lends its support to nationally led programmes, processes and strategies, and provides sound evidence-based support for the effective use of additional resources from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the(a) economic and (b) social impact of malaria on developing countries. [157793]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Malaria is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in many developing countries, limiting economic and social development. It is understood to be both a disease of poverty and a cause of poverty. Annual economic growth in countries with high malaria transmission is lower than in countries without malaria and in some African countries it penalises economic growth by up to 1.3 per cent. per year. This leads to substantial differences in GDP between countries and severely restrains the economic growth of the entire region.

  The social impact of malaria includes the loss of earnings, human pain and suffering. It hampers children's social development and educational opportunities. The disease affects individual and household decision-making in ways that have a negative impact on economic productivity and growth.

  As part of an international effort, the UK is committed to reducing the impact of malaria. We provide support through global partnerships such as Roll Back Malaria and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria as well as supporting country programmes (projects, support to health sectors and general budget support).

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156151]

  Hilary Benn
  I have made a number of speeches on a wide range of domestic and international issues. Copies of speeches, where available, can be found on the Departmental website at www.dfid.gov.uk

  Nepal
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department gave to Nepal in each year since 2000: how much aid it plans to give in 2004; and if he will break down the total in each case by category. [158855]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  UK bilateral aid to Nepal since 2000 is as follows.
  1257W
  In the financial years (FY) 2003–04, DFID is on track to spend approximately £30 million in Nepal, and the aid framework for FY 2004–05 is set to increase to £35 million.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-governmental organisations based in the UK are financially supported by his Department to work in Nepal. [R] [158856]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We are supporting three projects in Nepal under our Civil Society Challenge Fund. These are:

  Agency

  Project

  Budget 2004–05

  Handicap International

  Handicap in Development

  85,000

  Minority Rights Group

  Promoting rights

  28,218

  Nepal Leprosy Trust

  Problems of Stigma

  84,000

  In addition we are also providing £56.26 million in strategic support to 15 major UK based non-governmental organisations in the form of Partnership Programme Agreements. A number of these organisations currently support activities in Nepal, including VSO who have 29 volunteers working in the Nepalese education sector.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost of recruitment of civil servants for the Department was in each financial year since 1996–97, broken down by(a) delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b) recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158186]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID currently undertakes all its recruitment in-house, and does not therefore delegate or contract out any of its recruitment procedures.

  No figures are available for the cost of recruitment of civil servants for DFID for the financial years since 1996–97. To obtain this information would incur a disproportionate cost to DFID.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained under United Kingdom anti-terrorism legislation since 11 September 2001; how many are in detention; how many of the total number detained have been charged; and how many are Muslims in each case. [156754]

  Mr. Blunkett
  16 people have been certified and detained under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Act, of whom 14 remain in detention. Anonymised details are provided at the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/atcsa_detainees.html
  1258W
  Under the Terrorism Act, Section 41 relates to the power of a constable to arrest, and detain for up to 14 days, without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist. A full 14 day detention is subject to judicial approval at various stages of the detention. From 11 September 2001 to 31 January 2004, 544 individuals were arrested and subsequently detained under this power.

  In addition, six people have been convicted and detained for offences under that act. Of these, four have now left detention.

  Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows an examining officer at a port or border control post to detain a person for up to nine hours (starting from the time at which the examination begins) in order to determine whether the person has been involved in the commissioning, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. To date, 47 people have been detained under this power.

  Details of convictions under the Terrorism Act 2000 are provided on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/tatc_arrest_stats.html

  I do not believe that the religion of an individual is relevant to whether or not they may be involved in terrorism and this information is not collated centrally.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the introduction of identity cards will protect people from identity fraud and theft. [157005]

  Beverley Hughes
  The incorporation of advanced biometric information into identity documents and the development of an electronic national identity register were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement on a national identity cards scheme on 11 November. These measures would provide a unique link between the identity card and the person to whom it was issued. They would also protect people from identity fraud and theft by:

  (a) helping to ensure that fraudsters could not set up multiple identities:

  (b) providing United Kingdom residents with an easy and secure way of proving their identity;

  (c) allowing Government Departments who provide a public service and authorised private sector organisations to identify with whom they are dealing.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what personal information will be contained on the National Identity Register; and what legal and procedural safeguards will limit access to an identity cardholder's record on the National Identity Register; [157006]

  (2) who will have access to the information stored on the national identity card database. [157039]
  1259W
  Beverley Hughes
  Data held on the National Identity Register will be basic identity information—such as name, address, date of birth, immigration status and a confirmed biometric—and this will be set out in statute.

  The legislation will allow the cards scheme to be used by any authorised service—public or private—to establish identity with the consent of the card-holder, but with strict limits on the information available.

  While police and other organisations will not have routine access to data stored on the National Identity Register, there will, in statute, be specified circumstances for disclosure from the National Identity Register, for example, in cases of serious crime. This will be subject to independent oversight as at the present time.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how, under the current proposals, individuals will gain access to services where an identity card is required if their card is lost or stolen. [157259]

  Beverley Hughes
  An identity card, although very helpful to public services as a reliable means of proving identity, would not become mandatory until a specific further parliamentary decision on a move to compulsion. Where the identity card is used to access public services we will want to ensure that procedures are in place to help those whose card has been lost or stolen, especially in cases of emergency. We will be giving detailed consideration to how this will be achieved.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how his Department measures the amount of public support for the identity card proposal; [157301]

  (2) what the reasons were for discarding 5,000 responses to the Entitlement Card consultation. [157302]

  Beverley Hughes
  During July 2002 and January 2003 the Home Office carried out extensive research into public attitudes to the proposals for what were then known as entitlement cards. The results of this research were published as "Identity Cards: A Summary of Findings from the Consultation Exercise on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud" (Cm 6019 of November 2003).

  The Government did not discard 5,000 responses. The publication included a section on page 63 breaking down the 5,031 replies received via the website of a privacy organisation and explaining how these replies had been received.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on whether an identity card scheme should be under the control of a new independent statutory body. [158721]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government will address this in the draft legislation announced in the Queen's Speech and will consider the comments which will be received on the draft Bill.
  1260W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has conducted of the(a) costs and (b) consequences of a major breach of the national identity card database. [158709]

  Beverley Hughes
  The security and integrity of the database are integral to maintaining trust in the identity cards scheme. Home Office officials are already working with security experts to ensure that security issues are considered from the start of the database design, and with other Government Departments which have similar databases with similar security needs, such as the United Kingdom Passport Service.

  The specifications and design of the database and its security features will take into account security advice from the earliest stages. The design process will include threat and vulnerability assessments. Threats which will be assessed will include unauthorised internal and external access to data. These threat and vulnerability assessments will examine the risks and consequences of attacks on the databases and weigh up the costs and benefits of various defence strategies.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how identity cards will enable the identification of illegal immigrants in the UK if it will not be compulsory to carry the card. [158712]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Identity Register will link each individual's record to a biometric that is unique to that person. This means that even without a card being produced, it will be possible to check someone's biometric information directly with the National Identity Register to establish his or her identity. This could be done with the person's consent or without consent in certain limited circumstances such as establishing the identity of persons who have been arrested for deceiving an immigration officer as to their real identity.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many identity cards for young people purchasing alcohol and tobacco are in circulation; and what plans he has to change these arrangements. [156040]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no national proof of age card and therefore no figures are held centrally for the number of cards issued by the various existing card schemes.

  The Government's plans for a national identity cards scheme would provide a nationally accepted, useful and secure way of proving and determining age when young people wish to purchase age restricted products such as alcohol. However, this is some way in the future—the introduction of plain identity cards on a phased basis would, on current plans, begin during 2007–08.

  In the shorter term, the Government have a strong interest in initiatives like the British Retail Consortium's Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) which establishes a common standard for issuing the various proof of age cards that are available. This should go some way towards assisting retailers in recognising and accepting reputable cards when requesting proof of ID and for young people to prove their age.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147976]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The total number of security passes reported lost or stolen by departmental agencies for the year ending 31 December 2003 was 227:215 lost and 12 stolen.

  Passes issued by the agencies do not afford the holder access to central London Home Office buildings and Ministers.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what pay award was awarded to civil servants in Great Britain on 1 April 2003. [158633]

  Mr. Alexander
  Pay outside of the Senior Civil Service is delegated to individual Departments and agencies. Information on individual pay awards is not held centrally.

  The pay ranges for Senior Civil Servants were increased by 2.25 per cent. Individual Senior Civil Servants received performance related pay awards of between 0 and 9 per cent. depending on their personal contribution.

  Contingency Planning
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what part virtual reality equipment plays in enabling Sir David Omand to provide central co-ordination for contingency planning and the resilience capability programme. [158979]

  Mr. Alexander
  Computer-based scenario work is used extensively in developing the UK's civil contingency doctrine and planning, including the resilience capability programme.

  In addition, the Emergency Planning College at Easingwold is studying the feasibility of adapting military synthetic environment technologies for the training of joint, multi-agency emergency management teams fundamental to the UK's resilience under a collaborative arrangement with the Defence Procurement Agency's Training and Simulation Integrated Project Team.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements are in place for those involved in contingency planning to receive appropriate professional and career development. [158980]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Emergency Planning College at Easingwold is the primary provider of training and professional development for emergency planning staff employed in the public sector, including local government and the emergency and health services. The latter groups account for some 80 per cent. of the college's annual training throughput of 6,500. The college currently delivers a range of generic courses reflecting the diverse requirements of its customers.
  1262W
  Major changes in the training regime have been under development since last summer. These will take effect in September 2004, when the college will introduce a new programme based on a spine of core courses and a range of optional modules tailored to meet specific needs. This architecture reflects best practice and will provide the foundation for subsequent professional and academic accreditation of the college's courses across the span from NVQ to postgraduate.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assets were sold by his Department in each year since 1997 to date; what the value of each item was; and if he will estimate the value of asset sales planned for 2003–04 and 2004–05. [159344]

  Mr. Alexander
  Assets that are routinely disposed of include plant and machinery, which in the main comprise motor cars, owned by the Government Car and Despatch Agency, and fixtures and fittings, which includes office furniture and IT equipment.

  Fixed asset disposals at Net Book Value ( NBV) for the Cabinet Office

  £000

  Year ended 31 March

  Amount

  2000

  1,698

  2001

  1,703

  2002

  1,608

  2003

  14,928

  2004

  14,274

  2005

  2—

  1 Estimate

  2 Not available

  Details prior to 2000 are not held.

  Better Regulation Taskforce
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what account is taken of the promotion of sustainable development in the work of the Better Regulation Taskforce [159335]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Task Force advises the Government on action to ensure that regulation and its enforcement meet the principles of good regulation. The Task Force's principles are entirely consistent with our commitment to sustainable development and we seek to apply them when implementing policy. For example, the Government has accepted the helpful recommendations made by the Task Force in its report "Environmental Regulation: Getting the Message Across" (July 2003) on ways to improve the implementation of regulations on producer responsibility.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the most recently enacted legislation is which he proposes to repeal following a report of the Better Regulation Taskforce [159339]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government seeks to act on the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force wherever possible. Major reforms currently
  1263W
  underway, or recently enacted, that follow earlier recommendations made by the Task Force include the reform of planning law, liquor licensing and fire safety.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many proposals to impose new regulations on business have been dropped following regulatory impact assessments. [159340]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 715W.

  Civil Contingencies Bill
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to table amendments to the Civil Contingencies Bill. [158901]

  Mr. Alexander
  Following a commitment given to the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam during Committee Stage, the Government will amend the Bill to require a declaration of compatibility with the Human Rights Act to be made when emergency regulations are brought forward.

  The Government will also amend the Bill to make provisions regarding cross-border co-operation, following a commitment given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. This follows discussions with the Scottish Executive.

  The Government will keep the need to table further amendments to the Bill under review.

  Information and Communication Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the expenditure of the Government Information and Communication Service's operations within the Cabinet Office was(a) in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [159576]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 767W.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people have been employed in(a) central Government and (b) the public sector under the New Deal for Disabled People. [159342]

  Mr. Alexander
  20 people joined the Civil Service under the New Deal for Disabled People in the period 2 July 2002 to 1 October 2003. Data, for the most recent quarter ending 1 January 2004 is not yet complete, but at least 12 people have joined under the scheme during that quarter.

  Data on the number of people that have been employed in the public sector (excluding the Civil Service) under the New Deal for Disabled People is not collected centrally.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the expenditure by non-departmental public bodies of the Office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available in (i) cash, (ii) real terms and (iii) as a percentage of gross national product. [159333]

  Mr. Alexander
  The expenditure by non-departmental bodies of the Cabinet Office in cash and real terms for 1996–97 and 2002–03, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out in the following table.

  Expenditure by non-departmental bodies of the Cabinet Office

  Financial year

  Cash terms £million

  Real terms £million

  As percentage of gross national product

  1996–97

  1.047

  1.212

  0.00014

  2002–03

  2.088

  2.088

  0.00019

DEFENCE

  Defence Housing (Aldershot)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) single living units and (b) married quarters in the Aldershot constituency (i) are unoccupied and (ii) have been unoccupied for three months or more. [156830]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 26 February, of a total of 1,808 family quarters in the Aldershot constituency, 247 were unoccupied. 113 of the properties had been unoccupied for more than three months. Unoccupied service family housing may be allocated or under offer to incoming families, awaiting modernisation or earmarked for disposal.

  Services single living accommodation (SLA) in the Aldershot constituency comprises 6,643 bed spaces, shared between two sites, Aldershot and Minley. Of these, some 1,064 are currently unoccupied. Some vacancies are unavoidable, since various groups have to be accommodated separately from others, for example, female personnel from male, and successive training troops from each other.

  No figures are available that identify those bed spaces unoccupied for more than three months.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) land and (b) buildings in central London owned by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) the UK armed forces, giving the value in each case. [156709]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following major properties in central London are used by the Ministry of Defence (including agencies and service personnel).
  1265W

  Building

  Description

  Freehold or leasehold

  Horse Guards*

  Offices

  Freehold

  Northumberland House*

  Offices

  Freehold

  Old War Office*

  Offices

  Freehold

  The Citadel*

  Offices

  Freehold

  Main Building*

  Offices

  Freehold

  Chelsea Barracks*

  Barracks

  Freehold

  Wellington Barracks*

  Barracks

  Part Leasehold and part Freehold

  Clerkenwell Road

  Offices

  Leasehold

  ACIO, The Strand

  Shop with offices

  Leasehold

  Castlewood House

  Offices

  Leasehold

  Regents Park Barracks*

  Barracks

  Leasehold

  St. John's Wood Barracks

  Barracks

  Leasehold

  Metropole Building

  Offices

  Leasehold

  Great Scotland Yard*

  Offices

  Leasehold

  St. Giles Court

  Offices

  Leasehold

  RCDS Seaford House*

  Offices

  Leasehold

  St. George's Court

  Offices

  Leasehold

  Ibex House

  Offices

  Leasehold

  Hyde Park Barracks*

  Barracks

  Leasehold

  Rochester Row

  Offices and barracks

  Leasehold

  Notes:

  1. Central London has been defined as the area within the Central London congestion charging zone but includes major buildings adjacent to that area.

  2. Married quarters and buildings used solely by visiting forces and reserve forces are excluded.

  3. The National Asset Register, (NAR), published by HM Treasury provides a valuation of those assets denoted by * in the table. A copy of the NAR has been placed in the Library of the House and can be accessed on the HM Treasury website at http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. It should be noted that this is an asset valuation as at 19 July 2001 and does not represent the disposal value of these buildings.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the net asset value of the hydrographic office; and if he will make a statement. [156608]

  Mr. Caplin
  The estimated net asset value of the United Kingdom hydrographic office at 31 January 2004, as represented by total assets less current liabilities, was £65.2 million.

  Inglis Barracks
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable for the services vacating the Inglis Barracks, Mill Hill site is; what steps are(a)being taken and (b) to be taken, concerning the marketing of the site; what plans he has to ensure the preservation of the officers' mess and war memorial as part of future development; what discussions his Department has had with the planning authority concerning the future use of the site; and if he will make a statement. [158285]

  Mr. Caplin
  The British Forces Post Office presently situated at Inglis Barracks and Frith Lane, Mill Hill is planned to move to RAF Northolt. The relocation of BFPO forms part of a wider consolidation of the MOD estate in London through Project MODEL (Ministry of Defence Estate London). The timetable for the relocation depends on the construction of a new operational facility at RAF Northolt, and the current project programme suggests that construction work will not be finished until the first quarter of 2007 at the earliest.
  1266W
  Following completion of the new facility, at RAF Northolt, there would then be a period of approximately six months to transfer operations to RAF Northolt and to decommission the Mill Hill site in readiness for disposal. These dates are subject to the MOD's usual project approval process.

  Preliminary discussions have already taken place with the Local Planning Authority and others, such as English Partnership on the future re-use of the site with a view to developing over the next 12 months a development framework document for the Inglis Barracks site and the surrounding area. The negotiations will address the future of both the officers' mess and war memorial.

  Additionally, the issue of military heritage is being considered at length and all interested parties will be involved in discussions to ensure that these aspects are treated in an appropriate manner.

  Once the outcome of the work we have in hand is known, we will decide how best to take forward the marketing of the site.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidental killings of civilians in Iraq have been reported by British forces since the end of combat operations, in addition to the 17 cases now under investigation; and if he will make a statement. [146850]

  Mr. Ingrain
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]None. As well as the cases under investigation UK forces have reported 19 Iraqi civilian fatalities. All involved assailants attacking British forces and in defending themselves the soldiers involved were acting clearly within their Rules of Engagement.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the six Iraqis who have died in British custody in Iraq giving the(a) approximate time, (b) date and (c) place of their deaths; and which regiments were responsible for their detention at the time of their deaths. [147713]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 918W.

  We do not release details of units who are involved in any incident that has been the subject of an SIB investigation, unless the case is referred for court martial.

  All deaths occurred within the United Kingdom area of operations in Iraq.

  Personnel Budgets (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much of its total personnel budget the(a) Army Personnel Centre, (b) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (c) Defence Dental Agency, (d) Defence Bills Agency and (e) Armed Forces Personnel and Administration Agency spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2004, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total; and if he will make a statement; [159354]
  1267W
  (2) how much of its total personnel budget the (a) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (b) Defence Housing Executive, (c) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (d) Defence Estates, (e) Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency and (f) Naval Manning Agency spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2004, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total; and if he will make a statement; [159355]

  (3) how much of its total personnel budget (a) Service Children's Education, (b) the Duke of York's Royal Military School, (c) the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, (d) the RAF Personnel Manning Agency,(e)the RAF Training Group Defence Agency and (f) the Warship Support Agency spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2004, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total; and if he will make a statement; [159356]

  (4) how much of its total personnel budget the (a) Defence Procurement Agency, (b) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (c) Medical Supplies Agency, (d) Defence Communications Services Agency, (e) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency and (f) Veterans Agency spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2004, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percent age of the total; and if he will make a statement; [159357]

  (5) how much of its total personnel budget the (a) British Forces Post Office, (b) Defence Vetting Agency, (c) Defence Medical Education, and Training Agency, (d) Disposal Services Agency, (e) Pay and Personnel Agency, (f) Defence Aviation Repair Agency and (g) Meteorological Office spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2003, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of total; and if he will make a statement; [159358]

  (6) how much of its total personnel budget the (a) United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, (b) Defence Export Services Organisation, (c) Defence Medical Services, (d) Army Base Repair Organisation (e) Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and (f) Defence Secondary Care Agency spent in Scotland from the start of financial year 2003–04 to December 2003, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) as a percentage of total; and if he will make a statement. [159359]

  Mr. Caplin
  Regional spending figures for personnel costs are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Personnel (Demobilisation)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources his Department has allocated to replace the EU Konver programme, to elp servicemen and women in moving from the armed forces to civilian occupation. [158620]

  Mr. Caplin
  The two Konver programmes which ran from 1993–94 and from 1995–99 were aimed at areas affected by the running down of defence-related industries and military installations, and the measures funded included training for new jobs, support for other businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, and the conversion and re-use of ex-military land.
  1268W
  The Ministry of Defence's resettlement programme which supports Service leavers moving from the armed forces to civilian life predated the Konver programme and was not affected by the closure of Konver II in 1999. Until October 1998, the career transition services programme was managed in-house, and the current contract placed in 1998, is not due to expire until September 2005. Arrangements are currently in hand to retender this requirement for a further period of at least seven years.

  Suez Medal
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long on average it has taken to process claims for the campaign medal for those ex-service personnel who served in the Suez Canal zone between 1951 and 1954. [156831]

  Mr. Caplin
  At this stage it is not possible to give a meaningful average figure. Over 34,000 claims have been received, the majority by the Army Medal Office (AMO), which has had to spend more time than is usual to acknowledge the huge number of letters which have arrived in the last four months. This has delayed the assessing of individual claims, though the backlog of letters requiring acknowledgement has now been cleared. The AMO are aiming to process between 250 and 300 cases a week, but many variables can and do impinge on this target.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims his Department has received for campaign medals for those ex-service personnel who served in the Suez Canal zone between 1951 and 1954 from(a) former Naval personnel, (b) former Army personnel and (c) former RAF personnel. [156833]

  Mr. Capin
  The Ministry of Defence has received the following application from veterans and their families up to week ending 20 February 2004.

  Service

  Number of applications

  Royal Navy

  1,521

  Royal Marines

  622

  Army

  25,048

  Royal Air Force

  7,076

  Total applications

  34,267

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's personnel are processing claims for a campaign medal for those ex-service personnel who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954; and when he expects this process to be complete. [156834]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of people who are dealing with applications for the new campaign medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone varies to meet the demand. Some staff are occupied full-time on this task, particularly with assessing individual entitlement to the medal, while support staff are working both on the Canal Zone medals and others as part of their duties. The individual medal offices have the following staff addressing this task:Royal Naval Medal Office: four staff assessing claims, plus one part-time clerk ordering and despatching the medals.
  Royal Marines Medal Office: overall one half of one person.

  1269W
  Army Medal Office: Nine staff directly processing claims, plus three people acknowledging claims, stamping and despatching medals.
  Royal Air Force Medal Office: overall three personnel receiving, assessing and despatching medals.

  It is not possible to say when the process will be complete as it will depend entirely on when veterans and their families apply for the medal.

  Radioactive Contamination (Hebrides)
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the Summary Report of Radioactive Contamination problems at the RA Range Hebrides and the decontamination of the Radiac

  Regiment

  Unit establishment

  Unit strength

  Location

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales

  741

  680

  Baker Barracks Paderborn Germany

  1st Battalion, Welsh Guards

  618

  660

  RAF St. Athan Vale of Glamorgan Wales

  1st Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  668

  620

  New Mons Barracks Aldershot

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for Women what the difference in pay in Greater London was between(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) male and (ii) female workers in each year since 1997. [158445]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows the mean hourly pay gap in Greater London between(a) men and women in full-time employment and (b) men in full-time employment and women in part-time employment in each year since 1997.

  Percentage

  Pay gap between men's and women's full-time mean hourly earnings

  Pay gap between men's mean full-time hourly earnings and women's mean part- time hourly earnings

  1997

  23.4

  45.7

  1998

  23.3

  45.1

  1999

  23.3

  45.2

  2000

  22.7

  48.0

  2001

  23.0

  51.1

  2002

  23.0

  48.9

  2003

  23.6

  46.0

  Note:

  Figures for men's part-time hourly earnings are not available due to small sample sizes.

TREASURY

  Unemployment (Anniesland)
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent figure is for unemployment in Glasgow, Anniesland. [158619]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1270W
  Source Store and Compound, produced by Naval Radiation Protection Services, in September 1980, in the Library. [156722]

  Mr. Caplin
  Arrangements are in hand to de-classify the report, and, as soon as this has been done, a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Infantry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) current strength is of each of the regular Welsh infantry battalions; and where they are located. [158896]

  Mr. Caplin
  The establishment, strength and location of the Welsh Infantry Battalions, as at 1 January 2004, are included in the following table:

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr John Robertson, dated 8 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in the Glasgow Anniesland Parliamentary Constituency. [(158619)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definitions. For Parliamentary constituencies, information about unemployment rates, but not levels, is available, subject to the sample size being sufficiently large. However, the sample size for Glasgow Anniesland is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment.

  ONS also publishes data on the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). In January 2004 there were 1,864 JSA claimants in the Glasgow Anniesland Parliamentary Constituency. This represents 4.9 per cent, of the working age population of the area.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed EU investment services directive on the sales regime for Child Trust Funds. [158614]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are continuing to work with the Financial Services Authority on the development of the regulatory regime for the Child Trust Fund. The Government believe that its plans for the Child Trust Fund are consistent with the draft version of the investment services directive agreed by the Council in October 2003.

  Work Force
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change has been in the net size of the work force in the UK since 1997. [157812]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1271W
  Letter from Len Cook to Marti Simmonds, dated 8 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about skilled migrant workers in the NHS and in the Education sector. [(157584)

  The attached table gives the available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for the three month period ending in November 2003. "Migrant" workers have been identified from the survey as those people working in the UK whose nationality is not British. The survey does not analyse data specifically according to "skills", but for this purpose "skills" have been represented in terms of a person's highest qualification

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

  Non-British nationals of working age1 working in the NHS and the education sector, by highest qualification held—3-month period ending November 2003

  Thousands

  Health authority or NHS trust

  Education sector2

  Highest qualification

  Degree or equivalent

  41

  23

  Higher education

  35

  3—

  GCE A-level or equivalent

  3—

  3—

  GCSE grades A-C or equivalent

  3—

  3—

  Other qualifications

  36

  10

  No qualification

  3—

  3—

  1 Applies to all men aged 16 to 64 and women 16 to 59.

  2 This includes university, polytechnic or other grant funded educational establishments.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether sufficient funds are available from the money committed by the G8 in Canada in 2002 for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries fund for top-up debt relief to provide the sum required for Ethiopia to meet the sustainable debt to export ratio set by the World Bank. [158574]

  John Healey
  Following the enhancement of the HIPC Initiative in 1999. it became apparent that some countries would reach Completion Point with deteriorated debt indicators compared to the projections at Decision Point. As a result, the Initiative provides the option of additional debt relief, or 'topping -up', at Completion Point, beyond that committed at Decision Point, when exceptional and exogenous factors have caused a substantial deterioration in a country's long-term debt sustainability. At the G8 summit in Kananaskis, leaders agreed to fund the financing short full in the HIPC Trust Fund, pledging up to an extra US $1 billion, part of which would be used to cover additional costs of topping up.

  Ethiopia is shortly expected to reach its HIPC Completion Point with a debt-to export-ratio in excess of the 150 per cent. target set by the IMF and World Bank, and so should be eligible for consideration for topping up. The UK has been working closely with the Ethiopian government and supports the case for topping up. The potential costs have not been finalised, but it is expected that the resources pledged in 2002 will cover the costs for the HIPC Trust Fund.
  1272W
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the paper, prepared by the World Bank on Completion Point for Ethiopia, has been presented to the Boards of the(a) World Bank and (b) International Monetary Fund. [158576]

  John Healey
  Ethiopia is expected to reach Completion Point in the HIPC Initiative shortly. The Completion Point paper has yet to be presented to the Boards of either the World Bank or the IMF.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the date by which the(a) World Bank and (b) International Monetary Fund will decide on the Completion Point for Ethiopia. [158592]

  John Healey
  The Executive Boards of the World Bank and the IMF were scheduled to discuss Ethiopia's Completion Point at the end of February 2004. New dates for these meetings are expected to be set shortly. The UK has been working closely with the Ethiopian government and supports the case for topping up Ethiopia's debt relief at Completion Point.

  Equitable Life
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects to publish the Penrose Report on Equitable Life. [158873]

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Penrose Report. [159633]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Penrose Report on Equitable Life is being published today in full, copies of which are available in the Library of the House (HC 290).

  EU Savings Directive
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the EU Savings Directive on UK dependent territories. [159421]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 12 December 2002 Official Report, column 475W.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the status is of the EU Savings Directive; and whether he intends to implement it in the(a) UK and (b) dependent territories before ensuring that it applies equally in other states with a similar financial services industry. [159422]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EU Savings Directive was adopted by ECOFIN on the 3 June 2003. The proposed commencement date of 1 January 2005 in the Directive is contingent on agreements being in place with Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino to apply from the same date equivalent measures as in the Directive, and on arrangements being in place with the associated and dependent territories listed in Article 17 of the Directive to apply from the same date the same measures as in the Directive.

  Fuel Duty
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on air quality of the increase in fuel duty on liquefied petroleum gas in the Pre-Budget Report 2003. [158820]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 1 March to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)Official Report, column 690W.

  National Statistics
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the death rates from(a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease were in (i) the North West and (ii) each Lancashire constituency or district in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [158825]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle dated 8 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the latest death rates from (a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease are in (i) the North West and (ii) in each Lancashire constituency or district in each of the last three years for which figures are available.(158825)

  The latest year for which the figures requested are available is 2002 and these are given, with figures for 2000 and 2001, in the attached table.

  Death rates1 from cancer and coronary heart disease2 in the north west Government office region3 and local authorities in the former county of Lancashire,3,4 2000 to 20025.

  Age standardised death rates per 100,000 population1

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cancer

  North West

  211

  208

  205

  Blackburn with Darwen

  208

  198

  218

  Blackpool

  211

  229

  218

  Burnley

  215

  181

  235

  Chorley

  224

  200

  175

  Fylde

  193

  170

  177

  Hyndburn

  207

  228

  207

  Lancaster

  182

  176

  201

  Pendle

  168

  195

  177

  Preston

  178

  212

  208

  Ribble Valley

  168

  200

  156

  Rossendale

  164

  205

  188

  South Ribble

  206

  193

  203

  West Lancashire

  203

  203

  192

  Wyre

  207

  180

  179

  Coronary heart disease

  North West

  157

  155

  146

  Blackburn with Darwen

  175

  171

  165

  Blackpool

  172

  146

  137

  Burnley

  168

  166

  152

  Chorley

  163

  134

  144

  Fylde

  138

  130

  119

  Hyndbum

  165

  177

  151

  Lancaster

  141

  155

  133

  Pendle

  157

  134

  154

  Preston

  164

  158

  130

  Ribble Valley

  137

  135

  122

  Rossendale

  166

  146

  149

  South Ribble

  144

  144

  125

  1274W

  Death rates1 from cancer and coronary heart disease2 in the north west Government office., region3 and local authorities in the former county of Lancashire,3,4 2000 to 2002 5

  Age standardised death rates per 100,000 population1

  2000

  2001

  2002

  West Lancashire

  151

  143

  146

  Wyre

  142

  122

  124

  1 Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population.

  2 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9) for 2000, and the International Classification of Diseases. Tenth Revision (ICD- 10) for 2001–2002 The codes used are listed below: Cancer (malignant neoplasms)—/CD-9 140-208; ICD–10 COO? C97;

  Coronary Heart Disease— –1CD-9 410–414; ICD-10 120–125.

  3 Usual residents of these areas.

  4 The former county of Lancashire comprises the current county and the unitary authorities of Blackburn with Darwen and
  Blackpool.

  5 Deaths occurring in the calendar years 2000 to 2002.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would be raised if VAT were to be applied to private school fees. [159785]

  John Healey
  The provision of education in return for fees in private schools is exempt from VAT, in accordance with the requirements of the European Union VAT Directive's on which UK VAT law is based.

  The cost of the VAT exemption for private education, as last published in the Tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs' in December 2003, was estimated at £150 million.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the case for amending the stamp duty brackets in this year's Budget. [158656]

  Ruth Kelly
  All aspects of the tax system are kept under review as part of the annual budget process.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what percentage this is of total staff employed; and how much the Department 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. [158240]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury presently employs around 30 staff at any one time through employment agencies, some 3 per cent. of the total employed. Payments to such agencies were £788,000 in 2001–02; £927,000 in 2002–03; and £983,000 in the first 11 months of 2003–04.

  Websites
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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

  1275W
  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. [155854]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's public website (www.hmtreasurv.gov.uk) is run by the department's publishing and internet unit. At present, 3.5 full time equivalent staff work on web-based projects.

  The direct costs of running the site over the last 12 months was £84,613.32. During this period, the site had 38 million page views and more than two million visitors. For information on costs for earlier periods, I refer the hon. member to the replies I gave the hon. member for Buckingham (John Bercow) on 23 March 2003 (Official Report, column 60W) and to the hon. member for Arundel and South Downs on 19 December 2001 (Official Report, column 321 W).

  The Treasury also maintains the Euro preparations website (www.euro.aov.uk') at a cost of £32,782 in the current financial year, £36,793 during 2002–03, £59,030 during 2001–02 and £30,399 during 2000–01. The site has received 1.7 million visits since the site was relaunched by the Chancellor in March 2001.

  In co-operation with the Cabinet Office, the Treasury maintains the Invest to Save Budget website (www.isb.gov.uk1) at a cost of £11,515 during 2000–01, £41,959 during 2001—02, £11,116 during 2002–03 and £62,875 during 2003–04 when the website and the database of project information that is accessed through it was redeveloped.

  The department is currently participating in the joint Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority financial continuity website and has paid £5,705.80 in development costs during this financial year.

  Other smaller sites run and managed by the Treasury are maintained by the Publishing unit with assistance from the Information Services (Official Report, column 60W) and to the hon. member for Arundel and South Downs on 19 December 2001 (Official Report, column 321W).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Beagle 2 Project
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money was spent on the Beagle 2 project. [158577]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government made a financial commitment of up to £20 million to the Beagle 2 project. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council contributed to the Mars Express Mission through the European Space Agency's science programme and 1276W
  additionally awarded grants totalling £5 million in support of Beagle 2's science instruments and their operation. The Millennium Commission also provided £1 million towards the Beagle Operations Centre.

  Broadband
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role Ofcom will have in promoting the take-up of broadband. [157243]

  Mr. Timms
  The Communications Act 2003 (c.21) Part 1, page 3 sets out the general duties of Ofcom in carrying out their functions, including the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high speed data transfer services throughout the United Kingdom.

  The Government believe that a competitive market is key to the successful promotion of broadband. Ofcom is continuing to promote effective and sustainable competition in the broadband market.

  Ofcom is consulting on its Annual Plan until 11 March 2004. In this, Ofcom proposes to publish a broadband consumer guide in Summer 2004 to help and encourage consumers to take advantage of the choices and services available to them.

  Business Output
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of business output in(a) the North West and (b) Lancashire was in the last year for which figures were available. [157914]

  Jacqui Smith
  The value of business output in 2000, measured by gross value added, and calculated as the sum of all sectors excluding the public sector, was as follows:

  £billion

  Northwest

  70.8

  Lancashire

  13.8

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses registered for bankruptcy in(a) London, broken down by borough and (b) Wales, broken down by local authority, in each of the past three years. [158038]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]: Insolvency figures are only available on the basis of the Official Receivers Office dealing with the cases, therefore it is not possible to identify precisely insolvencies in London or Wales. Both company and individual insolvencies are included in the following table, as the individual bankruptcy figures only include the self-employed along with consumer bankruptcies. Company

  1277W
  insolvencies are made up of Company Compulsory Liquidations and Creditors Voluntary Liquidations of which only Company Compulsory Liquidations are available on an Official Receivers Office basis. The table

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Individual bankruptcies and Company Compulsory Liquidations registered at the Official Receivers Office in London

  Individual bankruptcies

  1,427

  1,457

  1,933

  Company Compulsory Liquidations

  911

  1,147

  864

  Individual bankruptcies and Company Compulsory Liquidations registered at the Official Receivers Offices in Cardiff and Swansea

  Individual bankruptcies

  951

  1,018

  1,054

  Company Compulsory Liquidations

  167

  184

  169

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation her Department has made of the regional development agency-led business support pilots in the(a) North West, (b) West Midlands and (c) East Midlands; and how these regions compare to non-participating regions. [157231]

  Jacqui Smith
  The independent research organisation, ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd., was commissioned in December 2003 to make an initial qualitative assessment of the progress of the 3 Regional Development Agency-led pilots, compared to non-participating regions.

  Fieldwork for the evaluation is still in progress, and findings will be available in late spring.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what money her Department has allocated for business support schemes; and how much of this money has gone unclaimed in each of the last five
  years. [149478]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows the final net allocation for the programmes defined as Function A: Promotion of enterprise, innovation and increased productivity in the Departmental Estimates and Expenditure Plans Reports/Departmental Report for the years 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Financial year

  Final allocation (£million)

  1998–1999

  596,4

  1999–2000

  647.7

  2000–01

  693.3

  2001–02

  793.4

  2002–03

  779.7

  Under business support schemes businesses normally make applications that, where they meet the relevant scheme criteria, result in offers being made by the Department. Information on the amount of such offers which go unclaimed, in the sense that they are not taken up, is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the highest(a) store card interest
  1278W
  gives annual figures for the number of individual Bankruptcies and Company Compulsory Liquidations dealt with by the Official Receivers Office in London and combined for the offices of Cardiff and Swansea.

  rate and (b) bank credit card rate in the UK are; and if she will make a statement on the effect on consumers of the rates charged. [159088]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Department does not collect data on the interest rates charged by lenders.

  The credit market is a competitive market. It is, however, clearly important that charges for credit should be clear and that consumers understand how much they will have to pay for borrowing. The Office of Fair Trading is currently undertaking a study into the store card market, which is expected to be completed shortly. Our proposals for reform of consumer credit legislation, published in the White Paper "Fair, Clear and Competitive: the Consumer Credit Market in the 21st Century", will among other things ensure that all consumer credit advertising, including the advertising of credit cards, is clear, fair and not misleading and that APRs are advertised on a consistent basis.

  The consultation period closes on 15 March 2004 and I anticipate that the new regulations should come into force on 31 October 2004.

  Consumer Direct
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the budget of Consumer Direct is for the next three financial years. [157461]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The budget of Consumer Direct for the next three financial years is:

  £ million

  2003–04

  3

  2004–05

  11

  2005–06

  16

  This may be subject to adjustment depending on the speed of roll out following implementation of the Consumer Direct pathfinder nations/regions this summer. The pathfinders are Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside and the South West.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to address the concerns of on-line consumers about credit card fraud. [157273]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 protect consumers against payment card fraud including credit cards. The Regulations apply to contracts made at a distance including on-line ones. The Card issuer is required to reimburse consumers the full amount in the event of fraudulent use of the consumer's card.

  In addition, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 allows consumers to recover the cost of a purchase made by credit card from either the supplier or the credit card provider in the event of a breach of contract or misrepresentation. This provides additional protection should a consumer be unable to trace the supplier. The Banking Code says that the consumer's liability for misuse of a card will be limited unless there is evidence that the consumer has acted fraudulently or without reasonable care.

  The Home Office has recently launched a website to combat fraud over the internet. The 'e-tailing mini site' forms part of the Crime Reduction Website and includes information to help on-line consumers protect themselves from fraud. The website address is http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/etailing.

  Directors' Remuneration
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the respondents to the consultation document Rewards for Failure—Directors Remuneration—Contracts, Performance and Severance; and if she will list those respondent who(a) advocated legislative provisions and (b) did not want legislation to address executive remuneration. [159350]

  Jacqui Smith
  There were 112 responses in all, from a wide range of parties: institutional investor, companies, trades unions, accountants, remuneration advisers and many representative organisations. Some responses were sent in confidence. These apart, all responses are available for inspection on application to the DTI Library.

  £ million

  Sector

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (a) Passenger aircraft sector

  3,602

  4,392

  5,192

  5,256

  4,570

  (b) Renewable energy sector

  105

  42

  40

  33

  13

  (c) Non-renewable energy sector

  3,718

  4,726

  5,227

  3,688

  3,123

  (d) United States

  351

  533

  752

  762

  654

  (e) Defence aircraft sector

  779

  714

  1,304

  1,117

  1,229

  (f) Large hydro-energy sector

  122

  92

  66

  47

  13

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department had received the Human Rights Watch report of January 1999 on human rights abuses in connection with the Dabhol power project in India when it provided overseas investment insurance for the project. [158564]
  1280W
  The consultation was principally about best practice options, but sought views on three questions relating to possible legislative changes arising from recommendations of the Company Law Review. Of these, there was majority support only for that which asked whether companies legislation should provide for the prohibition of rolling contracts having a notice or contract period in excess of the period permitted by section 319 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Employment Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recommendations were made by the recent Better Regulation Task Force report on employment regulation; how many have been implemented by her Department; and by what methods. [155321]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) made 12 recommendations in its report of May 2002. The Government published their response to this report, accepting the recommendations, in August 2002. This explains how the recommendations are being taken forward and is available from the Libraries of the House.

  The Government response to the report can be found at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/brtfresponse.htm.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Export Credits Guarantee Department's maximum liability was in each financial year since 1998–99(a) in the passenger aircraft sector, (b) in the renewable energy sector excluding large hydro-energy and energy from waste technologies, (c) in the non-renewable energy sector, (d) for exports to the United States, (e) in the defence aircraft sector and (f) for large hydro-energy exports. [151681]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  ECGD does not categorise its business precisely in line with the question but, from information available, ECGD's maximum possible liability on future amounts at risk at the end of each of the Financial Years for the categories listed was as set out in the table.

  It is important to note that maximum liability is not the actual amount of cover.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: ECGD had not received a copy of the Human Rights Watch report at that time.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Export Credits Guarantee Department made of the social, environmental and human rights impact of the Dabhol
  1281W
  Power Project before it provided overseas investment insurance to banks for investing in the project; if she will place in the Library the relevant documentation; and if she will make a statement. [158567]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: ECGD did not at the time have a policy on social, environmental and human rights impact assessment. As a result, no such assessment was carried out.

  Following the publication of its Business Principles in December 2000, ECGD's assessment of projects now takes into account the Government's international policies, including those on sustainable development, environment and human rights.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made on the control of fireworks. [158284]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Under the Fireworks Act 2003 we have already made the Fireworks Regulations 2003 which came into force on 22 December. These Regulations make it an offence for the under 18s to possess fireworks in public places and for all members of the public to possess the large and powerful category 4 fireworks used at professionally organised displays.

  Also we are currently consulting on draft regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to enshrine in law the firework industry's voluntary ban on air bombs.

  Preliminary consultations on implementing the remainder of the Fireworks Act are continuing and draft regulations will be published during the first half of this year to introduce a national curfew banning the use of fireworks during anti-social hours; a noise limit of 120 decibels on consumer type fireworks; a compulsory training course for operators of public displays and a new licensing system for the sale of fireworks.

  Gender Equality
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to ensure equality between men and women in the workplace. [155807]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are taking action on a number of fronts to ensure equality between men and women in the workplace. We are continuing to improve the workings of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, for example through the introduction of the Equal Pay questionnaire in April 2003 and our planned consultation on speeding up and simplifying equal value tribunals. The Government are taking forward policies to tackle the pay gap that help secure equal pay, and broader causes of the pay gap, such as women's lower level of work experience and the part-time pay gap. The Government have led by example in committing all Civil Service departments and agencies to review their pay systems and produce action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Government have also provided funding for the EOC to develop equal pay tool kits so all organisations can carry out equal pay reviews.
  1282W
  In addition, we are working to remove existing barriers to equality, such as our work to promote women's access to sectors where they are currently under-represented, and to increase diversity in the boardroom. We have introduced measures to help parents maintain links with the world of work and better balance their work and home lives, which will contribute to a reduction of the pay gap. The Government have provided funding to expand childcare provision to meet the changing needs of families. The Government also welcome the EOC's investigation into modern apprenticeships and the concentration of men and women in different professions.

  Labour Disputes
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the average cost of working days lost owing to labour disputes in Greater London in the(a) public and (b) private sector in each year between 1995 and 2003. [158432]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI does not make these estimates. The Office for National Statistics provides statistics on the number of stoppages and days lost through industrial action. Their latest set of statistics for the United Kingdom show that the number of working days lost in 2003 fell to 497,000 and the number of stoppages is at an all time low.

  Landfill Directive
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she is making to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the provisions of the Landfill Directive relating to the disposal of tyres. [159020]

  Mr. Timms
  The Landfill Directive requires the introduction of a ban on the disposal of most whole used tyres to landfill from July 2003, and this has been achieved by The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. Regulations have also been introduced covering Scotland and Northern Ireland, Shredded tyres are also due to be banned from disposal to landfill, and this ban will take full effect from July 2006.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of end-of-life tyres were disposed of in ways that met the terms of the EU Landfill Directive in 2003. [159021]

  Mr. Timms
  The data to compile used tyre statistics for 2003 are currently being collected. Provisional figures suggest that value was recovered from around 80 per cent., based on 450,000 tonnes of used tyre arisings. This recovery rate is significantly higher than in previous years.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she is making to ensure that all UK end-of-life tyres will be shredded prior to 2006. [159022]

  Mr. Timms
  The infrastructure to reprocess used tyres continues to grow, as evidenced by provisional statistics for 2003 showing a recover rate of around 80 per cent. used tyre arisings. It follows that tyres are being increasingly diverted from landfill disposal, which figures suggest is running at around a quarter of 2001
  1283W
  levels. Companies have already installed significant shredding capacity, both as a pre-treatment stage prior to recovery or as a means of reducing transport costs. The requirement to shred tyres, prior to landfill disposal until July 2006, should not therefore present undue difficulty for the industry.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been convicted of breaking the rules on the minimum wage in each year since its introduction; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of(a) compliance teams and (b) local enforcement pilot projects in improving compliance with the minimum wage. [157222]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table provides details of the number of employers investigated by the Inland Revenue where non-compliance with the minimum wage was found.

  Number of employers

  1999–000

  1,280

  2000–01

  2,119

  2001–02

  1,937

  2002–03

  1,996

  2003–041

  1,813

  1 To 31 January 2004.

  The Inland Revenue enforce the minimum wage on behalf of the DTI through a service level agreement with the DTI. Both Departments monitor performance to ensure value for money is achieved. We intend to evaluate on the effectiveness of the local enforcement pilot projects later this year.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to allow citizens of EU accession states to claim, from 1 May onwards, the national minimum wage while (i) living and (ii) working in the United Kingdom. [156971]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 provides that all qualifying workers who work in the UK are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage regardless of their country of origin.

  We have announced that individuals from the accession states will be entitled to work in the UK provided they meet certain conditions. These will include registering with the Home Office under its workers' registration scheme, which was announced last week.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in each Lancashire constituency are earning the minimum wage. [157187]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates of the number of people earning the national minimum wage specifically for each Lancashire constituency. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999.
  1284W
  The DTI estimates that between 130,000 and 160,000 people in the North West benefited from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  National Business Angels Networks
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the costs of the matchmaking activities element of the National Business Angels Networks was; and when it was decided not to continue funding this element. [157240]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It is not possible to identify, separately, the costs of the matchmaking activities element of the National Business Angels Network. As I stated in my earlier reply of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 647W, it was as a result of the findings of the external evaluation that we decided not to provide any funding for these activities from the start of the current financial year.

  Our current agreement letter makes it explicit that NBAN's matchmaking facility is expected to operate separately from the rest of its activities and that no DTI grant monies should be used to subsidise this element.

  Packaging
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to enforce regulations limiting excessive packaging on products. [159009]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 state that packaging volume and weight must be the minimum amount to maintain necessary levels of safety, hygiene and acceptance for the packed product and for the consumer. The regulations are enforced by local Trading Standards Officers who work closely with the packaging industry and producers to advise them on best practice in packaging design and to resolve complaints of excessive packaging. A recent study commissioned by the DTI highlights the extensive changes brought about since the introduction of the Essential Requirements. These relate to improvements in packaging design, including minimisation. This report can be viewed at www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/packagingfinalreport.pdf and is also available from the DTI publications order line (0870 150 2500) by quoting unique reference number 03/1364.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-Super-Mare on 19 January 2004 on funding for business support schemes. [159267]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: I have replied today.

  Post Office
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution her Department is making following the announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  1285W
  on 16 July 2003, to facilitate the reconfiguration of NIREX as a body entirely independent of the nuclear industry. [158910]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Department is continuing to work with Defra and other departments to determine the future of Nirex.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of Post Office Ltd. [159181]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: There are many challenges facing Post Office Ltd. in ensuring that its network of post offices can remain viable and sustainable. The Performance and Innovation Report published in 2000 showed quite starkly that the post office network had not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers and was suffering from lack of investment. A strong management team has been put in place and given the task of turning the company round and building a commercially successful future for the network, by introducing new products and services to bring in new customers.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the ability of Post Office Ltd. adequately to serve all those in local communities who need access to local post offices, with particular reference to the Network Reinvention Programme. [159182]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: Post Office Ltd. is committed to ensuring that, at the end of the network reinvention programme, nationally at least 95 per cent. of the urban population will still live within one mile of a post office and the majority within half a mile.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the conformity of(a) Post Office Ltd. and (b) Postwatch with the guidance offered in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Performance and Innovation Unit Report 2000 in each year since 2000. [159183]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The recommendations of the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit's 2000 Report on modernising the post office network were accepted in full by the Government. In line with the Report, several have now been fully implemented, and implementation of others continues in conjunction with Post Office Ltd. and other stakeholders.

  In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit's recommendation, the Postal Services Commission reports annually on the post office network and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to publish regional analyses of her Department's net spending on Promotion of Enterprise, Innovation and Increased Productivity for 2002–03. [157217]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's spring 2003 Departmental Report (Cm 5916, May 2003) provided regional breakdowns of Government funding for 1286W
  2002–03 for the Regional Development Agencies and expenditure on Regional Selective Assistance (Chapter 10, figures 10.1 and 10.2). Updated information will be detailed in the spring 2004 Departmental Report, which is due to be published in April 2004.

  The Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2003 (Cm 50901, May 2003) provided a more wide-ranging analysis of public expenditure by country and region for 1998–99 to 2001–02. The 2004 edition will be published alongside this spring's Departmental Reports.

  Refrigerators
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) non-domestic and (b) domestic refrigerators were bought in each year since 1997. [158087]

  Jacqui Smith
  The data requested are not available from official sources.

  Regional Economic Strategies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to introduce a standardised method of monitoring and reporting on delivery of regional economic strategies by each regional development agency. [157223]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given on 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1043W.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which projects have benefited from the Renewable Energy Initiative of the Export Credit Guarantee Department. [151991]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Renewable Energy Initiative (R.E.I) has so far produced 24 initial inquiries, and we are hopeful that over time some of these will develop into firm business. The REI was never going to produce quick wins but is about raising awareness.

  VAT Registration
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have(a) registered and (b) de-registered for VAT since 1997 in each of the 88 deprived local authorities in England. [156712]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit has defined 88 local authorities in England as being deprived for the purposes of targeting the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. The number of VAT registrations and de-registrations for each deprived local authority between 1997 and 2002 is available from the Libraries of the House. Data for 2003 will not be available until autumn 2004.

  Working Time
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many initiatives designed to support innovative working time reform have been sponsored by her Department since 1997; and at what cost. [158843]
  1287W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Work Life Balance Challenge Fund has helped employers develop and implement flexible working policies through 448 projects, helping some 1.2 million employees, at a cost of £10.5 million over the last three years. As a result over 80 per cent. of these employers report that they permit some of their employees to adopt flexible working-time arrangements. The Work Life Balance Campaign has spent £1.2 million this year promoting flexible working, producing publicity materials such as our current "50 cases studies" booklet. This helps employers see how firms can adapt flexible work policies, and shows such policies are generally inexpensive but often produce substantial savings. The campaign also helps to sponsor events including the Work Life Balance Trust week-long awareness campaigns that take place each September, and increases awareness of the benefits of work-life balance for those who have to care for elder dependents.

  In addition, from April 2003, mothers and fathers with children under six or disabled children under 18 have the right to request a flexible working pattern, which equates to 3.7 million employees eligible to make a request. In the RIA before implementation of the flexible working law we estimated the total recurring costs to employers at £296 million: implementation costs of £6 million, with a £34 million one-off cost; request handling £114 million; and accommodating changes to working patterns £176 million. As the legislation has been in operation for less than a year we do not have confirmation of these estimates at this time.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) the British Chambers of Commerce, (b) the Federation of Small Businesses, (c) the Confederation of British Industry and (d) Labour Members of the European Parliament regarding the UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive. [158845]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets with the CBI on a monthly basis to discuss a variety of issues, including Working Time. To my knowledge, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not discussed Working Time with either the British Chambers of Commerce or the Federation of Small Businesses; however, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise and I have with the Federation of Small Businesses very recently, although

  Disability Living Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit

  Attendance Allowance

  Ward name2

  Number of recipients3

  Percentage of population4

  Number of recipients3

  Percentage of population4

  Number of recipients3

  Percentage of population4

  Acton

  240

  9.73

  195

  11.47

  160

  20.86

  Borras Park

  110

  5.11

  120

  7.34

  65

  12.45

  Bronington

  85

  3.21

  85

  3.89

  65

  13.89

  Brymbo

  220

  10.40

  185

  10.99

  90

  21.03

  Brynyffynnon

  175

  6.87

  185

  8.59

  90

  22.96

  Bryn Cefn

  120

  7.75

  130

  10.10

  50

  18.94

  Cartrefle

  185

  10.65

  180

  13.47

  105

  26.79

  Cefn

  460

  11.81

  395

  12.99

  215

  25.12

  Dyffryn Ceiriog/Ceiriog Valley

  90

  4.83

  90

  6.24

  60

  14.25

  Chirk North

  135

  6.84

  115

  7.28

  60

  15.58

  Chirk South

  65

  4.33

  55

  5.10

  70

  16.59

  Coedpoeth

  285

  7.64

  275

  9.06

  140

  20.23

  Erddig

  115

  6.24

  75

  5.18

  90

  22.78

  Esclusham

  190

  8.95

  145

  8.45

  80

  19.66

  Garden Village

  85

  4.92

  75

  5.97

  65

  13.63

  Gresford East and West

  100

  4.10

  110

  6.20

  150

  22.35

  1288W
  they did not ask for Working Time to be on the agenda on either of these occasions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has telephoned Stephen Hughes MEP about the Working Time Directive and I visited the European Parliament on 20 January and saw several MEP's including Gary Titley and Claude Moraes. Officials in my Department frequently meet various organisations, representing all sides of business and employees, to discuss Working Time including the opt-out.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the(a) reform and (b) removal of the UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive. [158846]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government are committed to the retention of the opt-out from the 48-hour weekly working time limit. We are concerned to hear about possible misuse of the opt-out but do not believe that this is a reason to abolish it. It is better, we believe, if it were to be established that there are problem areas, to consider what safeguards are necessary to ensure that it works properly.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Eddisbury on 5 February on the UK opt-out from the EU Working Time Directive. [158847]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The PQ tabled by the hon. Member for Eddisbury on 5 February, was answered on 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 497W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many adults are in receipt of(a) Disability Living Allowance, (b) Incapacity Benefit and (c) Attendance Allowance in each of the local authority wards in Wrexham for the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage of the population this represents. [158714]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of adults in receipt of the benefits listed, in each of the local authority wards in Wrexham, is indicated in the table.
  1289W

  Disability Living Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit

  Attendance Allowance

  Ward name2

  Number of recipients3

  Percentage of population4

  Number of recipients. 3

  Percentage of population4

  Number of recipients3

  Percentage of population4

  Grosvenor

  135

  6.68

  140

  9.04

  120

  25.21

  Gwenfro

  155

  11.22

  145

  13.06

  70

  25.93

  Gwersyllt East and South

  215

  6.26

  200

  6.90

  100

  18.87

  Gwersyllt North

  185

  9.04

  190

  10.66

  55

  20.30

  Gwersyllt West

  245

  10.18

  185

  9.07

  105

  28.53

  Hermitage

  205

  10.63

  225

  15.35

  110

  23.50

  Holt

  145

  6.30

  115

  6.18

  90

  20.50

  Johnstown

  210

  7.87

  200

  9.12

  95

  19.75

  Little Acton

  95

  4.90

  80

  5.25

  60

  14.39

  Llangollen Rural

  90

  5.56

  90

  7.12

  65

  18.11

  Llay

  285

  7.18

  250

  7.67

  130

  18.49

  Maesydre

  150

  9.07

  120

  9.97

  75

  16.74

  Marchwiel

  90

  4.61

  90

  5.59

  60

  17.39

  Marford and Hoseley

  50

  2.56

  45

  2.74

  25

  8.09

  Minera

  110

  5.56

  110

  6.71

  45

  13.16

  New Broughton

  175

  6.83

  195

  9.38

  105

  21.47

  Offa

  110

  5.96

  no

  7.04

  45

  16.07

  Overton

  75

  2.97

  65

  3.29

  90

  16.39

  Pant

  170

  9.64

  185

  13.34

  90

  24.00

  Penycae

  195

  11.33

  190

  12.82

  45

  18.83

  Penycae and Ruabon South

  140

  7.34

  145

  9.29

  65

  18.73

  Plas Madoc

  210

  15.85

  260

  23.57

  50

  22.52

  Ponciau

  310

  8.27

  320

  11.30

  240

  26.32

  Queensway

  185

  10.81

  280

  18.87

  45

  19.57

  Rhosnesni

  130

  5.31

  110

  5.36

  65

  16.37

  Rossett

  85

  3.17

  85

  4.00

  85

  15.04

  Ruabon

  150

  7.84

  185

  12.42

  80

  18.91

  Smithfield

  195

  10.67

  210

  14.41

  95

  25.61

  Stansty

  155

  8.58

  115

  8.44

  85

  18.97

  Whitegate

  205

  9.44

  215

  11.43

  50

  16.67

  Wynnstay

  235

  14.89

  250

  19.17

  60

  21.98

  1 Wards are based on 2003 Ward boundaries.

  2 Number of Recipients—DLA aged 17 and over, IB aged 16 and over, AA aged 65 and over.

  3 Percentage rates based on relevant resident populations from the 2001 Census (DLA Population aged 16 and over, IB Population aged 16–65, AA Population aged 65 and over).

  4 All ward level benefit data is the latest currently available, August 2002.

  Notes:

  1. The figures given for incapacity benefit exclude residual severe disablement allowance cases.

  2. All benefit counts have been rounded to a multiple of five to protect the confidentiality of individual claimants, percentages have been rounded to two decimal places.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, Department for Work and Pensions.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to simplify the procedure for individuals wishing to request the direct payment of their benefits. [156825]

  Mr. Pond
  Continual monitoring and evaluation throughout the conversion process has resulted in the implementation of a number of improvements to letters, leaflets, scripts and the forms that customers complete. We will continue to monitor our operational processes closely and will make further changes if we see any evidence in future that these are not working effectively.

  Disabled People
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many projects in Greater London received funding to promote participation by disabled people in the workplace in each year since 1997. [158450]

  Maria Eagle
  Jobcentre Plus run a number of national programmes to help disabled people overcome barriers to employment; all of these are available in London.
  1290W
  The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) supports the Government's commitment to "work for those who can and support for those who cannot" and is designed to help people with disabilities and health conditions in finding and sustaining paid employment. NDDP is the first programme specifically designed to support people on disability and health-related benefits into employment. Participation in NDDP is entirely voluntary.

  The Access to Work programme is open to disabled people already in employment (including self-employment), people changing jobs and unemployed people about to start work. It helps towards the additional employment costs resulting from disability.

  In April 2001, the former Supported Employment Programme was modernised and renamed Workstep; it places greater emphasis on developing disabled people and helping them move into mainstream employment where possible.
  1291W
  Work Preparation is an individually tailored programme that enables people to overcome barriers to work associated with their disability, and prepares them to join the labour market with the necessary confidence to find and keep work.

  The Job Introduction Scheme provides a weekly grant of £75 towards the employment costs incurred during the first few weeks of employment. This is usually paid for six weeks but may be extended to a total of 13 weeks. The scheme is for use at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus staff in situations where a disabled applicant is considered suitable, but the employer has genuine doubts about the individual's ability to cope with the proposed job or place of work.

  Ethnic Minority Outreach Programme
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to announce the extension of the Ethnic Minority Outreach Programme. [156122]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the extension of the Ethnic Minority Outreach Programme in July 2002 as part of the 2002 Spending Review 'Opportunity and Security for All'.

  The additional £14 million funding will be available from April 2004 for two years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to make a further announcement at this time.

  Ministerial Visits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Leicester; [156123]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his visit to open the outreach centre provided by Business-to-Business (UK) Ltd. [156126]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend has not visited Leicester recently. However, I was pleased to be able to visit the two Jobcentre Plus Offices in Charles street and Wellington street, Leicester on 4 February 2004, where I met staff, employers and partners who work in or use the offices. Jobcentre Plus in Leicester now offers a truly modern service, offering a range of job and benefit help to its customers—including access to more than 400,000 vacancies Europe-wide.

  I also visited Leicester on 25 November 2003 to open the Business-to-Business service, awarded a contract by Jobcentre Plus to deliver Outreach services to the local ethnic minority population. I look forward to seeing the results generated by this innovative provision.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding has been allocated to advertising for each of the New Deal programmes in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [153462]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information on advertising media spend for the New Deal programme since 1997 is in the table.
  1292W

  New Deal programme

  Spend1 (£)

  1997–98

  New Deal

  3,571,000

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  54,000

  1998–99

  New Deal

  4,381,000

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  1,400,000

  1999–2000

  New Deal

  261,000

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  655,000

  New Deal for Partners

  201,000

  2000–01

  New Deal 50 Plus

  2,270,000

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  1,588,000

  2001–02

  New Deal 25 Plus

  613,000

  New Deal for Disabled People

  350,000

  2002–03

  New Deal for Musicians

  33,000

  2003–042

  New Deal

  5,800.000

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and exclude VAT.

  2 Allocated budget.

  Notes:

  1. Unless otherwise specified, spend is for generic New Deal advertising.

  2. Figures exclude provision to advertise some local New Deal activities. This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Source:

  COI Communications.

  Students
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what joint projects his Department is conducting with the Department for Education and Skills to increase the number of students entering(a) access courses and (b) further education; and what progress has been made to date. [156803]

  Mr. Browne
  This Department is not conducting any joint projects with the Department for Education and Skills to increase the number of students entering access courses and further education.

  However, through Work Based Learning for Adults, this Department does offer people access to a range of occupational skills training and gives them the opportunity to work towards a recognised qualification that will increase their chances of finding work.

  We also contribute to the Department for Education and Skills' target on Basic Skills by screening clients for basic skills needs, making referrals for assessment and then offering training to those who need it.

  Trust Beneficiaries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for what reason distributions from trusts are disregarded by the Department for the purposes of assessing care and means tested benefits, with particular reference to beneficiaries of the Macfarlane and Eileen trusts; and if he will make a statement. [154979]

  (2) for what reasons the Department does not permit beneficiaries of the Thalidomide Trust to discount their distributions when being assessed for care and means tested benefits; and if he will make a statement. [154981]

  Maria Eagle
  The purpose of means tested benefits is to safeguard against anyone falling below a standard set by Parliament as being the minimum subsistence level. They are paid out of public funds and do not require
  1293W
  National Insurance contributions to have been paid by the beneficiaries. The rules on the treatment of income and capital strike a balance between protecting people who are less well off and protecting the taxpayer by ensuring that help is directed towards people who need it most.

  The Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts exist to help people who have been infected with HIV from contaminated blood products received as part of NHS treatment and are government funded. At the time the trusts were set up, there was considerable stigma attached to HIV and AIDS and it was considered inappropriate that people should have to disclose their condition to benefits staff. As such, it was decided that there should be no need to disclose payment from the Macfarlane or Eileen trusts.

  The Thalidomide Trust is a private scheme funded by pharmaceutical companies responsible for producing thalidomide. It is treated in the same way as other personal injury payments; capital that is placed in trust for an individual can be disregarded. Income from an individual's trust can also be disregarded as long as the income is used for other than day to day living expenses. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  The financial assessment for residential accommodation is assessed by the Department for Health. Payments from the Eileen and Macfarlane trusts are disregarded; payments from the Thalidomide Trust are taken into account in the same way as they are for assessing means tested benefits. For Home Care charges, councils have a minimum requirement to follow the capital rules for residential care; however, councils can be more generous if they wish.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sporting Opportunities (Children)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's progress on her Public Service Agreement target to enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by five to 16-year-olds. [158925]

  Mr. Caborn
  Data on the number of pupils who choose to take up the entitlement to two hours each week of high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum are currently being collected for the first time. The results will be published in April.

  Initial findings from Phase 1 School Sport Partnerships, published last week, provide compelling evidence of the difference that School Sport Partnerships are making.

  Second World War
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Heritage Lottery Fund has to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. [158926]

  Estelle Morris
  Lottery distributors recognise this important anniversary. The New Opportunities Fund has announced an initiative called "Veterans Reunited"1294W
  and the Heritage Lottery Fund will make a further announcement shortly on how it expects to lend its support.

  School Playing Fields
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on lottery funding for school playing fields. [158927]

  Mr. Caborn
  Lottery funding will continue to be made available for the provision of new school sports facilities—including playing fields.

  The Government have put in place a number of measures to safeguard existing playing fields and to ensure that effective community use is being made of them.

  Museums
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the contribution of museums to the UK economy in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [158928]

  Estelle Morris
  The National Museums and Galleries sponsored by my Department attract around 9 million tourists from overseas annually and so make a significant contribution to our economy. In this context, I look forward to the publication tomorrow of the report by the National Museums' Directors' Conference: "Valuing Museums", and to considering its findings.

  Mr. Hugo Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many museums in receipt of grants from the National Lottery have closed in each of the past three years. [158929]

  Estelle Morris
  No museum registered through the MLA, and which has been in receipt of grants from the National Lottery, has closed in the past three years. We have information only on registered museums.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the authorities representing rugby union about the improvement of stadia. [158930]

  Mr. Caborn
  I recently met Howard Thomas, Chief Executive of Premier Rugby, to discuss his proposal for the creation of a Rugby Union Stadia Development Trust to help rugby clubs improve the capacity of their stadia.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Office of Fair Trading investigation into the control of horse racing. [158931]

  Mr. Caborn
  The racing authorities are in continuing discussion with the OFT about their response to the Rule 14 notice which it issued. It remains my hope that these discussions produce a satisfactory outcome.

  Digital Television
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media arid Sport what progress has been made with the digital television act on plan with respect to the dates for analogue switch-off in different regions; and if she will make a statement. [158933]

  Tessa Jowell
  We are working with the stakeholders, within the Digital Television Action Plan, to ensure that the availability and affordability criteria set for switchover are met so that we can, if we choose, take the decision to order the switching off of analogue terrestrial transmission by 2010. We expect implementation of this to be phased over four years, region by region. The exact timetable and the order in which regions will be switched has yet to be determined. We arc having discussions with the stakeholders and will undertake a public consultation before we announce the timetable.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to encourage the sale of digital television sets; and if she will make a statement. [158718]

  Estelle Morris
  Consumers who are planning to buy a new television set should be able to make an informed choice between buying a television sot with digital decoder integrated into it, and a television set that will require a set top box to enable it to be used for viewing digital television broadcasts. Through the Digital Television Action Plan, we are working with broadcasters, manufacturers, retailers and consumer representatives to make sure that consumers have clear and consistent information, including helpful messages about the benefits of digital equipment.

  Applicant

  Programme name

  Award amount (£)

  ADUN Society

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  5,000

  Afro Caribbean Resource Centre Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  5,000

  Almeida Theatre Company Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  1,000,000

  Art Asia Trust Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  3,500

  Asian Music Circuit Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  53,132

  Asian Music Circuit Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  100,000

  Association of Black Photographers

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  4,535,450

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Belgrade Theatre Trust (Coventry) Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,741,000

  Bernie Grant Centre Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; Institute of Indian Culture

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  150,000

  Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd

  Capital Programme One

  1,000,000

  Black Voices Limited

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  100,000

  Bluecoat Arts Centre Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,750,000

  Bristol City Council

  Capital Programme One

  2,060,000

  Centre for the Children's Book

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  465,000

  Chichester Festival Theatre

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  510,669

  Chinese Arts Centre (CAC)

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  100,000

  Colchester Borough Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  5,000,000

  Creative Art House

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  970,000

  Dance North Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  700,000

  Licensed Premises (Policing Costs)
  Mr. John Denham
  What assessment she has made of the implications of allowing police authorities to raise a levy on city centre licensed premises to pay for policing costs. [158935]

  Mr. Caborn
  We do not consider that the case has yet been made for imposing a compulsory levy on licensed premises for the costs of policing. We believe that the right way forward is through voluntary schemes where they can be justified. The implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England to be published shortly will do a great deal to address the issues that the honourable Member has previously raised about the policing of the night-time economy.

  Arts Council Grants
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the Arts Council grants for capital projects by(a) name and (b) funding level for each year since 1998; [159232]

  (2) if she will list by (a) name and (b) the revenue funding level the Arts Council grants paid in each year since 1998 to (i) dance companies, (ii) theatre/drama companies, (iii) opera companies, (iv) visual arts organisations, (v) literature organisations and (vi) other arts organisations. [159234]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the Arts Council grants for Capital projects broken down by funding level, which were agreed but not commenced, as at 1 March 2004. [159233]

  Estelle Morris
  The following table supplied by Arts Council England lists all Capital projects where the first payment has not yet been made. Awards made in the recent Grants for the Arts Capital round, announced in February this year, have not been included. In total the list comprises 54 projects totalling £77,105,741.
  1297W

  Applicant

  Programme name

  Award amount (£)

  Derby City Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Derby City Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  60,000

  Derby City Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,500,000

  Devon Guild Of Craftsmen

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  150,000

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Hackney Empire Theatre

  Capital Programme One

  1,000,000

  Hampshire County Council

  Capital Programme One

  100,000

  Hampshire County Council

  Capital Programme One

  400,000

  Hextable School

  Capital Programme One

  1.983.103

  Inner City Music Limited

  Capital Programme One

  247,725

  Jazz Services Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Junction CDC Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  300,000

  Kent County Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Kent County Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  60,000

  Kent County Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  250,000

  Lowry Centre Trust

  Capital Programme round 1

  250,000

  Lyric Theatre Hammersmith Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  220,000

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Capital Programme One

  4,150,000

  Momentum Arts

  Arts Programme round 1

  25,000

  Momentum Arts

  Arts Programme round 1

  70,000

  Norfolk and Norwich Film Theatre Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  2,559,728

  Northern Ballet Theatre Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  2,560,457

  Northern Stage

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  500,000

  Northern Stage

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,432,649

  Palace Theatre Watford Ltd.

  Capital Programme round 1

  250,000

  Photographers' Gallery

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  3,420,000

  Roundhouse Trust

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Roundhouse Trust

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  1,200,000

  Roundhouse Trust

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,560,000

  Salisbury Arts Centre

  Capital Programme One

  393,820

  Salisbury Arts Centre

  Capital Programme One

  1.561,708

  Skylight Circus Arts

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  25,000

  Slough Borough Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  70,000

  South Bank Board Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  94,000

  South Bank Board Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  242,000

  South Bank Board Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  20,000,000

  Southampton City Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Southampton City Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  70,000

  Spike Island Artspace Ltd.

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  750,000

  Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  80,000

  Stroud Valley Artspace

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  188,100

  The Art Exchange

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  100,000

  The Art Exchange

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  2,708,000

  Theatre Royal Plymouth Ltd.

  Capital Programme One

  250,000

  Torridge District Council

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  25,000

  Unicorn Theatre for Children

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  500,000

  University of Lincoln

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  50,000

  Yaa Asantewaa Arts and Community Centre

  Arts Capital Programme round 1

  100,000

  Athletics Track (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants can be made available for the provision of an athletics track in Chorley. [157976]

  Mr. Caborn
  Applications for grants for the provision of new athletics facilities can be made to the following programmes: Community Club Development Programme administered by Sport England, New Opportunities on Physical Education in Schools scheme administered by the New Opportunities Fund. Applications for grants for the refurbishment of existing athletics facilities can be made to Sport England.

  BBC Charter Review
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what budget has been set for the BBC Charter review process. [157796]
  1298W
  Tessa Jowell
  Provision for Charter Review is made within the overall departmental budget. The first phase for which figures are available is the public consultation, which is expected to cost around £330,000 in the 2003–04 financial year, excluding staff costs.

  Cricket Tour (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will instruct the England and Wales Cricket Board not to proceed with its planned tour of Zimbabwe this year. [159231]

  Mr. Caborn
  The decision to tour in Zimbabwe is entirely a matter for the ECB. There are no powers for the Government to intervene in any way. However, because of the deteriorating political and human rights
  1299W
  situation in the country, I do not support the tour, in the same way that I would not support any activity capable of being used by the Mugabe regime for propaganda purposes.

  National Lottery
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Heritage Lottery

  Table (a): Lottery funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, (excluding awards for all grants)

  £

  Local authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Barking and Dagenham

  506,900 (3)

  Nil

  23,000 (2)

  620,800 (2)

  464,000(1)

  49,700(1)

  Barnet

  Nil

  Nil

  4,847,600 (4)

  458,600 (2)

  24,500 (1)

  Bexley

  Nil

  Nil

  126,600(3)

  15,600(1)

  143,000(3)

  45,000(1)

  Brent

  Nil

  Nil

  224,600 (4)

  872,000 (2)

  129,900 (6)

  26,800 (2)

  Bromley

  650,675 (2)

  Nil

  615,100 (3)

  Nil

  Nil

  89,500 (2)

  Camden

  53,200 (1)

  1,342,020 (5)

  398,800 (9)

  4,913,300 (18)

  6,152,740 (19)

  8,201,200 (18)

  City of London

  392,000 (3)

  243,000 (1)

  149,500 (1)

  39,800 (7)

  498,300 (3)

  99,934 (3)

  Croydon

  39,000(1)

  61,800(1)

  290,100 (2)

  48,700 (3)

  94,800 (2)

  66,700 (3)

  Ealing

  139,000 (1)

  239,100 (5)

  174,700 (4)

  22,400 (1)

  Enfield

  2,400,700 (3)

  95,546 (2)

  126,200 (3)

  343,000 (1)

  3,800 (1)

  Nil

  Greenwich

  1,698,000 (4)

  184,200 (2)

  10,891,600 (9)

  221,100(3)

  460,500 (3)

  437,400 (4)

  Hackney

  992,400 (3)

  1,612,800 (6)

  4,094,800 (7)

  617,700 (10)

  5,240,450 (7)

  954,600 (5)

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Nil

  Nil

  46,900 (1)

  25,000 (2)

  361,400 (6)

  102,300 (4)

  Haringey

  Nil

  Nil

  226,500 (5)

  2,862,750 (4)

  177,400 (3)

  73,000 (3)

  Harrow

  62 8,600 (2)

  Nil

  15,700 (1)

  Nil

  100,500 (2)

  50,000 (1)

  Havering

  Nil

  Nil

  335,000 (1)

  Nil

  Nil

  50,000 (1)

  Hillingdon

  Nil

  Nil

  24,400 (1)

  57,300 (3)

  48,600 (1)

  Nil

  Hounslow

  618,000(1)

  Nil

  361,200(3,

  177,400(4)

  173,100 (5)

  100,000 (2)

  Islington

  3,503,000 (3)

  595,200 (3)

  595,000 (6)

  2,674,900 (7)

  615,732 (11)

  204,800 (6)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,389,920 (4)

  100,900 (2)

  341,900 (5)

  1,140,020 (8)

  4,074,400 (11)

  15,359,200 (6)

  Kingston Upon Thames

  Nil

  Nil

  31,300(1)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Lambeth

  488,000 (4)

  877,300 (5)

  543,500 (5)

  122,500 (2)

  15,045,400 (3)

  73,700 (2)

  Lewisham

  11,059,200(4)

  1,342,000(1)

  22,500 (1)

  575,314 (4)

  1,369,200(3)

  648,300

  Southwark

  2,961,000 (4)

  Nil

  1,269,600 (11)

  28,900 (3)

  2,821,200 (7)

  651,600 (5)

  Sutton

  Nil

  Nil

  36,900 (2)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Tower Hamlets

  464,200 (8)

  352,000 (3)

  1,156,200 (9)

  6,334,700 (10)

  7,657,800 (16)

  2,015,300 (13)

  Waltham Forest

  Nil

  612,300 (2)

  275,000 (1)

  364,000 (2)

  109,355 (3)

  201,800(5)

  Wandsworth

  127,000 (1)

  298,900 (2)

  366,800 (4)

  598,000 (2)

  686,000 (3)

  29,000 (1)

  Westminster

  7,055,317 (16)

  5,953,006 (20)

  15,462,300 (123)

  18,312,102 (20)

  4,074,942 (15)

  14,249,500 (16)

  Total

  53,352,812 (92)

  13,901,072 (58)

  42,975,700 (123)

  41,529,186 (128)

  51,519,219 (148)

  44,477,784 (121)

  Table (b): Awards for all grants, that the Heritage Lottery Fund have made with other Distributing Bodies

  £

  Local authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,635 (1)

  13,635 (3)

  16,199 (4)

  4,600 (2)

  6,616 (2)

  Barnet

  3,500 (1)

  19,996 (6)

  5,000 (1)

  10,941 (3)

  6,523 (2)

  Bexley

  6,579 (2)

  12,154 (3)

  8,690 (2)

  Nil

  1,667 (1)

  Brent

  Nil

  17,064 (4)

  30,270 (7)

  35,002 (8)

  12,762 (3)

  Bromley

  19,285 (7)

  15,575(5)

  16,065 (5)

  5,000(1)

  3,960(1)

  Camden

  5,000 (1)

  64,284 (14)

  4,980 (1)

  35,707 (8)

  17,979 (4)

  City of London

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Croydon

  7,946 (2)

  18,405 (4)

  28,464 (7)

  16,500(4)

  11,930(4)

  Ealing

  3,809 (1)

  13,410(3)

  12,790(3)

  13,632 (3)

  4,900(1)

  Enfield

  4,997 (1)

  20,147(5)

  9,526 (3)

  14,650 (3)

  15,000(3)

  Greenwich

  18,728 (5)

  28,813 (7)

  24,955 (5)

  14,616(4)

  22,622 (5)

  Hackney

  4,670(1)

  8,600 (2)

  60,005(15)

  35,969 (9)

  29,460 (6)

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,500(1)

  9,850 (3)

  4,950(1)

  2,000(1)

  2,230(1)

  Haringey

  6,710 (2)

  20,320 (5)

  14,671 (3)

  38,655 (8)

  9,250 (2)

  Harrow

  2,980 (3)

  23,771 (5)

  5,000(1)

  13,142(1)

  19,370 (4)

  Havering

  3,180(2)

  7,957 (3)

  1,571 (1)

  10,175(3)

  3,850(1)

  Hillingdon

  2,500 (1)

  8,239 (2)

  9,876 (2)

  3,650(1)

  9,400 (2)

  Hounslow

  3,213(1)

  18,106(4)

  19,686 (5)

  Nil

  9,950 (2)

  Islington

  1,5188(4)

  40,965(11)

  18,800(4)

  18,769(4)

  9,030 (2)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Nil

  2,700(1)

  5,000 (1)

  9,940 (2)

  Nil

  Kingston Upon Thames

  1,7675(5)

  3,688 (1)

  4,947 (2)

  10,000 (2)

  9,999 (2)

  Lambeth

  3,750 (1)

  55,945(13)

  43,684(10)

  34,586 (10)

  11,350(3)

  Lewisham

  9,363 (2)

  9,610(3)

  23,890 (5)

  29,261 (7)

  4,530(1)

  Merton

  3,227(1)

  12,203(3)

  Nil

  4,250(1)

  9,350 (2)

  Newham

  9,900 (2)

  23,145(5)

  14,340 (3)

  33,650 (7)

  39,848 (8)

  Redbridge

  Nil

  8,486 (2)

  Nil

  21,923(6)

  10,000 (2)

  1300W
  funding has been awarded in (a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years; and how many projects were awarded funding. [158435]

  Estelle Morris
  These figures have been supplied by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Both tables have figures for each London borough, in each of the last five financial years. The figure in brackets is the number of decisions made.
  1301W

  Table (b): Awards for all grants, that the Heritage Lottery Fund have made wit), other Distributing Bodies

  £

  Local authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–T2

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,954(2)

  17,000 (4)

  Nil

  10,715(3)

  Nil

  Southwark

  14,900(3)

  41,103(11)

  20,411 (5)

  39,649 (9)

  21,150 (5)

  Sutton

  9,250 (2)

  4,676 (1)

  4,250 (1)

  500 (1)

  2,550 (1)

  Tower Hamlets

  19,400 (3)

  39,170 (9)

  20,905 (5)

  24,468 (5)

  48,692 (10)

  Waltham Forest

  18,006(5)

  21,764 (5)

  19,754 (4)

  36,284 (8)

  4,281 (1)

  Wandsworth

  Nil

  1,958 (1)

  Nil

  6,040 (2)

  3,400(1)

  Westminster

  10,000(2)

  10,000 (2)

  20,261 (5)

  10,000 (2)

  9,820 (2)

  Total

  236,845 (64)

  571,636 (150)

  468,940 (111)

  544,274 (130)

  371,469 (84)

  North-West (Transport Links)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport about improving(a) rail and (b) road links to the North West to allow quicker access for tourists. [158616]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) works with the Department for Transport to ensure that tourism priorities are given due consideration in transport policy.

  On 1 April 2003, the North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA) took on strategic responsibility for tourism in the North West region. DCMS has issued guidance to all the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on how tourism should be incorporated in their Corporate Plans and Regional Economic Strategies; this includes the importance of linking regional tourism strategies with regional transport strategies.

  I understand that the three northern RDAs have commissioned a 20-year transport vision for the North of England, due to be launched in April 2004. It will recommend a number of strategic transport projects that will seek to improve the economic performance of the North, including tourism in the North West.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people travelled by(a) road and (b) rail to holiday in (i) the North West and (ii) Lancashire in 2003. [158617]

  Mr. Caborn
  I understand from the North West Tourist Board that statistics on tourism performance for 2003 will not be available until the middle of the year. I will write to my hon. Friend again once the figures have been received.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates she has made of public library spending in each year since 1990 on(a) information and communications technology equipment, (b) building renovations, (c) book stocks and (d) audio-visual material stocks; and if she will make a statement. [158967]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally. However, information about expenditure on libraries, including expenditure on book and audio-visual material stocks is contained in the annual Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Public Library Statistics, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Remembrance Services
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much has been allocated from the New Opportunities Fund to fund travel expenses of ex-servicemen and women wanting to travel to remembrance services in each year since its introduction; [158968]

  (2) for how long the New Opportunities Fund has provided travel expenses to ex-servicemen and women wanting to attend remembrance services in (a) the UK and (b) Europe; [158969]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the provision of financial aid through the New Opportunities Fund to help ex-servicemen and women travel to remembrance services; [158971]

  (4) what criteria were used when deciding whether individual servicemen and women are entitled to benefit from the funding of their travel expenses to remembrance services by the New Opportunities Fund; [158973]

  (5) how many servicemen and women have benefited from the funding of travel expenses to remembrance services by the New Opportunities Fund in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [158974]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund launched its Heroes Return scheme on 9 February 2004. This scheme is providing £10 million funding for Second World War veterans their wives or husbands, widows or widowers, and, where required., carers to visit the overseas areas where the veterans saw active service. The main criterion is that ex-servicemen and women saw active service with or alongside the British Armed Forces in the Second World War. Further details on the Heroes Return can be obtained from the Veterans Agency on 0800 169 2277.

  A second scheme, Home Front Recall, will be launched later in the spring. This will provide funding projects and events in the UK for veterans and others within the broader community to commemorate the events leading to the end of the Second World War. More details of how this scheme will operate will be available when it is launched.

  The New Opportunities Fund has not previously operated a scheme in relation to veterans, but the National Lottery as a whole has provided over £3 million of funding to veterans and veterans organisations since 1995.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether ex-servicemen and women from(a) Scotland, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Wales and (d) England are entitled to equal

  1303W
  financial aid through the New Opportunities Fund to travel to remembrance services in (i) the UK and (ii) Europe. [158970]

  Estelle Morris
  On (i), the New Opportunities Fund will shortly be launching its Home Front Recall scheme, which will fund the costs of commemorative projects and events in the UK to mark the events that led to the end of the second world war. Details of the application process for grants will be announced when the scheme is launched later in the spring, but it will be a UK-wide scheme providing funding in all four UK countries.

  On (ii), the New Opportunities Fund launched its Heroes Return scheme in February 2004. This scheme provides funding for second world war veterans, their wives or husbands, widows or widowers, and, where required, carers to visit the areas in Europe (and, indeed, other parts of the world) where the veterans saw active service. It is a UK-wide scheme and veterans from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are entitled to equal financial assistance.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she received from ex-servicemen and women during the creation of the initiative by the New Opportunities Fund to fund their travel expenses to remembrance services. [158972]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund (NOF), as part of its role in developing the Heroes Return scheme, has discussed the scheme widely with veterans and veterans' organisations. In particular, the fund has worked closely with the Confederation of British Service and Ex-service Organisations (COBSEO), which is the representative body for the UK's veterans' organisations, since the Heroes Return scheme was first proposed. In addition, the fund has arranged meetings with many of the major veterans organisations, such as the Royal British Legion. COBSEO and NOF are currently running seminars across the UK to explain the nature of the Heroes Return scheme directly to a large number of veterans' organizations

  S4C
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to complete the review of the funding for S4C. [158932]

  Tessa Jowell
  Following a request from the S4C Authority, I have commissioned an independent review of S4C, to be carried out by Roger Laughton, Head of Bournemouth University Media School. He will be assisted by Meurig Royles as Welsh language assessor. I have asked Mr. Laughton to report back to me at the beginning of May.

  Tourism Prospectus
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department expects to release the Tourism Prospectus announced on 17 November 2003. [159253]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is anticipated that the Prospectus will be released by the early summer The first round of consultation last year produced a number of valuable contributions from stakeholders These have been 1304W
  reflected in a new draft, which will be sent out for final stakeholder consultation in the next few weeks. The Prospectus will be an agreed statement of actions and responsibilities between the major players in tourism, both in the public and private sectors.

  Weymouth Transmitter
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Weymouth transmitter will be upgraded. [159236]

  Estelle Morris
  Broadcasters, through contracts with transmission operators, are responsible for maintaining the terrestrial network. But until the analogue signals are turned off, there will not be enough frequencies available to enable all the transmitters to carry digital terrestrial services. We believe that digital switchover could be achieved between 2006 and 2010, subject to our affordability and availability criteria being met.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died from cancer in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [157336]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following table gives the number of deaths registered in Northern Ireland each year from 1993 to 2002 caused by "malignant neoplasms"1.

  1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes C00–C97 (2001–2002) and the Ninth Revision (ICD–9) codes 140–208 (1993–2000).

  Number of registered deaths by year in Northern Ireland caused by "malignant neoplasms"

  Deaths

  1993

  3,624

  1994

  3,595

  1995

  3,491

  1996

  3,623

  1997

  3,589

  1998

  3,648

  1999

  3,552

  2000

  3,541

  2001

  3,696

  2002

  3,652

  Citizenship Ceremonies
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether citizenship ceremonies will take place in Northern Ireland. [157825]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Yes, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 applies to all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Alternative Power Sources
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made in the development of alternative power sources in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [157657]
  1305W
  Mr. Pearson
  During the past year, the ability of the Northern Ireland electricity system to accommodate a broad range of renewable energy generation has been fully assessed, as has the potential for generating electricity from tidal streams in the waters around Northern Ireland.

  Renewable energy generation connected to the Northern Ireland grid increased from 45 megawatts in 2002 to 86 megawatts in 2003. All of this increase was wind based, although important projects using wood waste (five megawatts) and landfill gas (four megawatts) will be completed during 2004.

  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is currently assessing the economic potential of biomass for energy generation in Northern Ireland and will report its conclusions in the autumn.

  I intend to support the development of renewable energy by introducing a Renewable Obligation from April 2005 and I will be consulting shortly on the draft scheme of operation and legislation for the Obligation.

  Assembly Deputy Speakers
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) role and (b) cost of the deputy speakers of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been since suspension. [156668]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The status of the Deputy Speakers, under Section 39 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, has not been affected by suspension but, since they have not been required to exercise any statutory functions, they have not received any payment as Deputy Speakers.

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland from people associated with(a) Loyalist paramilitaries and (b) Republican paramilitaries since its creation. [156609]

  Jane Kennedy
  Currently 24 cases are under active investigation by the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland with a total asset value of over £8 million. The agency has frozen assets in a total of four cases and adopted a further two cases for taxation. These cases involve around £2.7 million of assets. The cases cover the whole range of organised crime among all groupings and areas across Northern Ireland.

  Belfast City Airport
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will report the outcome of the review into the current planning agreement affecting Belfast City airport; and if he will make a statement. [159274]

  Angela Smith
  While Belfast City airport has formally requested a review of the current planning agreement, Planning Service has not yet been advised of what changes to the agreement they are proposing. However, to move this issue forward a meeting with representatives of the City airport has been scheduled for 10 March 2004.
  1306W
  I am, therefore, not yet in a position to advise when the outcome of such a review will be known.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend provisions against discrimination against people on grounds of disability. [152593]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are committed to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people in Northern Ireland and are continuing to build on the significant impact made by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). We intend to extend the DDA to provide further protection for people with disabilities.

  New Regulations, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004, will extend and improve protection for disabled people in the field of employment and vocational training from 1 October 2004.

  A number of measures in relation to transport will extend protection for disabled people in Northern Ireland. The Department of the Environment intends to begin consultation in April 2004 on proposals to implement the Government's commitment on making (public hire) taxis accessible to disabled people.

  The Department of the Environment also intends to extend provisions relating to the carrying of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other prescribed categories of dogs to licensed drivers of private hire vehicles in mid 2004.

  The Northern Ireland Executive agreed in principle to proceed to removal of the transport exemption in Northern Ireland. It is proposed to issue a Northern Ireland consultation document on the removal of the exemption based on the consultation by the Department for Transport in Great Britain by May 2004.

  In education, Special Educational Needs and Disability legislation, which will effectively extend the provisions of the DDA to education in Northern Ireland, is in preparation and is expected to be made later this year.

  Finally, the single Equality Bill which will harmonise (extending and updating where appropriate) existing anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland, including that relating to disability, will be the subject of a Green Paper public consultation in the spring.

  By extending the legislation in these ways we will strengthen and improve civil rights for disabled people.

  Government Records
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which documents are held by his office written by(a) P. H. Pearse, (b) Thomas J. Clarke, (c) Thomas Macdonagh, (d) Edward Daly, (e) William Pearse, (f) 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. [156302]
  1307W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is not possible to identify documents, which may have been written by the names listed, without detailed research covering a large number of documents. A full answer could therefore be provided only to the hon. Member at disproportionate cost. Government records are normally transferred to the National Archives after 30 years and information on these records can be accessed through its website at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

  Electronic Voting
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend legislation to enable the piloting of electronic counting of votes in(a) local council, (b) Assembly and (c) Westminster elections in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [158281]

  Mr. Spellar
  As I indicated in my reply of 15 December to the hon. Lady,Official Report, column 737W, the Government is interested in hearing views from interest parties on ensuring that election counts are as efficient and effective as possible. I am aware that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is looking at the issue of electronic counting.

  Fisheries
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in introducing transitional aid for Northern Ireland fishermen affected by this year's sea closures; and if he will make a statement on the timescale for aid. [158637]

  Mr. Pearson
  A transitional aid scheme has been drawn up in consultation with the local industry and is currently under consideration by the European Commission. My officials are pressing the Commission for their views, but I am not able to judge when I shall be in a position to announce the launch of the scheme.

  GM Crops
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is on the growing of genetically modified crops in Northern Ireland. [158871]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment is the competent authority within the UK regulatory system for the control of the deliberate release and marketing of genetically modified crops in Northern Ireland. The Department deals with applications to grow GM crops on a case-by-case basis and decisions are taken following advice received from the UK's statutory advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. There are currently no applications for GM trials or commercial growing in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Ministers are working closely with their counterparts in the rest of the UK, in considering the overall policy for genetic modification, based on the available evidence following the results of the farmscale trials and the outcome of the recent GM dialogue, and intend to set out their conclusions shortly.

  Killyleagh Development
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of Environment intends to make a statement on the proposed Gocean development in Killyleagh. [158531]

  Angela Smith
  I have now received a detailed report on this proposal and intend to make a decision very soon.

  MRSA
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance is available to(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other healthcare personnel on preventing the spread of MRSA in hospitals in Northern Ireland. [158872]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Medical Officer issued guidance to the Northern Ireland health service on MRSA and the management and control of hospital infection, and on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents, in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Leaflets and pamphlets on MRSA are also available from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for patients and their relatives, and in the form of guidelines for residential and nursing home staff for the management of residents with MRSA. The Department issued an Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan in 2002 and is taking forward many of its recommendations. Professional journals such as that of the Hospital Infection Society are also a valuable resource for healthcare personnel in their efforts to prevent the spread of MRSA and similar nosocomial infections.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died from MRSA in each hospital in Northern Ireland since 2000; what steps he is taking to reduce such deaths; and if he will make a statement. [158876]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Surveillance, which is an important tool in the fight against infection, is quantified in Northern Ireland by the reports of MRSA blood cultures published by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Its second annual report, for 2002–03, indicated that the overall rate of patient episodes of MRSA bacteraemias in acute hospital trusts showed a slight reduction, from 218 to 228 over the previous year while 39.1 per cent. of staphylococcus aureus patient episodes were MRSA compared to 39 per cent. These figures compare favourably with England and Scotland.

  Considerable resources have been devoted to addressing nosocomial infections, including MRSA, in the last three years. Hand hygiene has been particularly encouraged in hospitals. Figures indicate that there are currently 15 per cent. fewer prescriptions being written for antibiotic drugs than there were in 1998.

  Northern Ireland Assembly Commission
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) role, (b) composition and (c) budget of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission has been since suspension. [156667]
  1309W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Although the membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission remained unchanged following suspension, the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 prevent the Assembly Commission from meeting and transfer the Assembly Commission's functions to me, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Assembly Commission has therefore had no role or budget since suspension.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were used to decide whether to(a) purchase and (b) dispose of Northern Ireland Electricity lands at Camlough, Co.Armagh in relation to the aborted pump storage of electricity generation project. [157318]

  Mr. Pearson
  The lands were vested in the early 1970s to facilitate the intended development by the former Electricity Board for Northern Ireland of a pump storage electricity generation project. The compensation paid to the landowners was based on the assessed open market value of the lands at that time.

  Since the project did not proceed, the lands are being disposed of by Northern Ireland Electricity plc in accordance with a Disposal Strategy drawn up by the company and approved by the then Electricity Regulator under the terms of a formal Consent in 1997. The lands have been offered back to their original owners or their successors in title at the prices originally paid.

  Paramilitary Activities
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the involvement of the(a) Provisional IRA, (b) INLA, (c) Real IRA, (d) UDA, (e) UVF and (f) LVF in (i) punishment beatings, (ii) drug trafficking and dealing, (iii) intelligence gathering and (iv) violence. [156631]

  Jane Kennedy
  Both Loyalist and Republican paramilitary groups have been involved in paramilitary style attacks, intelligence gathering and violence. Paramilitaries have also been involved in drug trafficking and dealing. The Government do not comment on specific intelligence matters. It is now time for all paramilitary groupings to bring their activities to a complete and permanent end.

  Police (North Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police vehicles were assigned for patrol in North Belfast in each year since 1996. [156627]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of vehicles deployed on a daily basis within Northern Ireland (previously the three Sub-Divisions of Antrim Road/North Street/Tennent Street) over the years in question were:

  Number

  1996

  13 vehicles—10 Sub-Divisional Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  1997

  13 vehicles—10 Sub-Divisional Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  1310W

  Number

  1998

  13 vehicles—–10Sub-Divisional Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  1999

  13 vehicles— 10 Sub-Divisional Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  2000

  13 vehicles—–10 Sub-Divisional Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  2001

  11 vehicles—Eight District Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourh sod Patrols

  2002

  11 vehicles—Eight District Mobile Patrols and three Neighbourhood Patrols

  2003

  11 vehicles—Six Response Policing Patrols and five Sector Policing Patrols

  Police Ombudsman's Office
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers of arrest officers from the Police Ombudsman's Office of Northern Ireland have over civilians. [156689]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police and Criminal Evidence (Application to Police Ombudsman) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 provides that certain powers set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, including some general powers of arrest, will apply in relation to formal investigations by the Ombudsman under section 56 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. In addition, section 56(3) of that Act gives certain officers of the Ombudsman, for the purpose of conducting or assisting in the conduct of a formal investigation, the powers and privileges of a constable and these would include a power to arrest civilians.

  Power Cuts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many unexpected power cuts there were in Northern Ireland in the last three years for which figures are available; what the cause was in each case; and what steps he is taking to secure the continuity of the power supply in Northern Ireland. [157656]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following table gives a breakdown of the unexpected power cuts recorded on the NIE network between 2001 and 2003. It does not distinguish between minor cuts of very short duration and more extensive power failures.

  Unexpected power cuts recorded on the NIE network

  Direct Cause of power cut

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Weather and environment

  2,012

  1,614

  1,516

  Ageing, wear and tear NIE equipment

  2,001

  2,072

  1,753

  Third party

  1,439

  1,387

  1,213

  Vandalism

  118

  112

  120

  Transient faults

  2,601

  2,526

  2,078

  Other faults (birds, animals manufacturing faults etc.)

  215

  211

  222

  Total

  8,386

  7,922

  6,902

  I am satisfied that both the generation and supply of electricity in Northern Ireland are adequate to meet expected demand for at least the next five years.

  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) works closely with the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation (NIAER) and the industry to ensure continuity of supply through a variety of measures. These include extensive investment

  1311W
  in the transmission and distribution network to ensure that there is minimum disruption of power supplies due to network related problems. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) has invested some £418 million in the period 1998 to 2003 and this has contributed to a significant reduction in the incidence of power cuts related to network ageing, wear and tear, transient faults and to adverse weather conditions.

  European Directive 2003/54/EC Schedule 4 requires member states to monitor security of supply issues, reporting every two years to the Commission on findings and measures taken to address problems. Such monitoring is currently the joint responsibility of DETI and the NIAER.

  Safety Strategy (Older People)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Community Safety Strategy for Older People. [156580]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A draft Community Safety Strategy for Older People is currently being completed and will be issued for consultation later this month. Community safety and the removal of the fear of crime from older people is a central issue within the Community Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland, and the focus of the strategy being drafted.

  Following a period of consultation, the Strategy will begin to be implemented later this year.

  Sign Language
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce interpreter training in Northern Ireland for those seeking to learn sign language. [157338]

  Jane Kennedy
  A programme to train Sign Language Interpreters was introduced in Non here Ireland in 1999 with funding from the European Social Fund and the Department for Employment and Learning. The programme—the Sign Language Interpreters Programme (SLIP)—was initiated by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID). A number of Further Education Colleges also provide training in sign language, below interpreter level.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the case for providing signing to accommodate deaf people in any new Northern Ireland assembly. [157344]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Any assessment for the provision of facilities for any new Northern Ireland Assembly, including signing to accommodate deaf people, is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission upon restoration.

  Sinn Fein
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1163W, what evidence he has collated on the involvement of Sinn Fein in criminal activity. [157757]
  1312W
  Jane Kennedy
  The investigation and collation of evidence is a matter for the Chief Constable in the first instance. He will pursue that evidence wherever it leads and will take action where there is a case to answer, through the judicial process.

  Slow Driving
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been penalised for slow driving in each of the last five years. [157346]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that there is no specific offence of slow driving. However, depending on the circumstances, the driver concerned may commit an offence of careless driving.

  Speeding
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists in Northern Ireland were convicted of speed-related offences in each police district in the last five years for which figures are available as a result of being caught by a speed camera. [157668]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that speed cameras are only operated by trained Road Policing Officers who are a regional resource and therefore not dedicated to a specific District Command Unit.

  During the past five years 72,093 individuals were detected exceeding the speed limit and were accordingly in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Prosecute.

  Statutory Registration
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of administering the Statutory Registration Scheme in Northern Ireland was in the last year for which figures are available. [157720]

  Mr. Pearson
  The cost of administering both the Statutory Certification Scheme and the Voluntary Classification Scheme in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for the financial year 2002–03 was as follows:

  £

  Amount

  Salaries

  216

  Staff expenses

  28

  Cost of printing and establishment signs

  9

  Overheads apportioned as follows1

  Premises

  29

  General office

  31

  Staff development

  5

  Total gross costs

  318

  Less income from both schemes

  176

  Total net cost

  142

  1 Based on eight staff in unit and total staff of 12 in NITB.

  The split of staff time would approximate to 40 per cent. to Statutory Certification Scheme and 60 per cent. to Voluntary Classification Scheme resulting in a net overall expense of running the Statutory Certification Scheme of £57,000 for the financial year 2002–03.

  Union Flag
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the current arrangements are for the flying of the Union flag on buildings owned or used by each Department and its constituent agencies in Northern Ireland. [158530]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current arrangements for flying the Union flag and other flags from Government buildings in Northern Ireland are set out in the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159616]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to this question today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons.

  Unionist Paramilitaries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what types of crime were directly related to the activities of Unionist paramilitary groups in the last 12 months for which records are available. [158092]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows.

  Security Situation Statistics for Northern Ireland 1 February 2003–31 January 2004

  Types of crime

  1 By Loyalists

  Number of casualties as a result of the security situation2

  7

  Number of shooting incidents

  135

  Number of bombing incidents3

  41

  1314W

  Security Situation Statistics for Northern Ireland 1 February 2003–31 January 2004

  Types of crime

  1 By Loyalists

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  110

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  107

  1 Attribution is as perceived by PSNI based on the information available.

  2Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

  3An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosion and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

  Note:

  Statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Workforce (Religious Designations)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the composition of the monitored full-time workforce (11 + ) was, broken down by religious designation in(a) 1992 and (b) 2002; and if he will publish this information. [157613]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information regarding the composition of the monitored full-time workforce, broken down by religious designation in 1992 and 2002 is as follows:

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-determined

  Total

  1992

  235,330

  132,694

  18,051

  386,075

  (60.9 per cent.)

  (34.4 per cent.)

  (4.7 per cent.)

  —

  2002

  230,804

  154,218

  18,822

  403,844

  (57.2 per cent.)

  (38.2. per cent.)

  (4.7 per cent.)

  —

  Source:

  Fair Employment Commission Monitoring Report (No. 3) 1992.

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Monitoring Report(No. 13) 2002.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the International Security Assistance Force, (b) NATO, (c) the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Afghanistan, (d) the EU's Special Representative to Afghanistan and (e) other organisations and governmental representatives based in Afghanistan regarding the need to increase the number of international troops on the ground in Afghanistan in the build up to and carrying out of elections in Afghanistan. [158837]

  Mr. Straw
  NATO took over leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. The UK has been closely involved with other allies in discussions in NATO of plans for the expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and I met the NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, in London on 12 February 2004; our discussions included Afghanistan.

  The UK regularly discusses preparations for elections with the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative, Jean Arnault, with the EU Special Representative, Francesc Vendrell, and with the Afghan transitional administration. We also meet regularly in Kabul and London with non-governmental organisations working in Afghanistan to discuss a wide range of issues, including security and election preparations. I visited Kabul on 5 March where I had discussions with President Karzai, Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Monsieur Arnault and others.

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the buildings occupied by his staff. including agencies, which require(a) remedial work on and (b) the removal of asbestos; what that work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159366]

  Mr. Rammell
  Completed asbestos surveys of buildings occupied by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK showed that no essential remedial or removal works were required. The next full survey is not due until 2012. In view of this no budget has been set aside for essential work.

  None the less, budgets for interim local surveys during maintenance and project work will be allocated for 2004 and 2005. These are expected to be in the region of £20,000 pa for reactive maintenance, and £50,000 pa for project works.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of buildings occupied by(a) staff of the Department and (b) staff of the Department's executive agencies have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos prior to implementation of the control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159373]
  1316W
  Mr. Rammell
  Almost all of the building space occupied by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK was surveyed prior to the implementation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. Surveys of the remaining space are due to be completed before May 2004.

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the International Confederation of Trade Unions about the use of forced labour in Burma. [157468]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had no discussions with the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU) on this issue. I am concerned about the use of forced labour in Burma. The ICFTU co-operates closely with the International Labour Organisation (ILO). We fully support the ILO and call upon the Burmese authorities to end permanently the use of forced labour.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conditions for the people living in relocation or concentration camps in areas of Burma controlled by the State Peace and Development Council. [157471]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am concerned about the reported poor condition of relocation camps in Burma. Most of the major relocation sites are in areas where there is still ongoing fighting, so accurate estimates and independent assessment of the conditions (or numbers involved) is not possible. From the information that we have, conditions in most of the camps are reported to be very poor—inadequate housing, medical and educational facilities. Separation of villagers from their farmlands, and lack of alternative land in or near the camps, also causes great hardship.

  In areas of Karenni State where there are now ceasefires some of the former relocation sites have been largely abandoned as people have returned to their villages. Some of those remaining, particularly where the relocation site is on the edge of a town, do so (semi) voluntarily because educational and other opportunities in the town are actually better than in their village.

  We provide support to the United Nation High Commission for Refugees who are working to improve the conditions in camps.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication there has been between(a) his Department, (b) the European Union and (c) the United Nations and Aung San Suu Kyi since May 2003. [157721]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since May 2003, the Burmese regime has repeatedly rejected my attempts to speak to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The regime has also failed to respond to repeated requests by our ambassador to call on her. The UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, has met Aurig San Suu Kyi on three separate occasions since May 2003, most recently on 2 March 2004. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, has seen Aung San Suu Kyi once since May 2003.
  1317W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of(a) extra-judicial killings and (b) forced labour in the ethnic minority states of Burma since January. [157728]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am concerned about reports of extra-judicial killings and forced labour in the ethnic minority states of Burma since January. These issues and other human rights violations have been highlighted by successive UK co-sponsored UN Resolutions, most recently at the UN General Assembly in December 2003. These issues will remain a strong focus for the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro and UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail. We will work to ensure that these issues are addressed at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2004.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of land confiscation by the Burmese Government; and what representations he has made about it. [157729]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am concerned about reports of land confiscation by the Burmese Government. The confiscation of land by armed forces and other human rights violations have been highlighted by successive UK co-sponsored UN Resolutions, most recently at the UN General Assembly in December 2003. These issues will remain a strong focus for the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro and UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail. We will work to ensure that these issues are addressed at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2004.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Colombia concerning arrests and detention of trade union leaders and human rights activists in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [159240]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our embassy in Bogota make regular representations to the Colombian authorities on issues relating to human rights concerns. Our ambassador called on the Vice President of Colombia on 4 March and raised a number of concerns on human rights, trades unionist issues and tackling collusion with paramilitarism in Colombia. We are also seeking information from the Colombian Government on the case of Luz Perly Cordoba of the Colombian agricultural workers' union Fensuagro, who has recently been reportedly detained. I continue to raise relevant concerns in my own contacts with Colombian Ministers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 26 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mosammat Meherun Nessa Begum. [157907]
  1318W
  Mr. Mullin
  On 1 March my right hon. Friend's letter of 26 January was transferred to the Home Office for reply as the content concerned a Home Office matter.

  Cyprus
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government will offer(a) Greek Cypriot and (b) Turkish Cypriot controlled areas of Cyprus for the monitoring of a referendum on a settlement. [159136]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British High Commission in Nicosia is working closely with the UN to ensure that work on the UN Secretary General's proposals is completed on time for the referendums in April. We are discussing with the UN what assistance the UK can best offer to ensure the smooth conduct of those referendums.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) legal and (b) constitutional changes will be made to the guarantor powers and obligations for the UK in relation to Cyprus following its accession to the EU. [159137]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Treaty of Guarantee will remain in force following Cyprus's accession whether or not there is a settlement. Until there is a settlement the UK's responsibilities as a Guarantor Power will remain unchanged. In the event of a settlement on the basis of the Annan Plan the Treaty of Guarantee will be amended to cover not only the new United Cyprus Republic but also the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent states.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what trading and movement of goods rules will apply to arrangements between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot controlled areas of Cyprus after accession to the EU(a) in the event of a solution to the situation in Cyprus and (b) if a solution is not achieved. [159138]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission is currently considering the necessary arrangements for each scenario, but is unlikely to finalise these arrangements until the outcome of the present negotiations is clear. We remain in close contact with the Commission on those and other issues related to a Cyprus settlement.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Secretary-General of the UN that his role in deciding deadlock points in the Cyprus Settlement Plan must be strictly restricted to the basis of the plan and not involve issues that are outside the plan. [159139]

  Mr. MacShane
  In his statement in New York on 13 February the UN Secretary-General said"As a final resort, in the event of a continuing and persistent deadlock, the parties have invited the Secretary-General to use his discretion to finalise the text to be submitted to referenda on the basis of his plan. I therefore see no scope for covering issues outwith the basis of the plan".

  The UK believes that the Annan Plan offers the only realistic basis for a solution to the Cyprus problem.
  1319W
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of talks taking place to reunify Cyprus. [159230]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 580W, and also to the reply my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave o the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) in the House on 2 March 2004, Official Report, column 748. We will keep the House informed as matters progress.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the cost to his Department of(a) the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, (b) the British Council and (c) British Trade International for each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [156610]

  Mr. Rammell
  The cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is shown in the following table:

  £million

  (a) Westminster Foundation for Democracy1

  (b) British Council2

  (c) UK Trade and Investment3

  Outturn

  1996–97

  2.5

  102.4

  —

  1997–98

  2.7

  96.2

  —

  1998–99

  3.0

  97.1

  —

  1999–2000

  4.0

  133.3

  —

  2000–01

  4.2

  137.7

  155.8

  2001–02

  4.3

  145.0

  136.3

  2002–03

  4.2

  151.5

  141.2

  Budget

  2003–04

  4.1

  165.5

  141.2

  Plan

  2004–05

  4.1

  169.6

  142.2

  2005–06

  n/a

  179.6

  144.2

  1 A full review of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) will take place in summer 2004. his will determine the level of grant-in-aid WFD will receive in 1.005-06 and beyond.

  2 From 1999–2000 the FCO assumed responsibility for DFID's share of grant-in-aid to the British Council. A machinery of government transfer from DFID to the FC 0 covered this increase in expenditure.

  3British Trade International (BTI) (now UK Trade and Investment) was established in May 1999. 2000–01 is the first full year for which we have a separate figure for BTI.

  Note:

  The figures for 2004–05 and 2005–06 indicate current spending plans. All future resource allocations may be subject to review in the light of changing foreign policy prior ties. 2005–06 spending plans will be covered by the 2004 Spending Review.

  EU (Internal Migration)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EC accession states on internal migration within the EU. [158978]
  1320W
  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has Informed his colleagues in the 10 accession countries of the UK's policy on the free movement of workers in the EU after I May 2004, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 23 February 2004,Official Report, columns 23–25.

  Haiti
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government took to support efforts for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Haiti. [159175]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK, working alongside its EU partners, has been supporting the efforts of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM ), the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the United Nations to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Haiti. The EU was present at CARICOM discussions with President Aristide in Kingston on 31 January, and on 21 February the EU took part in an international Mission, involving the US, Canada, France, OAS and CARICOM, which met Aristide and members of the opposition in Haiti.

  The UK supported UN Security Council Resolution 1529 which authorises the deployment of a Multi-National Interim Force. This force has restored some order to the Haitian capital and the resolution also declares the Security Council's readiness, within three months, to establish and deploy a UN stabilisation force, which will support the continuation of a peaceful and constitutional political process.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken through their diplomatic mission in the Dominican Republic to influence the situation in Haiti. [159176]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British Embassy in the Dominican Republic has just two UK-based staff, the ambassador and the consul. The ambassador has made regular trips to Haiti over the past 18 months, most recently visiting Port-au-Prince in January. Throughout this period he has kept in close touch with key players in Haiti, including the Organisation of American States, US, EU and French ambassadors and the Prime, Finance and Foreign Ministers. The embassy has excellent working relations with UK and other NGOs based in Haiti, and is working closely with Christian Aid in implementing a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Project Fund-supported project to reduce human rights abuses on the Haiti/Dominican Republic border.

  During the current crisis, the embassy managed to secure agreements to evacuate UK nationals on US, French and Canadian aeroplanes, and several UK nationals left the country under such arrangements.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on an international intervention in Haiti. [159177]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1529 which authorised the deployment of a Multi-National Interim Force to Haiti. This resolution, which was unanimously adopted, also declares the Security Council's readiness, within three
  1321W
  months, to establish and deploy a UN stabilisation force that will support the continuation of a peaceful and constitutional political process.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK's position is in the UN Security Council discussions on Haiti. [159178]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US and France, as members of the Friends of Haiti Group, lead discussions on Haiti in the Security Council. The Friends of Haiti tabled Security Council Resolution 1529 on 29 February, which the UK supported, and was unanimously adopted. This resolution authorises the immediate deployment of a Multi-National Interim Force, and declares the Security Council's readiness, within three months, to establish and deploy a UN stabilisation force that will support the continuation of a peaceful and constitutional political process.

  The UK will continue to take an active part in Security Council discussions on Haiti over the coming months as details of the Stabilisation Force are agreed and remains fully supportive of the efforts of those more closely involved in achieving a political solution to the crisis in Haiti.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of democracy in Hong Kong; and what recent discussions have taken place with China on Hong Kong. [157566]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), a Chinese law which was promulgated in Beijing in April 1990, states that the methods for selecting the chief executive and forming the Legislative Council"shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress".
  The "ultimate aim" is the selection of the chief executive and election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

  Our position is consistent: we hope to see early progress towards the Basic Law's ultimate aims of the selection of the chief executive and the election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, at a pace in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. We most recently re-stated this position in the latest Report to Parliament on Hong Kong, which was published on 24 February (Cmnd 6125).

  Ministers and officials regularly discuss Hong Kong matters when meeting members of the Chinese and Hong Kong SAR Governments. I did so with Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui and with Hong Kong's Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa when I visited China and Hong Kong in December.

  Internet Child Abuse
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken to tackle international internet child abuse. [158997]
  1322W
  Mr. Rammell
  Since 2002, in conjunction with the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, we have provided law enforcement agencies in 14 countries with specialised software, computers and training to detect paedophiles using internet chat rooms, and to target organised criminals who produce child pornography. Last year, we co-sponsored an international conference in the UK on combating on-line child abuse. We are co-sponsoring a follow-up conference this month. We are working with our G8 partners on the development and implementation of a strategy, including projects, to improve the exchange of information to combat on-line child abuse. This work includes outreach to non-G8 partners.

  Iraq
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to safeguard Iraq's electricity infrastructure from vandalism; and if he will make a statement. [157651]

  Mr. Rammell
  Iraq's electrical infrastructure has been subject to looting fer profit from the sale of copper and aluminium from transmission lines and pylons, and some sabotage attacks perpetrated by those intent on frustrating the reconstruction of Iraq.

  Significant operational measures are being taken to combat both crimes, and these are proving successful. Iraqis are involved through private contractors in guarding electricity lines and installations, and this has succeeded in preventing much damage being done. Steps are also being taken to increase patrolling, introduce air surveillance and ensure the rapid repair of damage when it occurs.

  Nepal
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support his Department has provided to Nepal in each year since 2000; and how much support it plans to provide in 2004. [R] [158858]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In financial year 2000–01 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided in total £63,600 in financial support to Nepal; in 2001–02 this figure was £80,700; in 2002–03 £144,500, and in 2003–04 £59,400.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of recruitment of civil servants for the Department was in each financial year since 1996–97, broken down by(a) delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b) recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158188]

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

  Financial year

  Cost of recruitment (£)

  1997–98

  995,293

  1998–99

  1,622,811

  1999–2000

  1,999,803

  2000–01

  2,543,387

  1323W

  Financial year

  Cost of recruitment (£)

  2001–02

  2,791,659

  2002–03

  2,276,708

  2003–04 (To date)

  1,341,832

  The figures in the table include money spent on recruitment in its widest sense. This includes general marketing via careers fairs, as well as targeted marketing and newspaper advertising aimed at under-represented groups such as minority ethnic communities and women. Recruitment agencies are involved in most of our recruitment campaigns. A break down of the figures for money spent on contracted recruitment procedures and for money spent directly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the period requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Serbia
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the decision by the Serbian Government to try war crime suspects before domestic courts in Serbia. [159229]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the establishment of a domestic war crimes court in Serbia. However, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) assessed that the Serbian national judiciary lacked the capacity to conduct fair war crimes trials in accordance with universally adopted standards. We welcome OSCE recommendations and urge the Serbian authorities to ensure effective domestic trials through adapting legislation and providing far the protection of victims and witnesses of war crimes. The first major trial, beginning in March, will be an important demonstration of the Serbian authorities' commitment to tackling war crimes allegedly committed by Serbian citizens. It is vital that the accused receive a fair trial and that justice is seen to be done.

  The transfer of lower level war crimes suspects for trial in domestic courts is an important part of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Completion Strategy. However such transfers can only take place where the Tribunal is satisfied that the trials will be conducted in accordance with universally adopted standards. In order for ICTY cases to be transferred to a domestic tribunal, Serbia must first co-operate fully with the, ICTY and allow the domestic judiciary' to work independently and impartially.

  We continue to urge the new Serbian government to fulfil the international obligation of full and complete co-operation with the ICTY. In order for Serbia and Montenegro to realise her European aspirations, Belgrade must assist in the apprehension and transfer of all ICTY indictees and allow the ICTY full access to documents and witnesses.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese Govern vent regarding the situation in Darfur. [158697]
  1324W
  Mr. Mullin
  We have lobbied at the highest levels in Khartoum on this matter, and our ambassador in Khartoum has discussed the situation with the First Vice-President on a number of occasions in recent weeks. Through our embassy in Khartoum and the UK Special Representative for Sudan, we are in almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan and the various Darfur groups. The EU issued a statement on 25 February appealing to the parties to ensure the protection of the civilian population and to allow humanitarian access to all those in need.

  Taliban
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current numeric strength of the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Pakistan. [158791]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not easy to distinguish former Taliban and their sympathisers from other groups hostile to the current political process in Afghanistan. We believe that at any given time the number of former Taliban sympathisers in Afghanistan and Pakistan is in the very low thousands. But the remoteness and geography of the Pakistani border region with Afghanistan, the difficulty of maintaining border controls, and the movement of people across the border makes it difficult to give an accurate assessment.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current level of co-operation between members of the Pakistani Army and members of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. [158792]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Pakistan is a key ally in the war against terror. We strongly support the efforts of the Pakistani Army to round up members of al-Qaeda and extreme elements of the former Taliban regime. The recent military operations into the formerly inaccessible tribal areas bordering Afghanistan are a good example of the commitment of the Pakistani Army in taking action against these groups.

  Turkey
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) administration of justice and (b) protection of the rights of overseas investors in Turkey. [158902]

  Mr. MacShane
  In its push to open accession negotiations with the European Union, Turkey continues to make determined efforts to improve the business environment for its overseas investors. This includes legal measures to simplify procedures for foreign investors and institutional reform to strengthen the rule of law.

  We are aware of a few specific cases where British investors have faced difficulties in Turkey and we have raised these with the Turkish authorities.

  Recent developments in Turkey include: a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) law passed in 2003; efforts to set up an FDI promotion agency; and, on 15 March in Istanbul, an Investors Council, chaired by the World

  1325W
  Bank and the IMF, to give leading foreign investors in Turkey an opportunity to make recommendations to the Turkish authorities.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Turkish Government on the detention and imprisonment of Mr. Abdullah Ocalan. [159247]

  Mr. MacShane
  We raised the subject of the detention of Mr. Ocalan with the Turkish State Minister responsible for Human Rights in February 1999 and sought assurances that he would receive a fair trial and that his physical safety would be assured. British embassy staff also attended the trial.

  Regarding his on-going imprisonment, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 5 March 2004, Official Report, column 1192W.

  We have not made representations to the Turkish Government regarding the imprisonment. We do, however, continue to monitor the situation closely, including through discussions with Mr. Ocalan's lawyer.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government on the case of the detention of Leyla Zana, a Kurdish member of the Turkish Parliament. [159250]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise the case of Leyla Zana and her fellow DEP, MPs at Ministerial and official level. I underlined the importance of speeding up progress and ensuring impartiality with Foreign Minister Gul during my visit to Turkey in January 2004. Our Ambassador has also raised the case with Justice Minister Cicek. British embassy officials attend trial hearings and maintain close contact with Leyla Zana's lawyer, whom I also met.

  UN General Assembly Resolutions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom voted on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/40 (L12) in the UN First Committee on 27 October 2003 on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive waste, and combating the hazards of radioactive wastes used in radiological warfare; and if he will make a statement. [151850]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom joined consensus on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/40 (LI2) in the UN First Committee on 27 October 2003 on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive waste, and combating the hazards of radioactive wastes used in radiological warfare.

  On 12 March 2001 the UK ratified the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management which was negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The convention's primary objective is to achieve and maintain a high level of safety worldwide in spent fuel and radioactive waste management. It came into force on 18 June 2001. The UK's first national report,
  1326W
  demonstrating our compliance with the convention, was provided to the IAEA in May 2003. National reports are subject to a process of peer review and are updated every three years.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Elections
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what steps the Commission is taking to improve voter turnout in June for(a) the London Assembly elections, (b) European elections, (c) Mayoral elections and (d) other local elections. [159235]

  Mr. Viggers
  The Electoral Commission has a duty under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to "promote public awareness of:

  (a) current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems, together with such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine;

  (b) current systems of local government and national government in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems; and

  (c) the institutions of the European Union."

  To this end, I understand from the Chairman of the Commission that it will be running a UK-wide voter awareness campaign, comprising TV and press advertising, leaflets distributed to public places, PR, and outreach work targeting young 'hard to reach' audiences. This activity will be supported by a national telephone call centre and an elections website, from which members of the public will be able to find out which elections are taking place in their area on 10 June, how to register, how to vote, and what roles and powers are held by each of the democratic institutions being elected. The website will also carry links to other sites of relevance to the June elections.

HEALTH

  Abortion
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many girls under the age of 16 had abortions in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [155176]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Abortions by age for girls aged 15 and under, residents of England and Wales, 1998–2002

  Total

  1996

  3,645

  1997

  3,434

  1998

  3,759

  1999

  3,603

  2000

  3,748

  2001

  3,658

  2002

  3,514

  Source:

  Data provided by Department of Health, Statistical Division.

  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the nation al Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. [159283]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England is due to be published and implemented from 2004, in accordance with the timetable set out in the NHS Plan. This strategy will set the future direction for the development of alcohol prevention and treatment for all groups in the population.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to clinicians on the prescribing of benzodiazepines over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [155155]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Committee on the Safety of Medicines' advice of 1988 has been reiterated in the "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" (1999) and in the "British National Formulary", which is sent to all doctors within the national health service biannually.

  The advice has been restated in the Chief Medical Officer's Update dated January 2004, which announced that the Department is planning to introduce instalment dispensing of benzodiazepines to minimise access to excessive doses.

  Blood Glucose Test Strips
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to withdraw the free distribution of blood glucose test strips; and if he will make a statement. [158823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Blood glucose testing strips will remain available free of charge to those people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes whose condition is controlled by insulin or tablets. Those people who have type 2 diabetes that is controlled by diet alone are not exempt from National Health Service prescription charges on that basis.

  We have no plans to remove blood glucose testing strips form NHS prescriptions.

  Breast Feeding
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Department has conducted on a potential link between decreasing breast feeding rates and increasing obesity rates among children. [158027]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not commissioned any research directly on a potential link between decreasing breastfeeding rates and increasing obesity rates among children.

  Women in lower socio-economic groups (social class V) are more likely to be overweight or obese and they are less likely to breastfeed. Breastfeeding rates are increasing and the Infant Feeding Survey 2000 showed that there was a significant increase in the incidence of breastfeeding in social class V, from 50 per cent. in 1995 to 59 per cent. in 2000.
  1328W
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy suggested in its report on the Scientific Review of the Welfare Food Scheme that breastfed infants are less likely to become overweight as children.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has given to schools relating to the effects of sun exposure; and what assessment has been made of the take-up of such guidance. [157801]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The `SunSmart campaign, run by Cancer Research UK and funded by the United Kingdom Health Departments, was launched in spring 2003. This launch phase of the campaign enabled new campaign messages to be disseminated to as wide an audience as possible and assisted in establishing the `SunSmart' brand. Over 950,000-campaign information cards and 36,000 posters were distributed to general practitioners' surgeries, health promotion units, dermatologists and cinemas. Additionally, 350,000 specially designed postcards were distributed among secondary schools in the UK, reaching 40 per cent., of all 11 to 16-year-olds. `SunSmart is working with the Department for Education and Skills and teachers to develop guidelines to encourage schools to adopt their own `SunSmart policies and curricular activities.

  Sun awareness information for young people is also contained on the "Wired For Health" website at www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk as part of the Healthy Schools Programme. The Department also developed the `SunSafe' web pages in March 2002, which were designed with children in mind on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from primary care trusts in the West Midlands about the new funding arrangements for capital projects. [157963]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Ministers have not received formal representations from primary care trusts (PCTs) in the West Midlands. However, officials in the Department have received written representations from South Worcestershire PCT and West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 273W, on delayed discharges, what information on legal liabilities for reimbursement charges will be available in the future. [158214]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on the number of delayed discharges and the level of legal liabilities for reimbursement will be available in due course, once the data has been validated.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dentists providing treatment on the NHS were registered in East Devon in each of the past seven years; [155304]
  1329W
  (2) how many dental practices providing dental care in the NHS there were in East Devon in each of the past seven years. [155305]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The tables show the number of National health service dentists on a head count basis and the number of practice addresses in North and East Devon Health Authority at September each year from 1997 to 2002. Following the health service re-organisation, figures for East Devon Primary Care Trust area, at September 2003, are given.

  This information covers dentists working in the general dental services (GDS), personal dental services (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS. Excluded are the community and hospital dental services.

  Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted only once.

  National health service: Number of dentists at September each year

  Health Authority North and East Devon

  Primary Care Trust East Devon

  1997

  177

  —

  1998

  185

  —

  1999

  195

  —

  2000

  199

  —

  2001

  209

  —

  2002

  206

  —

  2003

  —

  38

  National health service: Number of dental practices at August each year

  Health Authority North and East Devon

  Primary Care Trust East Devon

  1997

  82

  —

  1998

  83

  —

  1999

  86

  —

  2000

  90

  —

  2001

  90

  —

  2002

  92

  —

  2003

  —

  17

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the availability of NHS dentistry. [155373]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have provided new investment totalling £90 million to national health service dentistry over the last year. £59 million will support access, and strategic health authorities have been advised of their shares and are working with their primary care trusts (PCTs) to address access issues. £30 million is to support information technology and the balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.

  A NHS support team is currently working with 16 PCTs where it is hardest to find a NHS dentist to develop plans to overcome the problems. The team is backed by £9 million support funds to enable these hard-pressed areas to increase access. These measures build on steps we have already taken to improve access to NHS dentistry, including the establishment of dental access centres.
  1330W
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act gives new duties for PCTs to secure the provision of primary dental services. From April 2005, PCTs will directly manage provision, commissioning dental services from local practices. With these new responsibilities will go the financial resources currently held centrally, which by 2005–06 are expected to total nearly £1.5 billion.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are in the Blackpool North and Fleetwood constituency. [157911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information is not collected on a constituency basis but at primary care trust (PCT) level. Data for Blackpool PCT and Wyre PCT, as at 31 December 2003, is shown in the table.

  Primary care trust

  General dental service (GDS)

  Personal dental service (PDS)

  Blackpool

  46

  1

  Wyre

  40

  —

  Notes:

  1. PDS figure covers dentists not already working in the GDS.

  2. Dentists are free to work in more than one PCT. Therefore, dentists who do some work in this area but more in another PCT have not been included.

  3. Dentists in the GDS include principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners. These figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole-time equivalent (wte) basis and therefore take no account of part-time working. In the CDS, the amount of time spent working in the national health service varies greatly, with a large proportion of dentists doing some private work. Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered by these figures.

  4. These figures exclude dentists working in the community dental service, hospital dental service and salaried service of the GDS.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Drug Misusers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many UK drug addicts are on(a) subutex maintenance, (b) methadone maintenance and (c) naltraxone. [153981]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The Department does not collect figures centrally on the number of drug misusers being maintained on subutex, methadone or naltrexone. However, the table represents the number of prescription items of Buprenorphine (Subutex), Methadone Hydrochloride and Naltrexone Hydrochloride (included in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.10, Substance Dependence) that were dispensed in the community in England in 2002.

  Thousand

  BNF 4.10 Drugs used in substance

  Number of prescription items dispensed in 2002

  Buprenorphine (Subutex)

  164.3

  Methadone Hydrochloride

  1,330.7

  Naltrexone Hydrochloride

  21.9

  This data covers d rugs which are included in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.10, "Drugs used in substance dependence". The data excludes other

  1331W
  Buprenorphine, Methadone and Naltrexone drugs that are contained in other BNF sections since they are prescribed for reasons other than substance dependence.

  The data excludes prescription items that are dispensed in hospitals or clinics. The Department does not have any information on the number of people who are prescribed these drugs. The information available is the number of prescription items that are dispensed in the community.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by strategic health authorities of(a) the facilities available for drug maintenance and withdrawal, (b) the availability of licensed prescribers for heroin addicts and (c) the incidence of heroin use. [153880]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No formal assessment has been made by strategic health authorities of the three issues that the hon. Member raises.

  However, I am able to inform her that the National Treatment Agency has confirmed that all areas of England now have access to facilities for drug maintenance and withdrawal and that there are currently 123 practitioners in England licensed by the Home Office to prescribe heroin. For other substitute prescribing medications, no licence is required.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been undertaken into the link between (a) suffering long-term memory loss and (b) other side effects from taking ecstasy; [151283]

  (2) what research has been carried out into the long-term use of cannabis with relation to (a) loss of memory and (b) other side effects. [151298]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is a wide range of published studies that have reported the results of research into the side-effects of ecstasy and cannabis. The Department commissioned the National Addiction Centre to review the evidence regarding the harmful effects of drugs of abuse and is published as the Department of Health document Dangerousness of drugs (2003). A copy of which is available in the Library.

  Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the projected financial outturn for the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority for this financial year, broken down by county. [156459]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  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.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the European Union Directive on food supplements to come into force in the United Kingdom. [158462]
  1332W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 218W.

  Gambling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Government will incorporate responsibility for problem gambling under the auspices of the National Treatment Agency; [158316]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the best method of meeting the health needs of problem gamblers; [158344]

  (3) what plans he has to include responsibility for problem gambling under the auspices of the National Treatment Agency. [158349]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The most recent assessment of the extent of problem gambling is in the report of the independent Gambling Review Body (Cm 5206).

  The national development group for specialised mental health services will review treatment for problem gambling to provide guidance that will help groups of primary care trusts to commission appropriate services and support the development of services in those areas where there are significant problems.

  We have also encouraged the gambling industry to support the charitable trust, which it has established with a remit to fund both research into problem gambling and services for its treatment.

  The Department has no plans to include responsibility for problem gambling under the auspices of the National Treatment Agency.

  Health Inequality
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each(a) primary care trust and (b) strategic health authority area the benchmark national indicators of health inequality, as set out in Annex C of the report on Tackling Health Inequalities. [157048]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The indicators in Annex C of "Tackling Health Inequalities: A Programme for Action" measure national progress on health inequalities. The London Public Health Observatory has produced a Local Basket of Indicators on health inequalities for all primary care trusts, and a copy of their report has been placed in the Library, and is available on the London Health Observatory website at: http://www.lho.org.uk/HIL/Inequalities In Health/Basket Of Indicators/Basket.htm

  Health Services (Worcestershire)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the proposed new health centres in(a) Upton-on-Severn and (b) Malvern. [157854]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The future of the proposed new health centres in Upton-on-Severn and Malvern will depend on the priority for investment in these facilities relative to other such developments within the West Midlands
  1333W
  South area. West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority reports that this will be decided by a planning group comprising all of the primary care trust chief executives within the West Midlands South area.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the financial position of the(a) South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust and (b) Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. [157855]

  Dr. Ladyman
  South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust (PCT) is forecasting to deliver a financial breakeven position at 31 March 2004.

  The most recent board report from the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust forecasts a £10.9 million deficit. West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (SHA) reports that it is anticipated that this figure may change as a consequence of a complete review of the financial position within the trust by the new executive team.

  The PCTs within Worcestershire, the acute trust and the mental health trust are working with the West Midlands South SHA towards delivering a financial recovery plan to address the deficit. This plan contains a series of cost saving measures, which will be necessary to return the health economy to financial break-even.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Pershore Community Hospital following South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust's announcement that the building of several health centres in Worcestershire is to be put on hold. [157971]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Significant new revenue funding is being made available to support public, private capital investment in the primary care estate based on local prioritisation of development proposals.

  The future of the Pershore Community Hospital development will depend on the priority for investment in this facility relative to other such developments within the West Midlands South area. West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority reports that this will be decided by a planning group comprising all of the primary care trust chief executives within the West Midlands South area.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of capital projects for health centres, doctors' surgeries and hospitals provided under the auspice of the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust. [157918]

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of controls on private finance initiative revenue streams as they affect investments by South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust. [157970]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: Significant new revenue funding is being made available to support public, private capital investment in the primary care estate based on local prioritisation of development proposals.

  As part of the implementation of the new primary medical service arrangements, baseline allocations have been notified to all primary care trusts (PCTs)
  1334W
  for 2004–05, which include an element for new developments contractually agreed by 30 September 2003.

  In addition, further growth funding is to be notified in the near future to PCTs to support prioritised developments contractually agreed after that date.

  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority has devolved responsibility for prioritisation of growth funding for premises development to a planning group comprising all of the PCT chief executives within the West Midlands Soul h area.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of field trials of vaccines to prevent HIV/AIDS carried out in(a) Kenya, (b) Uganda, (c) South Africa and (d) Botswana. [157487]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I have been asked to reply.

  Four different vaccines are currently in Phase 1 safety trials in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Botswana. Three of these are based on types of HIV prevalent in East and Southern Africa and one, in Botswana, on the type of HIV prevalent in Europe and the USA. Details of the trials, the vaccines under investigation and trials sponsors can be found on the clinical trials database maintained by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) at www.iavi.org/trials.

  DFID supports the global effort to accelerate the development of safe and effective HIV vaccines as an important part of a comprehensive long-term response to HIV and AIDS. Trials currently underway in Africa provide an important contribution to these efforts, particularly in developing vaccines that will be appropriate for use by developing countries. The participation of African researchers in these efforts is particularly welcome. Given the difficult task of discovering and proving the efficacy of an HIV vaccine, it is important that a number of promising vaccine candidates are developed in parallel if chances of success are to be increased and efforts accelerated. As the current trials are completed DFID expects that decisions will be made regarding which of the candidates should progress to later stage trials to test vaccine efficacy. These decisions will be the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies.

  Since 1998 DFID has provided funding to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) to progress global HIV vaccine efforts, with a particular focus on vaccines developed for use by developing countries. IAVI is a not-for-profit organisation with the mission to accelerate the development of safe and effective HIV vaccines and to ensure the rapid availability for use throughout the world. IAVI actively manages a research portfolio with its R&D partners, which includes support for eight vaccine candidates, three of which are currently in trials in the countries in question.

  Hospices
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) adult and (b) children's hospices are operating in England; [157731]
  1335W
  (2) how many (a) adult and (b) children's hospices in England receive no financial assistance from the NHS. [157732]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are 172 adult in-patient units (2,637 beds)1 and 27 children's units (201) beds in England, the large majority of which are managed by the voluntary sector.

  We do not collect information on financial assistance centrally. It is for the national health service locally to make arrangements for financial support to both adult and children's hospices based on the needs of the local population. We are investing an additional £50 million per annum in specialist palliative care for adults with cancer. Hospices are benefiting from this additional money.
  1 Source:Hospice Information—January 2004.

  Human Papilloma Virus
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the original planned publication date was for the results of the implementation pilots on human papilloma virus testing. [157405]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: A pilot of human papilloma virus (HPV) testing as triage for women whose cervical screening test results showed low grade abnormalities began in April 2001 as part of the pilot of liquid based cytology (LBC). In the pilot, women who were HPV positive were referred immediately for a follow-up examination by colposcopy. If the test showed women were HPV negative, they had a repeat screening test after six months and a second HPV test.

  An independent evaluation of the pilot was commissioned by the Department from the Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit at the Institute of Cancer Research. The evaluation is covering all aspects of HPV testing as triage, including cost-effectiveness. As women who have low grade abnormalities hut are HPV negative are retested six months later, the HPV arm of the pilot has taken longer than the LBC arm, as expected. Full follow-up of all women in the pilot is essential for completeness of the evaluation. The HPV evaluation report was due at the end of 2003, but the evaluation has proved more difficult than anticipated. It is important to get the evaluation right, as the cervical screening programmes involved four million women each year.

  A draft of the evaluation report has been seen by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening, and will also go to the National Screening Committee, which originally commissioned the pilot, shortly. The evaluation report will then be peer reviewed in the usual way, and we expect publication of the full report in the summer. The evaluators will also publish aspects of the results in peer reviewed journals.

  Imported Infections
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Cabinet Office Review into imported infections and immigration will be published. [158790]
  1336W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Cabinet Office is continuing to co-ordinate work between relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review imported infections and immigration. The purpose of the review is to establish the facts about the impact of immigration on public health and National Health Service expenditure, consider all relevant issues, including health screening, and suggest solutions should action be required. It is ongoing and no decisions have been taken yet.

  Local Authority Grants (Dorset)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156207]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), on 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 750W.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of responses to the consultation on proposals to reform and modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 in relation to the proposed exemption of large shopping developments from the control of entry requirements for retail pharmacy services. [157513]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: Copies of 274 responses received in respect of the Department's consultation on proposals to reform and modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, including those responses commenting on the proposed exemption from the control of entry requirements for pharmacy applications in respect of large shopping developments over 15,000 square metres gross lettable floor space, will be placed in the Library.

  Responses received in confidence have not been placed in the Library under exemption 14 (Information given in confidence) of Part 2 of the Open Government Code of Practice.

  We intend to publish a summary of these responses in due course.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the rate of inappropriate prescribing among those(a) under 65 years and (b) 65 years and over, broken down by gender, in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [157376]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect data centrally to make such an assessment.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medical conditions whose sufferers qualify for free prescriptions; and what the cost to the NHS was in 2003–04 in respect of each condition. [158256]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charges are:
  1337W
  Permanent fistula (including caecostomy, colostomy, laryngostomy, or ileostomy) requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance;

  The following disorders:

  Forms of hypoadrenalism (including Addison's disease) for which specific substitution therapy is essential;

  Diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism,

  Diabetes mellitus—except where treatment is by diet alone;

  Hypoparathyroidism;

  Myasthenia gravis;

  Myxoedema;

  Epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy;

  A continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving his residence without the help of another person.

  In 2002–03, 38.2 million prescription items were dispensed in the community in England to holders of a medical exemption certificate. This represents charge revenue foregone of around £236.8 million. Information in respect of each condition is not available and information for 2003–04 is not yet available.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the medical conditions about which representations have been made to his Department in the last three years proposing the granting of free drug prescriptions to sufferers of those conditions; and what his estimate is of the cost of free prescriptions in respect of each of these conditions. [158257]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following list of conditions (as described by the person making the representations) have been identified as the subject of representations in respect of free prescriptions between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2003.

  Anhydrotic Ectodermal Dysplasia

  Arthritis

  Asthma

  Bartter's Syndrome

  Behcet's Syndrome

  Budd-Chiari Syndrome

  Cancer

  Cerebral Palsy

  Chronic Bronchitis

  Coeliac Disease

  Colitis

  Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

  Crohns Disease

  Cystic Fibrosis

  Depression

  Dermatomyositis

  Diabetes (controlled by diet alone)

  Disabilities (nature unspecified)

  Dopa-responsive Dystonia

  Downs Syndrome Dystonia

  Eczema

  Emphysema

  Glaucoma

  Heart Disease

  Hepatitis

  High Blood Pressure

  1338W

  Hodgkins Disease

  Hormone Replacement Therapy

  Hypogonadism

  Irritable Bowel Syndrome

  Kidney Failure

  Klinefelter's Syndrome

  Leukaemia

  Liver Failure/Disease

  Lund Disease

  Lupus

  Malignant Brain Tumour

  Mental Illness

  Motor Neurone Disease

  Multiple Sclerosis

  Myositis Disease

  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

  Overactive Thyroid

  Pancreatic Defects

  Parkinson's Disease

  Phenylketonuria

  Premature Ovarian Failure

  Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

  Primary Thrombocythaemia

  Pulmonary Hypertension

  Renal Failure

  Schizophrenia

  Sickle Cell Anaemia

  Systematic Lupus Erythematosus

  Thalassemia

  Tourette's Syndrome

  Transplant Patients

  Tuberculosis

  Turners Syndrome

  Wegener's Granulomatosis

  No estimates have been made of the cost of free prescriptions in respect of each of these conditions.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147906]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her reply, 15 January 2004, Official Report, c. 859 W]: I regret my previous response was incorrect. The response should have read as follows.
  "The records, where available, of building access passes issued by Department of Health Executive Agencies, and subsequently reported as lost or stolen, indicate that 37 passes were lost and three were stolen during the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003."

  Sexual Health
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the 2001 Sexual Health Strategy. [157917]
  1339W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A full programme of action to implement the strategy is taking place, as set out in the Strategy Implementation Action Plan (2002), backed by significant investment of £47.5 million, plus a further £40 million committed over the next two years. In addition, a further £26.4 million has been invested this year. The Government's response to the Health Select Committee report on sexual health published in September 2003 (cm 5959) contains details of the work being undertaken, including the national chlamydia screening programme; measures to improve access

  Selected diagnosed STIs seen in Yorkshire and Humberside NHS Region 1998–2002

  Condition code

  Condition name

  Sex description

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  A1A2

  Primary and Secondary Infectious Syphilis

  Male

  5

  11

  12

  28

  53

  A1A2

  Primary and Secondary Infectious Syphilis

  Homosexually acquired

  0

  5

  3

  10

  16

  A1A2

  Primary and Secondary Infectious Syphilis

  Female

  0

  1

  3

  6

  11

  B1B2

  Uncomplicated Gonorrhoea

  Male

  562

  582

  911

  1,016

  1,421

  B1B2

  Uncomplicated Gonorrhoea

  Homosexually acquired

  79

  67

  103

  118

  146

  B1B2

  Uncomplicated Gonorrhoea

  Female

  318

  332

  445

  503

  673

  C4A,C4C

  Uncomplicated Chlamydia Infection

  Male

  2,222

  2,491

  2,617

  3,290

  4,234

  C4A,C4C

  Uncomplicated Chlamydia Infection

  Homosexually acquired

  24

  32

  34

  44

  62

  C4A.C4C

  Uncomplicated Chlamydia Infection

  Female

  3,135

  3,478

  3,742

  4,549

  5,479

  C7A

  Anogenital Candidosis

  Male

  480

  475

  486

  429

  403

  C7A

  Anogenital Candidosis

  Female

  5,267

  5,093

  4,967

  5,273

  5,358

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Variant CJD (Rachel Forber)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has referred the issue of possible transmission of variant CJD via(a) blood transfusion and (b) urine-derived products to the Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee for advice. [157592]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The first possible case of blood transfusion-associated transmission of variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (vCJD) was referred to the 81st meeting of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) which took place on 25 February 2004.

  The SEAC has not discussed urine-derived products.

  York District Hospital
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of building the children's assessment and treatment area at York District Hospital was. [157521]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not available centrally in the format requested. However, this facility forms part of the modernised and expanded accident and emergency facility at York District Hospital, which cost £2.16 million.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bonny Island
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Serious Fraud Office has received a request from(a) French authorities, (b) US authorities and
  1340W
  to services; improve genito-urinary medicine clinic premises; national sexual health promotion campaigns; and work to support local implementation.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) gonorrhea, (b) syphilis, (c) chlamydia and (d) thrush have been diagnosed in the East Riding of Yorkshire in each of the last five years. [149670]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information for the Yorkshire and Humberside area is shown in the table.

  (c) Nigerian authorities for assistance into investigations of allegations involving payments by the consortium TSKJ in connection with the Bonny Island liquified natural gas plant in Nigeria; and whether the SFO is investigating these allegations. [158311]

  The Solicitor-General
  For operational reasons the SFO cannot confirm or deny whether a specific matter has been referred to it, or is under investigation.

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if she will make a statement on Serious Fraud Office investigations into bribery of a foreign public official since 1997 under(a) the UK's corruption laws and (b) the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; [158305]

  (2) what the Serious Fraud Office's operational policy is on investigating allegations of bribery of a foreign public official which took place prior to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 where an element of the offence may have occurred within the UK prior to February 2002. [158306]

  The Solicitor-General
  The purpose of the SFO is to investigate and prosecute suspected offences of serious or complex fraud that meet the published acceptance criteria agreed by Ministers. The SFO does not have separate operational policies relating to each offence that it can prosecute, nor does the SFO prioritise by reference to specific offences.

  After a case has been accepted and the investigation has advanced, the SFO must then consider which offence/offences are the most appropriate to prosecute.
  1341W
  The facts of a case may give rise to a number of possible offences including for example conspiracy to defraud, theft, fraudulent trading as well as corruption. If a prosecution is justified by the evidence and public interest then the charge selected will be the one that best represents the conduct of the individuals charged.

  A referral that includes bribery of a foreign official that took place prior to February 2002 would be assessed on the same basis as every other referral and this basis is outlined above.

  The SFO has one investigation where bribery of a foreign official represents an element of the overall case. It is not known at present whether it will be appropriate to prosecute this element.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  After-School and Breakfast Clubs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) after school clubs and (b) breakfast clubs are run in Chorley schools, broken down by school. [157979]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not keep figures on the number of after school and breakfast clubs on offer, by area or school. It is for local authorities and schools to determine what provision will best meet the needs of the young people in the area.

  However, more such clubs have been established in a number of schools through Government funding for study support or child care provision. Lancashire local education authority has informed my Department that it has allocated £44,447 from the Department's Standards Fund this year to provide study support opportunities for young people in schools in Chorley. Study support includes activities such as sport, the creative arts and cultural activities, as well as after school and breakfast clubs. Chorley has also received £501,324 this year from the New Opportunities Fund "Out of School Childcare Programme" to fund 627 places.

  Alice House
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future of Alice House in north-east Lincolnshire. [158119]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for the local authority and the local education authority to make suitable provision that will best meet the needs of local children and young people, including teenage mothers.

  Arts and Humanities Research Council
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to ensure that the proposed Arts and Humanities Research Council has the same status as science-based research councils when it is funded by the Office for Science and Technology; and what steps he is taking to safeguard funding for research in the arts and humanities. [158611]
  1342W
  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Bill, currently before the House, provides for the proposed Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) to operate on the same lines as the existing science Research Councils under the auspice; of the Office of Science and Technology.

  As recommended by the Review of Arts and Humanities Research funding, we are providing for a once and for all transfer of funds from the DfES, the Department for Education and Learning in Northern Ireland, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive to the Department for Trade and Industry. The level of future funding for research including Arts and Humanities research is a matter for the Spending Review.

  Bodies (Costs)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs of the(a) Learning and Skills Council, (b) the Higher Education Funding Council and (c) the Sector Skills Agency were in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156697]

  Alan Johnson
  The administration costs in 2002–03 (the most recent year for which figures are available) are in the table.

  £ million

  (a) Learning and Skills Council (LSC):

  223.3

  (b) Higher Education Funding Council

  15.69

  (c) Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA)

  3.72

  The different amounts reflect the different remits and structures of the three organisations. As part of the 2002 Spending Review, £218 million has been allocated in each of the three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 for the LSC's administration costs and have asked the LSC to find administrative economies so that it can manage with a flat cash administrative budget. As part of this, the LSC has already announced that its national office will be reducing by 200 posts, building on the 600 reductions already Achieved through more efficient back-office functions.
  Notes:
  LSC: Figures include transition costs associated with establishing a new organisation. SSDA: 2002–03 was the SSDA's first year of operation and £1.05 million of the administration costs was attributed to the setting tip of the Agency.

  Capital Expenditure (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what capital funding has been spent on education in the Rochdale constituency since 1997; which schools benefited from additional capital investment in each year; how much funding each received; and how the funding has been spent. [158829]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula and they decide

  1343W
  how to invest it, in line with the priorities of their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment in individual schools. This information should be held locally.

  Careers Guidance
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the findings of the OECD review of careers guidance policies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [157508]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: The OECD report recognises the high quality of the UK's career guidance services, asserting, that 'Compared to most other OECD countries, career guidance is very highly developed in the United Kingdom'.

  The OECD places particular emphasis on: the importance of programmes designed to develop career management skills (as well as support when making decisions at key transition points); and access to impartial advice from an agency that is external to the learning institution in which the student is based. Both are key features of careers education and guidance provision in England.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans h s Department has to revise the provision of careers guidance to under-19s; and if he will make a statement. [157510]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Connexions Service provides all 13 tol9-year-olds with access to information, advice and guidance to help them make informed learning and career choices. This is complemented by support from learning institutions, in particular through schools' careers education programmes, available to all young people in years 9–11.

  The Department has set in train an end-to-end review of the delivery of careers education and guidance, to assess the extent to which the support currently provided by Connexions and learning institutions meets the needs of all young people, taking account of the advice and support implications that arise from the reforms to 14–19 education announced in "14–19: Opportunity and Excellence", published in January 2003.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received concerning the provision of careers guidance by Connexions personal advisers; and if he will make a statement. [157511]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: A small number of Connexions Personal Advisers have written to DfES expressing concerns that not all young people are receiving support on making learning and career choices, because of Connexions' focus on reducing the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET).

  We have made it clear to Connexions Partnerships that providing access to careers information, advice and guidance to all young people—differentiated according to each individual's needs—is a key element of the preventative strategy to reduce NEETs.

  Child Care (Kirklees)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children there are under the age of eight in Kirklees; and how many registered child care places there are for children under the age of eight in Kirklees; [157491]

  (2) what the ratio of child care places to children under eight is in (a) Kirklees and (b) England. [157492]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Office of Education and Standards (OFSTED) and I will ask Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to write to the hon. Member. OFSTED has been responsible for the registration and inspection of children's day care facilities since September 2001.

  Children (Access)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the Secretary of State will bring forward legislation to provide for a presumption at court that both parents have the right to spend time with their children following divorce; and if he will make a statement. [158911]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: There are no current plans to establish a legal presumption of contact, following separation or divorce, between children and both of their parents. The Government support the view that, in general, children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following parental separation where it is in the best interests of the child and safe for all family members. The fundamental principle of the Children Act 1989 is that any court decision must be based on what is best for the child. There is no automatic "right" to contact for either fathers or mothers, but in practice the courts have taken the view that in most cases the child's welfare is best served by contact with both parents. This was stated by the Court of Appeal in Re: O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124 in the following terms:
  "Where parents of a child are separated and the child is in the day-to-day care of one of them, it is almost always in the interests of the child that he or she should have contact with the other parent."

  The Government will be publishing its response to the Children Act Sub-Committee Report, "Making Contact Work", which dealt with the issue of the facilitation and enforcement of contact orders in March.

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on(a) the (i) extent and (ii) duration of funding of the Children Fund's partnership with Portsmouth city council and (b) the impact of changes to that funding on existing projects. [152309]

  Margaret Hodge
  Portsmouth Children's Fund began operating in July 2001 and is approved until March 2006. It was allocated £1,010,000 per annum.
  1345W
  In its first two years the Children's Fund programme had a record of underspend. Efforts to ensure that all the money was spent have now led to a projected overspend. Revised allocations to some partnerships for 2003–04 were agreed following a mid year review of expenditure. This will ensure that the programme lives within its financial limits this year while honouring its commitments. However, Portsmouth's budget for 2003–04 was not revised following the mid year review.

  For 2004–05 we have agreed revised allocations to all partnerships totalling £160 million. This is just below the originally announced total of £164.6 million. Portsmouth's revised allocation for 2004–05 is £981,768. We announced these allocations on 27 February and we are currently working with partnerships, through our regional teams, to assess the impact. The Portsmouth programme has welcomed the freedom to bring forward underspend from 2003–04 into 2004–05 to support its programme. I have made some provision available in the form of a contingency fund which partnerships can apply to, if a serious risk to service delivery in key programmes remains an issue.

  I will not be taking final decisions on 2005–06 until I have consulted partnerships and discussed the future of the Children's Fund with key partners, in particular, the potential transition to children's trusts. However, I recognise that partnerships are keen to get some indication of funding levels for 2005–06, in order to help them plan effectively. Therefore I have advised partnerships that the budget for 2005–06 will be no less than £110 million. I will announce the final allocation in autumn 2004, following the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes have been made to central government funding allocations for the Children's Fund in this financial year, broken down by region; what assessment he has made of the impact such changes will have on services provided by the Children's Fund; and if he will make a statement. [153242]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The 2003–04 mid year review of expenditure identified approximately £12.5 million in underpsend from quarters 1 and 2 that could be redirected from Children's Fund partnerships. This figure was collated nationally and has not been broken down by region.

  This action was taken to ensure the programme kept within its budget. The Department has assessed the impact of the review, working with representatives from the main voluntary sector organisations involved in the Fund, the LGA and the ADSS as well as with partnerships' ability to meet contractural obligations, we revisited them. Furthermore, we set aside some money to assist where there was a likelihood of premature closure of services.

  Underspend taken back in the mid year review has meant revised allocations to some partnerships this year and ensures the programme can live within its financial limits while honouring its commitments.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes in the Wycombe constituency receive money from the Buckinghamshire Children's Fund. [159260]
  1346W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The following projects are currently receiving money from Buckinghamshire Children's Fund in the Wycombe constituency.

  Ashill School project to supporting children during playtime;

  Castlefield play worker project;

  Green Street-Saturday school for children for Asian community;

  Acacia Saturday school for African/Caribbean children across Wycombe;

  Cresswicks Secondary School Heartstone project, which tackles racism;

  South Bucks Young Carers project;

  NCH project working with children with disabilities;

  Bucks University for Young People project-run classes in Wycombe;

  A crime prevention Youth Inclusion Support Panel and Restorative Justice project are in planning, expected to begin next year.

  City Academies
  Mr. Mark Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools from the independent sector have expressed interest in sponsoring city academies; and what proportion of city academies have already been sponsored by independent schools. [159787]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three schools from the independent sector are already sponsoring Academies and a number of others have expressed an interest. The United Learning Trust (ULT), a subsidiary of the Church Schools Company, which runs a federation of eight independent schools, sponsors the Manchester Academy, which opened in September 2003. ULT also sponsor a further four Academies which are currently in development.

  Classroom Assistants
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time classroom assistants were (i) recruited and (ii) employed in each London borough in each year since 1997. [159170]

  Mr. Miliband
  Data for recruitment of teaching assistants are not available. Data for teaching assistants in employment are available only as a total full-time equivalent (FTE) number at LEA level. The table shows the total FTE number of teaching assistants employed in maintained nursery, primary, secondary, all special schools and pupil referral units in January of each year since 1997 by London LEA1,2.
  1 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.
  2 Includes nursery assistants in nursery schools, special needs support staff and minority ethnic pupil support staff.
  1347W

  FTE number of teaching assistants

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London

  8,210

  8,910

  9,840

  11,790

  14,380

  15,390

  17,590

  202

  Camden

  200

  240

  250

  300

  360

  440

  470

  201

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  204

  Hackney

  210

  250

  290

  380

  420

  490

  530

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  190

  200

  210

  250

  240

  260

  300

  309

  Haringey

  350

  360

  380

  420

  490

  650

  680

  206

  Islington

  250

  250

  270

  350

  360

  350

  480

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  130

  140

  140

  170

  210

  220

  260

  208

  Lambeth

  300

  350

  390

  500

  560

  580

  640

  209

  Lewisham

  280

  290

  320

  410

  570

  470

  560

  316

  Newham

  280

  280

  390

  500

  960

  720

  1,070

  210

  Southwark

  350

  420

  430

  650

  810

  750

  710

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  370

  400

  450

  510

  800

  970

  950

  212

  Wandsworth

  330

  370

  370

  460

  470

  380

  530

  213

  Westminster

  150

  170

  160

  190

  190

  310

  280

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  300

  290

  310

  320

  400

  500

  510

  302

  Barnet

  290

  340

  400

  480

  550

  740

  720

  303

  Bexley

  200

  230

  280

  310

  380

  320

  560

  304

  Brent

  260

  300

  360

  390

  440

  450

  470

  305

  Bromley

  220

  240

  250

  290

  370

  440

  520

  306

  Croydon

  400

  410

  510

  530

  660

  630

  870

  307

  Ealing

  340

  360

  370

  400

  510

  450

  530

  308

  Enfield

  250

  290

  290

  500

  590

  810

  880

  203

  Greenwich

  360

  400

  430

  510

  650

  650

  730

  310

  Harrow

  270

  270

  290

  300

  300

  330

  430

  311

  Havering

  170

  170

  200

  260

  300

  310

  520

  312

  Hillingdon

  330

  370

  410

  450

  540

  560

  640

  313

  Hounslow

  280

  280

  290

  330

  380

  400

  400

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  130

  130

  150

  170

  220

  220

  250

  315

  Merton

  190

  200

  220

  240

  290

  250

  300

  317

  Redbridge

  200

  230

  270

  370

  450

  580

  620

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  100

  110

  110

  130

  160

  210

  220

  319

  Sutton

  160

  170

  210

  230

  260

  340

  330

  320

  Waltham Forest

  380

  400

  410

  470

  490

  610

  640

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department has issued to Connexions area partnerships concerning their running costs for 2004–05. [157479]

  Margaret Hodge
  No specific guidance has been issued to Connexions Partnerships in relation to their running costs for 2004–05.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget is for the Connexions service for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [157509]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: The total Connexions service budget for 2003–04 and 2004–05 is:

  £

  Budget

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Field (grant to Connexions' Partnerships) Central Programmes (including PA

  437.5

  446.3m

  training, evaluation. Connexions Direct)

  18.6m

  14.6m

  VAT

  Not applicable

  11.8m

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the benefits to young people of the Connexions card scheme. [159495]
  1348W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Connexions card offers a range of benefits to young people who are in post-16 learning. The website www.connexionscard.com offers a range of rewards and information including:
  Products and services, chances to try new experiences and "money can't buy" opportunities. Currently there are some 140 possibilities on offer, including study guides and free entry to leisure facilities.Reduced cost of learning materials and public transport.Information on courses and career opportunities including a CV builder.
  The card also provides young people with an accredited proof of age card.

  Contact and Residence Disputes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what research his decision that it is in the best interests of children to be brought up by both parents was based. [152999]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is a considerable amount of research over a number of years from the UK and overseas that indicates that contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child. This finding has been
  1349W
  endorsed by a number of leading family court judgments. Studies have also indicated that it is the quality of the contact the child maintains with both parents rather than merely its quantity that has the most beneficial effect.

  A thorough literature review of research available in this area can be found in the publication 'Researching Contact' by Joan Hunt, a Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Oxford University. This work, by a well-known academic in the field of child and family law, provides a comprehensive summary of the research evidence that supports the view that contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child.

  Early Years Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the change in the number of private day nurseries in the nursery education grant scheme as a result of the removal of the ring-fencing of the grants to local authorities. [155827]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Day care figures for 2001 and earlier years for England and Government Office regions were published in DfES Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001", which is available in the Library and on the DfES website, www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics. Latest childcare statistics were published in a report by OfSTED 'Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 19 December 2003', which is available on the OfSTED web-site, www.ofsted.gov.uk/ publications. The numbers of providers and places recorded by OfSTED are not directly comparable with the previous data made available by the DfES because they were collected differently.

  The percentage of three and four year olds benefiting from free part-time early education in the private and voluntary sector has increased from 23 per cent. in January 2002 to 32 per cent. in January 2003. Growth in the full day care sector has been particularly strong over 2003–04. In March 387,000 places were available in the sector. By the end of December this had increased by 13 per cent. to 436,000.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has conducted into the funding of private providers for the nursery education grant scheme for three and four year olds following removal of the ring-fencing of funds for local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [155830]

  Margaret Hodge
  There has been no specific research of private providers following the consolidation of resources in the under-fives sub-block of their Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS)—the main source of funding for education.

  The percentage of three and four year olds benefiting from free part-time early education in the private and voluntary sector in January 2003 was 32 per cent., up from 23 per cent. in January 2002.
  1350W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from the National Day Nurseries Association on the financial viability of the operation by private providers of the nursery education grant scheme for three and four-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [R] [155831]

  Margaret Hodge
  While we have not had a direct representation by the NDNA we do have dialogue with the NDNA and other national organisations, through the Large Providers Forum and the Voluntary Sector Forum, on a whole range of issues surrounding early education, including viability.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the financial viability of the Government's nursery education grant scheme for three and four-year-olds; [R] [155832]

  (2) what representations he has received from Essex county council regarding the payment per term passed on by them to private sector providers under the nursery education grant scheme; and if he will take powers to force county council's to pass on to private providers the grain level made available by the Government; [R] [155824]

  (3) if the nursery education grant scheme payment per term will be index-linked to inflation; [R] [155825]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to reinstate ring-fencing of nursery education grants funds for local authorities. [R] [155829]

  Margaret Hodge
  From April 2003, we have increased local flexibility and autonomy, in line with the Government's principles of reducing ring-fenced funding by consolidating the resources in the under-fives sub-block of Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS)—the main source of funding for education. We have not received representations from Essex regarding funding to private providers. As funding in EFSS is unhypothecated it is the responsibility of the local authority to set funding at a suitable level to reflect local circumstances and in order to meet their statutory obligations. In the financial year 2004–05, overall funding in the under fives sub-block is worth £2.66 billion; overall education funding having increased by 5.5 per cent.

  Levels of funding increase every year, taking account of inflation and other pressures. All decisions on future funding will be considered as part of this year's Spending Review.

  Epinephrine
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children in schools have arrangements for delivering emergency injectable adrenaline (epinephrine) in case of an allergic reaction; [158817]

  (2) how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools have arrangements for delivering emergency injectable adrenaline (epinephrine) in case of an allergic reaction. [158818]
  1351W
  Margaret Hodge
  Schools are not required to provide this information to the Department. The arrangements for managing such issues in schools are determined at local level. However, the Department, jointly with the Department of Health, has produced 'Supporting pupils with medical needs—a good practice guide' and Circular 14/96 'Supporting pupil:, with medical needs in school', in 1996. The guide includes a section on anaphylaxis, with information about emergency adrenaline injection. These documents were written to help schools draw up policies on managing medication in schools and to put in place effective management systems to support individual pupils with medical needs, as well as to set out the legal background.

  Community Schools closed and replaced with schools with religious character since 1997

  LEA

  Closed School

  New Schools

  Date of Opening

  Religious Character

  Bexley

  St. Augustine'; Primary

  St. Augustine's of Canterbury CofE VA Primary

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Bexley

  Lesney Park Primary

  Christ Church, Erith, CE VA Primary

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Blackpool

  St. Georges High

  St. Georges CofE VA

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Darlington

  Middleton St. George Primary

  Middleton St. George CofE Aided Primary (VA)

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Doncaster

  Rossington High

  Rossington All Saints Church of England (VA)

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Dorset

  Beechcroft Infant

  Beechcroft St. Paul's CE VA Primary

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Hampshire

  Micheldever Primary

  Micheldever CofE Primary (VC)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Hartlepool

  Henry Smith (Secondary)

  St. Hild's CofE VA

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Lincolnshire

  Quarrington St. Botolph's (primary)

  St. Botolph's Church of England Primary (VC)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Milton Keynes

  Bow Brickhill First

  Bow Brickhill CE First (VA)

  1 January 2004

  Church of England

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  West Denton High

  All Saints College (VC)

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Northumberland

  Seaton Hirst Middle (middle deemed secondary)

  Seaton Hirst Church of England Middle (VC middle deemed secondary)

  1 December 2003

  Church of England

  Northumberland

  Cramlington Cragside First

  Cragside Church of England First (VC)

  1 December 2003

  Church of England

  South Tyneside

  Whitburn (secondary)

  Whitburn Church of England (VA secondary)

  1 January 2004

  Church of England

  Warrington

  Sir Thomas Bottler High

  Sir Thomas Boteler CofE High (VA)

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Warrington

  Hood Manor Primary

  Sankey Valley St. James CofE Primary (VA)

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Churchmead (secondary)

  Churchmead CofE (VA) (VA secondary)

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Community Schools closed as part of mergers/amalgamations and replaced with a schools with religious character since 1997

  LEA

  Closed School

  New Schools

  Date of Opening

  Religious Character

  Barnsley

  Dodworth Junior (community) and Dodworth CofE (VA) Infant

  Dodworth CofE (VA) Primary

  1 September

  Church of England

  Bury

  Fishpool Infant (community) and St. Chad's Church of England Junior (VC)

  St. Luke CofE Primary (VC)

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Calderdale

  Newlands Junior (community) and St. Peter's CE Aided Infant (VA)

  Sowerby Village VC CE

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Cambridgeshire

  Gordon Fendick Community Junior and St. Augustine's CofE Controlled Infant (VC)

  Orchards Church of England Primary (VC)

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Derbyshire

  Codnor CofE Primary (VC) and Codnor County Infant

  Codnor CofE Primary (VC)

  1 September 1997

  Church of England

  Derbyshire

  Chapel-en-le-Frith CE Infant (VC) and Warmbrook Junior (community)

  Chapel-en-le-Frith CofE Controlled (VC)

  1 April 2002

  Church of England

  Durham

  Lanchester Junior (VC), Lanchester County and Lanchester N ursery

  Lanchester Endowed Parochial Primary (VC)

  2 September 1998

  Church of England

  Gateshead

  Derwent Infant (community) and St. Cuthbert's Church of England Aided Junior (VA)

  St. Aidan's Church of England Primary (VA)

  1 September 2000

  Church of England

  Gloucestershire

  Winchcombe Infant (VA) and Winchcombe Junior (County)

  Winchcombe VA Primary

  1 September 2000

  Church of England

  Gloucestershire

  Hopes Hill Community Primary and Longhope CE VC Primary

  Hope Brook CE Primary (VC)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Hampshire

  Fareham Park In ant (county) and Fareham Park Junior (VC)

  Oak Meadow CE Primary (VC)

  1 September 1997

  Church of England

  Hertfordshire

  Haslewood Junior (community) and St. Paul's Voluntary Controlled Infant

  St. Catherine's CE VC Primary

  1 January 2003

  Church of England

  Isle of Scilly

  Carn Gwaval CE Primary (VC), St. Agnes CE Primary (VC), St. Martin's Anglican Primary (VC), Tresco CE Primary (VC) and The Isles of Scilly Secondary (community)

  The Five Islands CE (VC) Isle of Scilly (Middle deemed primary 4-16)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Faith Schools
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which community schools have closed and re-opened as faith schools in the last 15 years; and which faith was involved in each case. [158948]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show which community schools have closed to be replaced by schools designated with a religious character ("faith schools") since 1997, listed by LEA area. The first table shows single community schools that have closed and been replaced by single faith schools. The second table shows amalgamations or mergers where community and faith schools have closed, to be replaced by a single faith school. Reliable information is not available in relation to school re-organisations before 1997.
  1353W

  Community schools closed as part of mergers/amalgamations and replaced with a school with a religious character since 1997

  LEA

  Closed School

  New Schools

  Date of Opening

  Religious Character

  Kent

  New Romney Infant (community) and New Romney CE (Controlled) Junior (VC)

  St. Nicholas CofE (Controlled) Primary (VC)

  1 September

  Church of England

  Liverpool

  St. Georges Junior and Infant (VC) and Everton Park Junior and Infant (County)

  The Beacon CE VC Primary

  1 September 1997

  Church of England

  Liverpool

  Kirkdale Primary (community) and St. Lawrence's Primary VA)

  Kirkdale St. Lawrence CofE Primary

  1 September 2000

  Church of England

  North East Lincolnshire

  Pelham Infant's (community) and Immingham St. Andrew's Church of England Junior (VC)

  The Cannon Peter Hall CofE Primary (VC)

  1 September 2003

  Church of England

  Nottinghamshire

  Pilgrim Oak Infant (County) and Martin Roe Junior (VC)

  Ravenshead CE VC Primary

  1 September 1999

  Church of England

  Middlesbrough

  Coulby Newham (community Secondary) and Brackenhoe (community Secondary)

  Kings Academy (11-18 Academy)

  1 September 2003

  Christian

  Sandwell

  Whiteheath Infant (County) and St. James Junior (VC)

  St. James Primary (VC)

  1 September 1999

  Church of England

  Sheffield

  Pye Bank Community Infant and Pye Bank Trinity CE VA Junior

  Pye Bank CofE Primary (VA)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  South Tyneside

  Cleadon Village Junior (community) and Cleadon CofE Infants (VA)

  Cleadon Village Church of England VA Primary

  1 January 2004

  Church of England

  Staffordshire

  Knutton Infants (community) and St. Mary's Church of England (C) Junior (VC)

  Knutton St. Mary's Primary (VC)

  1 January 2003

  Church of England

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Elm Tree Community Infant and St. Mark's CE VA Junior

  St. Marks Elm Tree Primary (VA)

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Florence Primary (community) and Dresden CE Primary (VC)

  Belgrave CofE (C) Primary

  1 September 2002

  Church of England

  Tameside

  Hurst Infant (community) and Hurst VC Methodist Junior

  Rosehill Methodist Community Primary (VC)

  1 August 2003

  Methodist

  Warwickshire

  Baddesley Ensor Junior (community) and Baddesley Ensor CE VC Infant

  Woodside CE VC Primary

  1 September 2001

  Church of England

  Family Policy
  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 family policy; which(a) advisers 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. [158076]

  Margaret Hodge
  The review of family policy formed part of the work of two civil servants and a secondee from the voluntary sector. The views of a number of advisors from outside the Department and of local government have fed in to this work. The review of family policy is an internal DfES review by our Families Division. Its findings will not be published but they are contributing to relevant work in DfES and to the parenting strand of the Child Poverty Review currently being conducted by HM Treasury.

  Food Safety
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training in food safety for carers of babies and pre-school children has been made available since the death of Thomas Egan to ensure that they are equipped to protect those at risk from severe food allergy. [158819]

  Margaret Hodge
  The national standards for under eights day care and childminding indicate that registered childcare providers should request information from parents about food allergies the child may have, and take heed of such information when providing children with food and drink. The standards also require that there is at least one member of staff with a current first aid certificate on the premises or on outings at any one time, and that the first aid qualification includes training in first aid for infants and young children. First aid 1354W
  training has to be consistent with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to local authorities, who are responsible for making training available to settings. Guidance was sent to all local authorities in January 2004 and this includes the requirement that training should cover the treatment of children suffering from allergic reactions.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many food technologists are undergoing training at places of further and higher education. [144821]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2001/02, 2,356 students were studying Food Science as their primary subject within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and 158,074 were studying food science related subjects within Further Education Institutions (FEIs).

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what circumstances a local education authority may close a grammar school under section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 without(a) the consent of the governors and (b) a ballot of parents. [159791]

  Mr. Miliband
  Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides for a local education authority to propose the closure of any category of maintained school including a grammar school. The authority must first consult interested parties, including parents and governors. If, after considering the responses to consultation, they decide to proceed they must publish the proposals in the local newspaper, at the entrance to the school and in a local public place. Anyone may then submit comments or objections to the proposals. Where objections are submitted, the final decision on the closure will be taken by the local School Organisation Committee (SOC), or an independent
  1355W
  schools adjudicator if the SOC cannot reach a unanimous decision. Both the SOC and schools adjudicator must consider a range of factors in reaching a decision, including the views of interested parties.

  There is no requirement for a ballot of parents or the consent of the governors before proposals are published to close a grammar school. Ballots provide for the removal of selective admission arrangements, if enough parents vote in favour, from a school that is remaining open.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion was of families with an income under(a) £15,970 and (b) £33,500 with students going to higher education, broken down by local education authority, in the last academic year for which figures are available. [153132]

  Alan Johnson
  Data on the distribution of family incomes are not available at a Local Education Authority level.

  The income levels £15,970 and £33,500—referred to in the paper: Moving towards a single combined grant for higher education—are estimates for 2006–07.

  The figure of £15,970 is an estimate of the income threshold below which students will receive the full combined grant of £2,700 and above which the grant starts to be tapered away. Since the combined grant will be new in 2006–07, and its threshold is lower than that for the existing tuition fee relief scheme, there are no out-turn data for past years. However, it is estimated that around 30 per cent. of students will get the full grant. The figure of £33,500 is the estimated income level at which—in 2006–07—the combined grant will end and the means-tested element of the maintenance loan will begin to be tapered away. It is estimated that 50–55 per cent. of students will fall below this threshold and hence will receive some combined grant.

  In 2001–02, 59 per cent. of students had a family income which resulted in them receiving part or full contribution to their fees i.e. an income below the threshold of £29,785 for dependent students and £25,440 for independent students. This is the latest year for which data are available.

  Although the Department does not collect data on family income below various thresholds by LEA, we are aware that there are other organisations that do prepare figures of this nature. In particular, I understand that the House of Commons Library hay access to some figures on family income by Parliamentary constituency, which hon. Members may be interested in. In addition, the Office of National Statistics has recently published some data on their website (www.statistics.gov.uk/ neighbourhood) showing mean income at ward level, which hon. Members may also be interested in.

  The distribution of all students entering full-time undergraduate courses by local authority, is shown in the table, copies of which have bears place in the House Libraries.

  Homeless Young People
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether parents can be required to make a contribution to the care costs of a child under the age of 18 years, where they refuse to provide a home for that child. [155982]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Part III of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 provides powers for local authorities to recover contributions towards the maintenance of children looked after by them if they consider it reasonable to do so.

  The persons liable to contribute are, where the child is under sixteen, each of his parents and, where he has reached the age of sixteen, the child himself.

  Internet Safety Teaching
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to include internet safety teaching in the National Curriculum. [158996]

  Mr. Miliband
  Internet safety underpins the use of ICT to support the creative delivery of the National Curriculum and the teaching and learning of ICT core skills.

  Within the ICT curriculum and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) there is sufficient flexibility to include teaching about internet safety to pupils of all ages and for discussion about potential dangers when using the World Wide Web. Teachers are able to reinforce safe practice in any class where pupils are using the internet.

  The Department's Superhighway Safety guidance and website includes advice on all aspects of internet safety including key areas such as e-mails for students, filtering systems, school websites and chat rooms. Schools are advised to have an acceptable-use policy signed by students and their parents, guardians or carers, detailing the ways the internet can or cannot be used. School plans detail how they will implement internet safety measures such as filtering, monitoring and providing protected environments.

  The Internet Proficiency Certificate for primary pupils is a specific way of developing safe and discriminatory behaviours on the internet. We also provide GridClub as a safe environment for 7 to 11-year-olds to learn online in safety. The Parents Online website helps parents to help their children use the internet effectively and safely.

  Litter and Waste Disposal Education
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to ensure that school pupils are taught the importance of a responsible approach to the disposal of litter and waste. [159727]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Citizenship curriculum includes teaching pupils about issues that impact on the society and the environment. Pupils learn about what improves and harms their local environment and about the importance of disposing of waste and litter responsibly. Citizenship education encourages pupils to play a helpful part in the life of their schools,
  1357W
  neighbourhoods, communities and the wider world. Such lessons may contribute to pupils understanding the consequences of dropping litter. An example can be found in the QCA Scheme of Work for Key Stage 3 which has a unit called 'Developing your schools grounds' in which pupils take responsibility for planning, devising and implementing ways of improving their school grounds.

  Looked-After Children
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many looked-after children have had special educational needs statements in England in each year since 1994. [158066]

  Margaret Hodge
  Statistics on looked-after children with statements of special education needs have been collected only since 1999–2000. The following table has been compiled from the statistical bulletin "Outcome Indicators for Looked After Children" and refers to children who have been looked after for at least one year at the year ending 30 September.

  Year

  Number of looked-after children (LAC)

  Number of LAC of school age

  Number of LAC of school age with statements of SEN

  Percentage1

  2000

  42,200

  33,100

  8,600

  26.0

  2001

  43,400

  33,800

  8,900

  26.5

  2002

  44,100

  34,500

  9,200

  26.8

  1 Rounded.

  Mathematics/Physics A-levels
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students sat the A-level examination in(a) mathematics and (b) physics in 1993; and what proportion were in private sector schools. [158608]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  The total number of A-level entries in mathematics in England in 1993 was 62,616, 21.6 per cent. of which were in independent schools.

  The total number of A-level entries in physics in England in 1993 was 34,467, 21.3 per cent. of which were in independent schools.

  Minister for Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional responsibilities(a) the Minister for Children has assumed since October 2003 and (b) it has been decided the Minister for Children should assume but which she has not yet taken on. [157158]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since October 2003, I have assumed responsibility for the Children and Family Court Advice and Support Service (CAFCASS). Responsibility for CAFCASS transferred to my Department from the Department of Constitutional Affairs on 12 January 2004.

  I am not aware of any plans to extend my responsibilities as the Minister for Children, Young People and Families.

  New Deal for Schools
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was received by Northamptonshire county council at each stage of the New Deal for Schools. [159312]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the information requested for Northamptonshire local education authority.

  New Deal for Schools—Allocations to Northamptonshire local education authority

  £

  Allocation

  1997–98

  712,000

  1998–99

  2,309,000

  1999–2000

  2,590,000

  2000–01

  8,384,000

  New Schools (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the new schools agreed to be built in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough. [158457]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about all the capital investments in each school; this should be held locally. Tables have been placed in the Libraries which set out the capital support made by this Government to each London LEA since 1997–98, in total and by programme, including devolved formula capital grants to each school.

  In addition to the funding programmes indicated overleaf, the Department will also invest significantly in secondary education facilities through Building Schools for the Future (BSF). The aim of this new approach is to rebuild and renew secondary schools in every part of England within 10 to 15 years from 2005–06, subject to future spending decisions. During the course of BSF, we therefore expect London authorities to receive large-scale investment to transform their secondary school buildings. We have already approved funding in principle for BSF projects in Newham and Waltham Forest for 2005–06, and we are also working on a BSF pathfinder project involving Greenwich, Southwark and Lewisham.

  Popular Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated to the Expanding Successful and Popular Schools programme; how many applications have been made for funding under this programme; and how many applications have been successful. [159788]

  Mr. Miliband
  In August 2003, the Department announced that incentive and support funding for the expansion of successful and popular secondary schools would be available from 2004–05. To date, we have
  1359W
  received seven applications for funding under this programme, two from local education authorities (LEAs) and five directly from schools.

  Provision of this funding is dependent on agreement to statutory proposals to expand a school by the local School Organisation Committee (SOC), or failing agreement by the SOC, by the Adjudicator. We are not aware that any of these seven proposals has yet been determined.

  Where applications have the support of the LEA and are agreed, we will provide incentive funding of £500,000 (£400,000 if the school does not have a sixth form). Where applications are riot supported by the LEA, we will provide the full funding required. We are currently working with the five schools in this position to determine the level of support needed to provide 21st century buildings for the additional pupils.

  Post-16 Education (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with(a) Gloucestershire county council and (b) Gloucestershire Learning and Skills Council on the local education authority's post-16 review; and if he will publish the relevant correspondence. [159391]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with Gloucestershire county council or Gloucestershire Learning and Skills Council on the local education authority's post-16 review. Nor has the Secretary of State exchanged any correspondence with either of these bodies on the matter.

  Any proposals to re-organise sixth form provision published by the local education authority as part of this review will be decided locally by the local School Organisation Committee, or the Schools Adjudicator if the Committee cannot agree unanimously. The Secretary of State will play no part in the decision-making process.

  Postgraduate Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students participated in postgraduate education in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) social class and (b) age. [157494]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures for postgraduate enrolments by social class are not held centrally. The available figures split by age are given below.

  Postgraduate enrolments to UK HE institutions by age, 1997/8 to 2002/3

  Age

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  20

  1.465

  1,379

  1,392

  1,381

  1,443

  1,655

  21–24

  76,346

  77,508

  80,468

  85,548

  92,304

  103,762

  25+

  269,196

  285,071

  287,277

  293,821

  298,104

  308,833

  All

  347,007

  363,958

  369,137

  380,750

  391,851

  414,250

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Prince's Trust Report
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will meet the Prince's Trust to discuss the findings of its report, "Reaching the Hardest to Reach". [159496]
  1360W
  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the Prince of Wales on an occasional basis. My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the report "Reaching the Hardest to Reach" and it is being considered by Ministers. Ministers and officials in the Department for Education and Skills are in regular contact with the trust to discuss areas of mutual interest and co-operation, including the trust's work on reaching disaffected young people.

  Private Schools (Expansion)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria will be used in assessing whether to grant permission for a private school to expand. [158756]

  Mr. Miliband
  Section 162 of the Education Act 2002 requires independent schools to gain approval from the Secretary of State before increasing the maximum number of pupils within the school. The approval process takes into account the findings of recent inspections, or the school's plans for building work, which are subject to building regulation controls. Approval confirms that issues such as overcrowding or understaffing will not compromise the health, welfare and safety of pupils.

  School Cricket Facilities
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many state schools(a) have (i) cricket nets and (ii) cricket squares and (b) play inter-school cricket fixtures. [159330]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not held by the Department. Local education authorities and schools would need to expend additional resources were they to be asked to supply the information.

  School Federations
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school federations have been established. [159786]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is currently providing pump-priming funding for 29 Federation pilots involving around 150 schools. However, schools can (and do) federate without applying to the Department and without pump-priming funding. We do not hold centralised records for these federations.

  School Kitchens
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what earmarked funds are available for refurbishment of school kitchens. [158495]

  Mr. Miliband
  The only funds specifically earmarked for projects including the refurbishment of school kitchens relate to Voluntary Aided (VA) schools. This results from the reform of liabilities and funding arrangements at VA schools in 2002, when their governing bodies took on responsibility for some buildings (including kitchens) which were previously the responsibility of local education authorities. No other capital funding is earmarked by the Department, most being provided formulaically to support local prioritisation of need.

  School Leavers (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough left school with no qualifications in each of the last five years. [158451]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the percentage of pupils in(a) the London Government Office Region and (b) each London local education authority who gained no passes at GCSE/GNVQ for the years 1999 to 2003.

  Percentage of pupils gaining no passes at GCSE/GNVQ

  Local education authority number/name

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  National Average

  6.0

  5.6

  5.5

  5.4

  5.2

  London GOR

  5.2

  3.9

  4.6

  4.4

  4.7

  201 City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  202 Camden

  6.9

  5.9

  4.1

  6.1

  4.8

  203 Greenwich

  9.7

  6.9

  7.4

  6.8

  6.5

  204 Hackney

  7.3

  6.8

  6.9

  8.7

  5.1

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  4.5

  0.6

  3.9

  2.7

  3.7

  206 Islington

  9.1

  8.3

  11.4

  11.6

  5.2

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  6.8

  6.7

  3.8

  4.7

  5.6

  208 Lambeth

  4.5

  3.0

  4.5

  3.6

  4.0

  209 Lewisham

  5.3

  6.0

  7.1

  4.3

  5.3

  210Southwark

  5.3

  2,0

  4.7

  4.4

  5.4

  211 Tower Hamlets

  4.2

  2.4

  3.5

  1.9

  3.9

  212 Wandsworth

  5.0

  3.0

  4.8

  4.2

  7.2

  213 Westminster

  8.4

  5.3

  6.1

  5.9

  4.9

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  5.5

  3.0

  4.9

  7.1

  5.1

  302 Barnet

  6.9

  4.8

  4.8

  4.9

  5.0

  303 Bexley

  3.6

  4.5

  4.5

  3.4

  3.4

  304 Brent

  5.1

  1.5

  3.8

  3.8

  4.1

  305 Bromley

  4.1

  3.4

  3.7

  3.7

  3.5

  306 Croydon

  4.6

  3.2

  4.0

  3.9

  4.7

  307 Ealing

  4.4

  1.5

  1.8

  0.8

  3.4

  308 Enfield

  3.5

  2.9

  3.2

  4.2

  4.5

  309 Haringey

  7.4

  7.0

  7.9

  8.1

  10.0

  310 Harrow

  4.3

  3.3

  3.3

  2.6

  4.3

  311 Havering

  2.6

  3.8

  3.7

  3.7

  3.2

  312 Hillingdon

  6.6

  4.8

  3.8

  5.3

  6.7

  313 Hounslow

  5.4

  4.2

  4.3

  4.5

  4.9

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  5.6

  6.9

  6.0

  8 3

  5.1

  315 Merton

  8.1

  7.4

  6.3

  8.7

  7.8

  316 Newham

  3.5

  0.0

  2.4

  0.6

  2.0

  317 Redbridge

  1.4

  0.8

  2.1

  1.4

  2.2

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  4.2

  4.4

  5.8

  6.6

  3.4

  319 Sutton

  3.2

  3.5

  4.0

  3.3

  3.6

  320 Waltham Forest

  6.7

  6.5

  6.4

  4.8

  6.4

  Schools (Funding)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact his announcement in respect of financial settlements to local education authorities will have on per capita funding for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for (i) 2004–05 and for (ii) each local education authority. [159799]

  Mr. Miliband
  Our proposals to restore stability and certainty to school funding include a guaranteed minimum increase in every school's per pupil funding of 4 per cent. where pupil numbers remain unchanged. All authorities' School Formula Spending Shares are increasing by at least 5 per cent. per pupil in 2004–05. This gives headroom above the guarantee and flexibility to target funds towards schools facing difficulty. Information showing the increase per pupil for all local education authorities in England has been placed in the Libraries. It is for individual authorities to decide how 1362W
  funding above the guaranteed minimum increase should be distributed to primary and secondary schools, using their locally agreed funding formulae.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of(a) leadership incentive, (b) national literacy and numeracy strategy, (c) Key Stage 3 Strategy, (d) ethnic minority achievements, (e) school support staff and (f) information communication technology in schools: infrastructure grants are allocated directly to schools; and on what basis; [159184]

  (2) what proportion of Standards Funds grants are paid directly to schools. [159185]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: Standards Fund grants are allocated to local education authorities, not directly to schools. For some grants a minimum proportion must be devolved by local education authorities to their schools. The total proportion of the Standards Fund required to be devolved to schools through the Standards Fund in 2003–04 is 83 per cent.

  The proportions required to be devolved to schools in 2003–04 for the particular grants referred to are:

  Grant

  Proportion required to be devolved (percentage)

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  100

  National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  70

  Key Stage 3 Strategy

  66

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  85

  School Support Staff

  100

  Information Communication Technology in Schools:

  Infrastructure

  96

  These grants are devolved to schools on the following basis:

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  £125,000 to each secondary school in Excellence in Cities Areas, Education Action Zones and Excellence Clusters and secondary schools outside those areas where fewer than 30 per cent. of Year-11 pupils attain at least five A*-C grades at GCSE or where more than 35 per cent. of pupils are eligible for free school meals. All schools in receipt of the grant must agree a collaborative plan with their local education authority.

  National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  Grant is allocated to schools based on numbers of pupils and distance to the LEA's 2004 Key Stage 2 targets, KS1 reading and maths results, and the number of teachers attending five day maths courses, literacy priority training and training for Year 3 teachers.

  Key Stage 3 Strategy

  Allocated to schools to deliver core training and support to schools across the five strands of the Strategy, plus training for the behaviour and attendance programme. The grant also includes an allocation for training, support to schools identified for additional intensive support and schools with leading professionals

  1363W
  and teachers, and schools whose pupils face the greatest challenge in achieving the standards of learning expected of their age.

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  Local education authorities can determine their own formula for allocating this grant to schools, after consultation with the local Schools Forum.

  School Support Staff

  Local education authorities can determine their own formula for allocating this grant to schools, after consultation with the local Schools Forum.

  Information Communication Technology (ICT) in Schools: Infrastructure

  Local education authorities allocate the grant to schools in line with their ICT Development Plan to deliver improved computer:pupil ratios as well as provide a range of equipment and support.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 26 February 2004, Official Report, column 519W, on funds/grants, if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Condition Funding grant. [159187]

  Mr. Miliband
  Condition funding was introduce in 2001–02 as a capital grant allocation to all local education authorities for the investment needs of their maintained school buildings as prioritised through the local asset management planning process. It is allocated according to relative need based on condition data provided by all authorities, from a full survey of all their school buildings. It is for capital investment in buildings as defined in the current CIPFA Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in Great Britain: A Statement of Recommended Practice. Where authorities have satisfactory asset management plans, they have autonomy on how this grant is invested. Further details of this grant can be found in my Department's guidance on the programme which, along with guidance on other capital programmes, can be accessed through www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolscapital. I am arranging for copies of this guidance to be p laced in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Although Condition funding is allocated according to condition need, we urge all authorities to join up all capital funding streams locally to achieve the greatest impact in raising school standards, and to secure cross-cutting gains and best value for money investment.

  From 2004–05, to simplify funding programmes, Condition funding allocation becomes part of the Modernisation formulaic capital funding programme for all authorities.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources are available to assist children whose special educational needs are identified before the start of compulsory schooling. [157152]

  Mr. Miliband
  In all but exceptional cases, children below statutory school age will be supported through the resources and intervention arrangements that are normally available to schools and early years settings. Resources have also been made available to local authorities and their Early Years Development
  1364W
  Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) to ensure that all early years settings have access to advice and support from Early Years Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators as well as specialist teachers and educational psychologists.

  In September 2002, we launched the Early Support Pilot Programme (ESPP) to improve services for babies and very young disabled children and their families. This is a four-year, £13 million programme to develop more co-ordinated, multi-agency support for children and their families. Pathfinder programmes were launched in nine areas in 2003.

  Local authorities are also able to provide access to a home-based learning programme, such as Portage, or the services of a peripatetic support teacher, to help children with SEN learn how to learn.

  For those children with particularly severe and complex needs, local authorities are able to provide places in special schools or resourced provision within mainstream settings from their schools budget.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places there were in special schools in(a) the state sector and (b) the non-state sector in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003. [157154]

  Margaret Hodge
  The figures are available for the numbers of pupils in special schools but we do not collect data for the numbers of places in special schools.

  In January 1997, there were 93,018 pupils in maintained special schools, 5,810 pupils with statements of SEN in independent schools and 4,992 pupils with statements of SEN in non-maintained special schools.

  In January 2003, there were 88,930 pupils in maintained special schools, 6,990 pupils with statements of SEN in independent schools and 4,840 pupils with statements of SEN in non-maintained special schools.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils with special educational needs(a) with a statement and (b) without a statement are educated in (i) special schools, (ii) specialist classes or units within mainstream schools and (iii) other classes within mainstream schools. [157750]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: Information about the provision being made for pupils with statements of special educational need is collected from local authorities in January each year. In January 2003, the proportions were as follows:

  Special educational needs

  Percentage

  Special schools (including maintained, non-maintained and independent)

  37.5

  Resourced provision, specialist classes or units within mainstream

  7.5

  Maintained mainstream schools

  53.8

  Pupil referral units

  0.7

  Other independent schools

  0.5

  Data about the provision for pupils with SEN but without a statement is not collected from local authorities but information is available from the Pupil

  1365W
  Level Annual Schools Census. Pupils in specialist classes or units within mainstream are not identified separately. In January 2003, the proportions were as follows:

  Special educational needs

  Percentage

  Special schools (including maintained, non-maintained and independent)

  0.2

  Maintained mainstream schools (including resourced provision, specialist classes or units within mainstream)

  95.7

  Pupil referral units

  0.5

  Independent and non-maintained schools

  3.6

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the extent to which statemented needs are being met. [157284]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Education Act 1996 places duties on local education authorities (LEAs) and all LEA-maintained schools to identify, assess and make suitable provision to meet children's special educational needs (SEN). They may make and maintain statements on such children where appropriate, and section 324(5)(a) of the Act imposes a statutory duty on LEAs to arrange that the special educational provision specified in statements they maintain is made for the child, unless the child's parent has made suitable arrangements. We have no reason to believe that LEAs do not meet the needs of statemented children in the great majority of cases. However, it is open to parents and others to complain to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if they consider that an LEA is failing in its statutory duties in relation to implementing and maintaining statements, with a view to him exercising his powers under sections 497 and 497A of the 1996 Act. We consider any such complaints carefully. In addition, the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) monitors the performance of LEAs in meeting their statutory duties, including those relating to children with special educational needs.

  The Government's new SEN "Strategy Removing Barriers to Achievement", launched on 11 February, will build on the improvements to the statutory framework brought about by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act and the SEN Code of Practice, both 2001. We believe that all children with SEN will benefit from the proposals in the Strategy, on which we consulted widely prior to publication.

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Student Loan Company's latest estimate is of the likely future level of bad debt from income contingent student loans. [155454]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no real concept of bad debt under the income-contingent loan repayment scheme. This is because repayments are in line with earnings, not in accordance with a credit agreement, and income-contingent loans repayments are collected through the tax system, apart from a few exceptions. Loans are written off only for policy reasons—due to death, becoming disabled and unfit for work, or at the age of 65—which are not considered as bad debt.

  Sure Start
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to extend Sure Start's Business Success for Childcare programme to more areas of England in 2004–05, with particular reference to Bassetlaw. [158591]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Business Success for Childcare Programme currently delivers free business support training to childcare providers through a series of workshops supported by workbooks. The programme covers all areas of England.

  To date 11,481 providers have been trained. On evaluation feedback received so far, over 90 per cent. of childminders and group providers have said that they feel able to improve their business as a result of the training they have received.

  Teachers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to retain teachers. [146662]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have the highest number of teachers in schools for over twenty years, which is a reflection of our success not only in recruitment but also retention. We are encouraging teachers to remain in the profession by improving the environment and working conditions in which they are employed, through our key worker housing scheme, through ongoing and improved investment in behaviour management, through our radical school workforce reforms—supported by our union and other partners on the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group—and through the significant increases in teachers' salaries since 1997. These policies have met the key concerns of teachers and are all designed to make the profession more attractive both to potential new recruits and those already in our schools. We are also funding recruitment strategy managers who are currently working in over 100 LEAs across the country helping to provide a co-ordinated local approach to recruitment and retention.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Drugs Training
  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates have received specialist drugs training. [159472]

  Mr. Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the training of magistrates currently rests with the 42 independent Magistrates' Courts' Committees (MCCs). There is no central data collected on the information requested.

  However, following a survey that was undertaken by the Justices' Clerks' Society (JCS) towards the end of last year, it is known that all magistrates have had access to basic training on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO). The survey also revealed a general desire from magistrates for more information to be made available to them and as a consequence a working group was established and is currently producing guidance materials under the auspices of the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme (CJIP). In addition a specialist

  1367W
  training pack is being developed by the JCS with the approval of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), for magistrates who deal with DTTO review hearings.

  Emergency Protection Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 2 March 2004,Official Report, columns 852–53W, on emergency protection orders, how many ex-parte applications were made and what proportion was granted in (a) Nottinghamshire and (b) Kent. [159697]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 852W.

  Parliamentary Elections
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what appraisal his Department has made of the adequacy of arrangements for registering electors for parliamentary elections. [158958]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Representation of the People Regulations 2001 introduced a number of changes to electoral registration arrangements, including a scheme of "rolling registration" that enables names to be added to the electoral register at any time of the year, and enabling persons without a conventional address to register to vote. The Government considers that the recent changes to registration procedures have both made it easier to register to vote and resulted in a more accurate and up to date register. The Government will keep under review the arrangements for registering electors and is currently considering recommendations on the subject made by the independent Electoral Commission.

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mrs. Gillian
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the total number of applications alleging a breach of a section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 non-molestation injunction was, broken down by(a) whether or not the breach was proved and (b) in the event the breach was proved whether there was (i) an immediate prison sentence, (ii) a suspended prison sentence, (iii) a fine and (iv) another non-custodial disposal in (A)2001, (B)2002 and (C)2003; [159397]

  (2) how many civil non-harassment injunction orders were made under section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a)(b) 2002 arid (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; [159401]

  (3) how many orders for the payment of damages there were under section 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; and what extent of overlap with orders for section 3 non-harassment injunctions there was; [159402]

  (4) how many applications alleging a breach of a section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 non-harassment injunction there were in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by (i) sex of
  1368W
  the respondent/defendant, (ii) whether the (A) civil contempt of court procedure by section 3(3)–(5) and (b) criminal procedure by section 3(6)–(7) was used and (iii) whether the breach was proved. [159403]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications to civil courts included a claim for injunctive or financial relief under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent. [159400]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information held centrally relates only to applications made for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. During 2001 there were 392 such applications, in 2002 there were 499 and in 2003 the figure was 576. Information relating to the remainder of the question is not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what percentage this is of total staff employed; and how much the Department or its predecessors 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. [158254]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has a national contract for the provision of agency workers. Information regarding usage in the current financial year is only available for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003. During that period the estimated average number of agency staff employed was 255, which equates to 1.96 per cent. of the total staff employed.

  Information regarding the expenditure under this contract is provided in the following table.

  Information relating to workers employed through other agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department uses agency workers to meet short-term requirements and in areas where it is difficult to recruit and retain staff.

  Use of department's national contract for provision of agency workers

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  2001–02

  Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated offices

  Not applicable-did not begin using contract until following year

  Court Service—including the Immigration Appellate Authority

  £2,360,000

  2002–03

  Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated offices

  £276,000

  Court Services—including the Immigration Appellate Authority

  £4,692,000

  1369W

  Use of department's national contract for provision of agency workers

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  2003–041

  Department for Constitutional Affairs and Associated Offices

  £849,500

  Court Service—including the Immigration Appellate Authority

  £2,939,000

  1 Information available 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003 only

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Gloucestershire Emergency Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of Gloucestershire's Emergency Services Tri-service headquarters in Gloucester. [159042]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's response to the consultation exercise on regional fire and rescue control rooms was announced on 4 March. The options are open on the location of the fire and rescue control room

  Local authority

  ALMO

  Ashfield District Council

  Ashfield Homes

  London Borough of Barnet

  Barnet Homes

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Berneslai Homes

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Blyth Valley Housing

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Bolton at Home

  London Borough of Brent

  Brent Housing Partnership

  Carrick District Council

  Carrick Homes

  Cheltenham Borough Council

  Cheltenham Borough Homes

  Colchester Borough Council

  Colchester Borough Homes

  Derby City Council

  Derby Homes

  Gateshead Council

  Gateshead Housing Company

  High Peak Borough Council

  High Peak Community Housing

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  Hillingdon Homes

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Hounslow Homes

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Kensington and Chelsea TMO

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing

  Leeds City Council

  Leeds West Homes, Leeds South Homes, Leeds South East Homes, Leeds North

  West Homes, Leeds North East Homes and Leeds East Homes

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  First Choice Homes

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

  Salford City Council

  New Prospect Housing

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Tristar Homes

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  Ascham Homes

  City of Westminster

  CityWest Homes

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wigan and Leigh Housing

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  Solihull Community Housing

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Lakes Housing

  Warrington Borough Council

  Golden Gates Housing

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when a reply will be sent to the letter of 8 January from the Head of Planning at the Isle of Wight Council to the Government Office for the South East. [159535]

  Keith Hill
  The Government Office for the South East wrote to the Isle of Wight Council on 4 March, apologising for the delay and explaining that it had tried on several occasions to discuss the matter with Council officials, but without success. The Government Office 1370W
  for the south west region. The regional control centres will be able to communicate effectively with police and ambulance controls as well as with each other.

  Arm's Length Management Organisations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the arm's length management organisations approved to date, broken down by local authority; and which have a specific regeneration remit. [159289]

  Keith Hill
  The local authorities which have received approval under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 to delegate their housing management responsibilities to an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) are listed below. None of the ALMOs have a specific regeneration remit. The primary objective of all ALMOs is to bring the stock up to the Decent Homes standard and provide a high quality housing management service. The ALMOs work with their local authorities to ensure that the work to achieve Decent Homes is planned and implemented in parallel with other investment, including investment with wider regeneration objectives.

  remains ready to do all it can to help resolve any outstanding difficulties.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each local authority in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes the level of uncollected council tax for each year since 1996–97(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of total council tax revenue due. [158870]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information requested is tabled below.
  1371W

  Uncollected council taxes

  £000

  Amounts uncollected in-year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Milton Keynes

  3,189

  3,196

  1,998

  2,144

  3,097

  3,860

  3,223

  Districts in Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,231

  1,168

  1,773

  1,744

  1,466

  1,004

  1,007

  Chiltern

  331

  337

  470

  496

  442

  398

  403

  South Bucks

  233

  125

  386

  450

  886

  484

  293

  Wycombe

  1,361

  1,212

  1,308

  1,372

  1,116

  1,712

  1,769

  Percentage uncollected in-vear

  Milton Keynes

  8.9

  8.9

  5.0

  4.7

  6.3

  7.0

  5.4

  Districts in Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  3.8

  3.3

  4.5

  4.0

  3.1

  2.0

  1.8

  Chiltern

  1.4

  1.3

  1.6

  1.6

  1.3

  1.1

  1.0

  South Bucks

  1.5

  0.7

  2.0

  2.1

  3.8

  2.0

  1.1

  Wycombe

  3.9

  3.2

  3.1

  3.0

  2.3

  3.3

  3.1

  Source:

  QRC4 returns

  The figures relate only to amounts of council tax uncollected during the financial year to which they relate. This is because the figures reported to central government on amounts collected for previous years are not broken down by financial year. Council taxes nevertheless continue to be collected after the end of the financial year, and so the amounts and percentages that are ultimately uncollected for any financial year will be lower than those shown in the table.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148990]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (excluding Government Offices and its agencies) has 2,107.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, of which 52 staff have declared that they have a disability. The range of disabilities declared by these staff are:

  Number

  Hearing

  8

  Hearing Impairment Plus

  l—

  Learning

  l—

  Learning Difficulties Plus

  l—

  Mental Illness

  l—

  Mental Illness Plus

  l—

  Mobility

  l—

  Mobility Plus

  l—

  Other

  l—

  Physical Co-ordination Difficulties Alone

  l—

  Physical Co-ordination Difficulties Plus

  l—

  Reduced Physical Capacity

  6

  Reduced Physical Capacity Plus

  9

  Speech

  l—

  Vision

  11

  Visual Impairment Plus

  l—

  1 For these disabilities the actual number is not published in order to protect the privacy of the individual in line with exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money was collected in 2003–04 from businesses in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in non-domestic rates; and how much was passed on to (i) Lancashire county council and (ii) Chorley council. [157733]
  1372W
  Mr. Raynsford
  A total of £236,019,772 was collected in non-domestic rates from businesses in Lancashire in 2003–04 of which £16,592,430 was collected in Chorley.

  The revenue collected from the national non-domestic rates is re-distributed to all local authorities on the basis of domestic population, rather than on the amount raised in the local authority area. In the case of Lancashire, £304,417,378 was passed on to Lancashire county council and Chorley council received £3,508,4937.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Tower Hamlets' decision to use its dedicated homelessness strategy funding to pay Cash Incentive Scheme grants to registered social landlords' tenants to relinquish their tenancy and buy a property on the open market. [158550]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that Tower Hamlets has been paying grants to social housing tenants to enable them to purchase a property in the private sector. Such grants can be an effective way of releasing social housing to provide accommodation for homeless households and so relieve pressures on temporary accommodation and help to meet the Government's target to end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children. In 2003–04 Tower Hamlets plans to use £300,000 for such grants, out of a total allocation from the Homelessness Directorate of £876,000. Other plans for use of the homelessness grant included: increasing the supply of temporary accommodation in the private sector; employment of additional staff to increase the homelessness prevention service; and establishing a homelessness forum.

  Housing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many intermediate housing properties were constructed in each London borough in each of the last six years. [159180]

  Keith Hill
  The term intermediate housing is relatively new and there is no generally agreed definition. The Housing Investment Programme Housing Strategy Statistical returns by London local authorities show the following numbers of completions for new build housing for shared ownership.
  1373W

  Outturn

  Projected

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  54

  38

  90

  87

  78

  106

  453

  Barnet

  0

  0

  12

  48

  71

  137

  268

  Bexley

  7

  0

  11

  5

  43

  5

  71

  Brent

  65

  97

  42

  0

  58

  100

  362

  Bromley

  0

  0

  13

  9

  7

  30

  59

  Camden

  48

  87

  55

  42

  6

  43

  281

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  138

  111

  64

  185

  74

  65

  637

  Ealing

  66

  13

  2

  41

  74

  116

  312

  Enfield

  55

  0

  32

  37

  81

  23

  228

  Greenwich

  56

  19

  14

  75

  49

  205

  418

  Hackney

  0

  0

  147

  195

  254

  356

  950

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  63

  26

  62

  25

  26

  111

  313

  Haringey

  0

  25

  64

  58

  118

  214

  479

  Harrow

  3

  16

  0

  7

  24

  0

  50

  Havering

  0

  0

  19

  10

  0

  20

  49

  Hillingdon

  30

  13

  41

  18

  71

  120

  293

  Hounslow

  40

  11

  12

  57

  32

  34

  186

  Islington

  0

  38

  65

  146

  73

  49

  371

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74

  61

  25

  0

  17

  48

  225

  Kingston

  0

  3

  17

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Lambeth

  0

  44

  10

  20

  21

  65

  160

  Lewisham

  114

  137

  150

  53

  100

  32

  586

  Merton

  0

  4

  1

  23

  9

  29

  66

  Newham

  51

  97

  73

  113

  160

  565

  1,059

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  41

  6

  46

  88

  181

  Richmond

  36

  10

  24

  12

  25

  32

  139

  Southwark

  5

  28

  19

  52

  67

  117

  288

  Sutton

  280

  1084

  313

  15

  58

  44

  1,794

  Tower Hamlets

  114

  196

  161

  31

  237

  140

  879

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  61

  40

  3

  11

  115

  Wandsworth

  75

  76

  36

  20

  60

  256

  523

  Westminster

  36

  33

  116

  77

  70

  29

  361

  Total

  1,410

  2,267

  1,792

  1,505

  2,012

  3,190

  12,176

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authority dwellings in Stroud District fail the Decent Home standard; and what estimate he has made of how much it will cost to bring them up to that standard. [159384]

  Keith Hill
  The latest figures that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has for Stroud date from 1 April 2003, when the local authority reported a total stock of 5,429 of which 1,357 (25 per cent.) were non-decent.

  Stroud currently estimate the cost of making their stock decent at £3,070,000 in their 2003 HIP Business Plan statistical appendices. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands that the council is due to consider a report on financial and other implications next week, which means these figures may be subject to change.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Stroud District Council following the unsuccessful ballot on large-scale voluntary transfer. [159385]

  Keith Hill
  A meeting between officials of the Government Office for the South West, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Community Housing Task Force and Stroud District Council is due to take place on 8 March.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much he estimates Stroud District Council spent on the large scale voluntary transfer ballot. [159386]
  1374W
  Keith Hill
  Stroud District council spent £16,305 on the ballot.

  Local Government Finance
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central Government funding was given to each local authority in each of the last 15 years, broken down by region. [156242]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Planning
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the budget of the Sustainable Communities Policy will be allocated to the implementation of the stand-alone self-sustaining three-dimensional spatial concept for a city along the Thames from the Docklands to the Estuary. [159252]

  Keith Hill
  In "Sustainable Communities, Building for the Future" we announced that funding of £446 million over 3 years would be made available to the Thames Gateway as part of a total budget of almost £22 billion (see annex A). This will be used to tackle the barriers to development which have deterred investment in the Gateway. It will help regenerate existing communities and open up new development opportunities for housing
  1375W
  and employment on major brownfield sites such as Ebbsfleet and Eastern Quarry in Kent and Barking Reach, which is the largest brown field site in London.

  Regional Government
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he estimates that the running costs of the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Assembly will be more than the running costs of the two-tier system. [159194]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" that an elected assembly would have running costs of around £25 million a year. The potential savings from restructuring of local government in the area of North Yorkshire county council will not be known until the Boundary Committee for England reports in May on its recommended options for local government restructuring in North Yorkshire, and voters have had their say in a local government referendum.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total cost. of(a) holding the referendum for a Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Assembly, (b) setting up the Assembly and (c) holding the elections for the Assembly. [159195]

  Mr. Raynsford
  (a) The Government have recently consulted on The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) (England) Order 2004, that will establish the costs of conducting the referendums. Based on the figures in the draft order the cost of holding a referendum will be £1.47 per elector, if everyone eligible votes.

  (b) Assemblies will cost around £30 million to set up.

  (c) The set up costs include around £10 million for the first elections.

  Rodent Infestation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to publish data on rodent infestations in domestic premises based on the rolling annual English House Condition Survey. [158098]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The English house Condition Survey was re-organised as a continuous survey from financial year 2002–03. First results from the survey will be available for analysis from end 2004 with a view to reporting in mid 2005 and based on data from the period 2002–03 to 2003–04. In future years, annual results will be available based on rolling combinations of two year data sets (ie next results will be available for analysis by end 2005 based on the period 2003–04 and 2004–05). This approach will provide a robust base for analysis and monitoring of change.

  ODPM expect to publish a core set of national results, not covering rodent information but focussed on decent homes, using the combined two-year data set (2002–03 to 2003–04) by early next year. These results will report the
  1376W
  condition of the housing stock as a mid-point average over the two year period (ie as at 1 April 2003) as well as change over time (ie since 2001). For subsequent years, core results will be released annually based on overlapping data sets.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the results of the 2001 English Home Conditions Survey relating to rodent infestations in domestic properties; and if he will make a statement. [158100]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Central Science Laboratory's analyses of the 2001 English House Condition Survey data are nearing completion and Defra are expected to have the report by the end of March.

  The report will subsequently be placed in the public domain following further consideration by the Department.

  Small Business Funding
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) sufficient funding is available for small business start-ups in inner city areas and (b) sufficient information about that funding is relayed to local communities. [158083]

  Yvette Cooper
  To address the barriers to enterprise affecting the most disadvantaged communities in the country the Government has created 2000 Enterprise Areas, where businesses may benefit from one of several new or existing forms of Government assistance. These include help from the Phoenix Fund, which has been allocated £140 million to 2006 to provide finance for organisations providing funding for small businesses in disadvantaged communities, and encourages innovative ideas to promote and support enterprise in disadvantaged areas and in groups currently under-represented in terms of business ownership. Other measures designed to encourage enterprise include stamp duty exemptions, targeted support from the Inland Revenue and HM Customs, and neighbourhood renewal projects. Help is also available to community enterprises through the Adventure Capital Fund. Although it is not possible to put a monetary value on all these measures at this stage, they all provide real financial inducements for new businesses.

  Regional Development Agencies, Local authorities, Business Link Operators and Local Strategic Partnerships play a significant role in boosting the awareness and uptake of relevant measures by local businesses and entrepreneurs.

  Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of local authority expenditure was spent on(a) waste disposal and (b) waste recycling in each of the last five years. [158962]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion of local authority net current expenditure spent on waste disposal in the last five years is in the following table. Waste recycling costs are not reported separately.
  1377W

  Percentage

  1999–00

  1.45

  2000–01

  1.44

  2001–02

  1.47

  2002–03

  1.45

  2003–041

  1.51

  1 Budgeted figures

  Source:

  1999–2000 to 2002–03 R06 and RS forms and 2003–04 Budget Estimate Returns

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how local authority funding for(a) waste disposal and (b) recycling is calculated. [158963]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Central Government funding for waste disposal and recycling is provided mainly through formula grant (Revenue support grant plus redistributed business rates) to local authorities.

  Recycling is the responsibility of both the waste disposal and waste collection authorities. It is therefore part of the group of services included in both the county-level and the district-level Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) Formula Spending Share (FSS). The formula used for both the county-level and District-Level EPCS FSS can be found in Chapter 4 of the Local Government Finance Report (England).

  Formula Spending Shares are neither grant nor are they the Government's assessment of how much an authority should spend on a particular service. They are simply the formulae used in the calculation of formula grant. Formula grant is unhypothecated i.e. it may be spent by the authority for any purpose. It is up to each authority to decide how much should be spent on each service given its local priorities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Butler Inquiry
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Prime Minister what the estimated costs of the Butler Inquiry are. [159990]

  The Prime Minister
  The Butler Review is currently under way. I have asked it to report before the summer recess. The costs of the review will be published once it has concluded.

  Dalai Lama
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of Anglo-Chinese relations before deciding not to meet the Dalai Lama on his planned visit to the UK. [159797]

  The Prime Minister
  None. I am unfortunately unable to meet the Dalai Lama due to existing diary commitments. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting the Dalai Lama during his visit.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many staff are employed in his Office to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government
  1378W
  Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others; [158155]

  (2) what the total expenditure on communications for the Office has been in 2003–04, broken down by expenditure on (a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158190]

  The Prime Minister
  At 1 March, there were 11 staff working as Press Officers of which 10 are members of the Government Information and Communication Service. There are two special advisers who are Press Officers, one special adviser who works in the Strategic Communications Unit and nine civil servants who either work in the Strategic Communications Unit or provide administrative support.

  Final cost figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister whether a senior Cabinet Minister will visit Gibraltar during the tercentenary celebrations. [159320]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. MacShane) gave to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 749.

  Ministerial visits to Gibraltar in 2004 are currently under consideration and have not been finalised.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in relation to human rights violations alleged to have been committed by United Kingdom forces in Iraq. [158864]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held in the form requested. However, since 1 January 2003 I have received over 160,000 letters about Iraq including on human rights issues.

  Irish Historical Documents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister which documents are held by his office written by(a) P. H. Pearse, (b) Thomas J Clarke, (c) Thomas Macdonagh, (d) Edward Daly, (e) William Pearse, (f) 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. [156301]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost of special advisers was in 1996–97. [160052]
  1379W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to the hon Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 31 January 2003,Official Report, column 1056W.

  Minister for Men
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a post of Minister for Men. [159992]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Information Technology Organisation
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I am announcing today the appointment of Chris Earnshaw to succeed Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Burton as Chair of the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO). He will take up the appointment with immediate effect.

  This is an important and high-profile post. PITO has a key role in bringing forward the Government's plans for delivering a "joined-up" criminal justice system and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. I would like to pay tribute to Sir Edmund Burton for his significant contribution. Mr. Earnshaw, as his successor, brings very considerable experience at senior levels in industry and a substantial Information and communications technology background. I am confident that, under his leadership, PITO will continue to deliver the key IT programmes and services on which the police service depends.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Pursuant to the dissolution of 16 national health service trusts since 1 August 2002 and their reconfiguration through the establishment of seven new NHS trusts, I propose to create originating capital for the new NHS trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.

  Assets from some of the dissolved trusts were also transferred to primary care trusts. Public dividend capital is not required as a financing transaction for these transfers as primary care trusts are subject to a different financial regime. Net assets transferred from dissolving NHS trusts to primary care trusts are reflected in an increase to the general fund of the primary care trust.
  94WS
  These operations involved no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission, which it has approved in principle.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Council for Science and Technology
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today appointed 16 members to the Council for Science and Technology following its recent review. The appointments represent a wide range of experience from the scientific community, business and charities. The 16 appointments are:

  Professor Sir John Beringer CBE

  Professor Geoffrey Boulton QBE FRS FRSE

  Professor Janet Finch CBE DL AcSS

  Mr Andrew Gould

  Professor Wendy Hall CBE FREng

  Dr Hermann Hauser FREng CBE CPhys FInstP

  Dr Dieter Helm

  Professor Alan Hughes

  Dr Sue Ion QBE FREng

  Dr Rob Margetts CBE FREng

  Sir Paul Nurse FRS

  Sir Keith Peters FRS PMedSci

  Dr Raj Rajagopal FREng CEng FIEE FIMechE FIE FCMI

  Professor Michael Sterling FREng

  Professor Kathy Sykes

  Dr Mark Walport FMedSci

  The Council for Science and Technology is Government's top-level independent advisory body on strategic policy for science, engineering and technology. Its advice has been instrumental in helping the Government develop its present strategies for improving the excellence of the research base and putting it on a sustainable footing, for improving science education and for making effective use of science, engineering and technology. On 22 July 2003, the Government announced updated terms of reference and a new organisation for CST to reflect the needs of the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations for advice in coming years.

  CST will report to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Devolved Administrations. The 16 members will choose one of their number to act as co-chair alongside the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King.

  Full details of CST's terms of reference and organisation, and biographies of the members, can be found at www.cst.gov.uk.

  Decisions on appointments have been made following open competition and wide consultation with key players.

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

Coal-fired Power Stations
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is appropriate to use export credit guarantees to support the export of carbon dioxide inefficient coal-fired power stations.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government believe that it is appropriate to use export credit guarantees to support coal-fired power stations, provided that such power stations are designed to meet international emissions standards and appropriate levels of carbon efficiency and that other environmental and social impacts are acceptable.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, while this country has worked hard and successfully to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 12 million tonnes per annum, the export credit guarantee system is being used to guarantee the export of 40 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide emissions. What assistance does the Minister think this is, particularly to maritime third world countries which are already susceptible to flooding, when we are likely to generate an increasingly fickle climate?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, affordable electricity is vital to the economic development of many poorer countries, and coal is their only viable fuel source. We are concerned that the support that we give—as I mentioned in my earlier Answer—is for power stations that meet international standards. We are reflecting the attitude of all other advanced countries, but in some parts of the world coal will still be burned. It is important that we improve the efficiency of such stations as best as we are able.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord indicate what effort is being made to promote cleaner coal technology transfers, as envisaged on page 92 of the energy White Paper? In connection with that, what is being done to bring forward demonstration projects to showcase the relevant technology, so that potential purchasers can see what they are being offered? This was also envisaged in the White Paper.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are concerned to develop a strategy to extend opportunities with regard to clean coal technology. The noble Lord will know from the White Paper that we indicated why there were certain problems in this area, given relative costs. He will also know—our debates in Committee on the Energy Bill are
970
helping to advance this cause—that the Government are ever open to proposals that see cleaner fuel technologies making an advance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not be more cost effective if the Government were to use a lot more money promoting clean coal technology, rather than wasting a great deal of money on windmills, which are not only inefficient, but are also despoiling great tracts of our beautiful country?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will know the relative costs between the development of wind turbines and aspects of clean coal technology. The White Paper makes it absolutely clear that the most economic way of hitting our targets for sustainable fuels by 2010 is to develop wind turbines, which is what we are doing.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could the Minister confirm one thing about his first Answer? Is he saying that these coal-fired generators meet the international standards that they use the export control guarantees for? If that is so, could he confirm that that is not adding to CO2 emissions in these countries? We understand that it is. Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, why have the Government not been supporting Drax, with its clean coal technology?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are no international standards at present for emissions from coal-fired power stations at an agreed international level. In my first Answer, I said that we give support when we are able to employ the best strategies available. The noble Baroness is right that coal-fired power stations add to the emission levels—that is why in Britain we have our own national standards. Within those national standards, we are seeking, through the strategy of the White Paper, to reduce dependence on coal and other fuels and increase dependence on those that are more benign with regard to renewables.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Drax power station, one of the largest coal-fired power stations in Europe. Is my noble friend aware that his staff, who are very enlightened on the question of clean coal, have visited our power station and learned a lot from it, so that they can take the knowledge that they have received and pass it on to others throughout the world?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, indeed, that is so. We recognise the significance of Drax power station. The problem with the economics of Drax is that the company does not have other opportunities to help to bear the higher costs of power generation through the flue gas desulphurisation process at Drax. That is why that power station, as opposed to other power stations in this country, is in a uniquely difficult position with regard to costs.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, in his reply, the Minister said that the Government were attempting to meet their renewable energy target through wind power. Can he explain why the Ministry of Defence and other government departments seem to oppose, certainly in south-west Scotland, all applications for either hill farmers or Scottish Power to put up wind generators?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has proper interests to defend with regard to the effectiveness of certain parts of its radar operations. The anxiety is that the development of the wind turbines in certain parts will interfere with that. We hope, of course, that we will be able to resolve these issues in planning where the wind farm turbines will be and by investigating fully what impact any development might have upon the Ministry of Defence radar concerns.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would the Minister like to see Britain have a flourishing export industry in the design and construction of nuclear power stations and, if so, what will he do to encourage it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Question was about coal technologies, but I hear what the noble Lord says about nuclear. The position, as he knows, is that the Government have an open mind about nuclear and are keeping open the nuclear position with regard to future build as our energy strategy develops. But he will know that nuclear production is very expensive and that there are other, lower cost opportunities for meeting our emissions targets and our clean fuels. It is that mixed strategy which the Government are pursuing.

Multiple Sclerosis
2.44 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will monitor progress made by the National Health Service in implementing the recently published recommendations in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on the management of multiple sclerosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will develop criteria for assessing the performance of NHS bodies, taking account of the Secretary of State's statement of healthcare standards, which are currently subject to public consultation.
972
These draft standards currently propose that NHS treatment and care should be based on nationally agreed best practice and guidance, including that issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I thank the Minister for that reply. I gather that she has a daughter who suffers from the disease. My noble friend is not well this afternoon, although I gather she may struggle in a little later.
Multiple sclerosis has unpleasant symptoms; it causes distress to both patients and relatives. In view of the fact that North Bristol NHS Trust recently abandoned plans for a new centre of excellence for financial reasons, can the Minister confirm that the Government realise the importance of the NICE recommendations, particularly the provision of more specialist nurses to enable seamless advice and treatment to patients with multiple sclerosis?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure we all wish the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, a speedy recovery. We are committed, as a government, to improving services for patients with MS. NICE's guidance, together with the forthcoming national service framework for long-term conditions and the risk-sharing scheme for providing beta interferon for MS patients will help to ensure an improvement in services.
We have provided funding to increase the number of multiple sclerosis specialist nurses to help to support the implementation of the multiple sclerosis risk-sharing scheme. Some £800,000 was made available in 2003–04 and 2004–05, and £1.2 million will be provided in 2005–06 to help to meet the cost of employing extra nurses.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, one of the key recommendations in the new guidelines involves the provision of specialist neurological services to multiple sclerosis sufferers. It is quite clear that without specific contracts and good practices in the commissioning of specialist services for MS patients, those who suffer from the disease will lack needed access to care. Have not the Government made their task that much more difficult by transferring responsibility for commissioning specialist services from regional commissioning bodies to PCTs?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords. There is a slightly weary note in my voice here—as the noble Lord knows, we have been over the subject of specialist commissioning quite often in different guises. The Government are committed to devolving responsibility to PCTs, which have been given the resources to commission services and come together in confederations for specialist services.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend's statement about the additional resources for specialist nursing is most welcome. Will he confirm that when these are

973
in place, in two or three years' time, there will be sufficient facilities so that those patients who are prescribed beta interferon by their doctors will be able to have the necessary nursing support and back-up to give effect to their overall treatment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think I can give that confirmation. The scheme that was started in May 2002 and which is backed by statutory directions tries to ensure that there is no postcode prescribing of these specialist treatments and that we have, uniquely, joined together with other interests to make sure that beta interferon is available to those patients who need it.

Builders: Compulsory Registration Scheme
2.48 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I offer my apologies to the House—I have already done so to the Minister—for not having been in my place when this Question arose previously.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to introduce a compulsory registration scheme for builders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there are no plans to introduce a compulsory registration scheme for builders. A statutory scheme would present considerable enforcement difficulties; it would also be costly and bureaucratic, given the size of the industry. We are currently working with representative trade bodies and others to implement the Quality Mark scheme for the domestic repair, maintenance and improvement sector on a voluntary basis. We plan to launch nationally to consumers later in the year.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whereas the voluntary quality scheme helps educated middle-class customers, it does nothing to protect the more vulnerable customers who need a compulsory scheme to make cowboy builders illegal?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Obviously, my Lords, people who can make use of a Quality Mark system have an advantage. However, there are serious reasons why we believe that a registration system is not the right step to take, as I hope to indicate. It would be very costly; above all, it would be difficult to enforce, as this is an industry in which it is difficult to enforce things; and it would also lead to a lower baseline standard to ensure effective introduction.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a serious problem of aggressive door-step cold-calling of vulnerable people—
974
particularly elderly people—by those who claim to be, but probably are not, competent builders? Will the Minister indicate Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Private Member's Bill that has been introduced in another place, which intends to ban cold-calling of property repairs, maintenance and improvements?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord have their origin in a report published by the Trading Standards Institute last year, under the title Door to Door Cold Calling of Property Repairs, Maintenance & Improvements—Long Overdue for Statutory Control. The Office of Fair Trading is due shortly to publish its conclusions and recommendations on the whole area of door-step selling. This is the moment to wait for its conclusions.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in welcoming the Government's Quality Mark scheme, does the Minister agree that part of the scheme assesses the workmanship skills of' the building firms that are trying to join it, and that one problem is that many builders do not have any formal qualifications—apart, perhaps, from the plumbers and electricians? The Minister or I could set up a building firm, if we desired to do so, without any formal qualification. Does the Minister have figures for how many in the building trade have formal qualifications, and what the Goverment propose to do about the problem?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give a figure, but I believe that it is not a good one as far as training is concerned. I shall write to the noble Baroness and give her the figures that we have. It is an essential part of the Quality Mark scheme that it has both inspections and a complaints system attached to it. One idea is to drive up standards, which means having to drive up the standards of the firms doing the work. The sector skills councils, which we are setting up, are one way to get the industry to put its house in order.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one principal factor that enables cowboy builders to flourish at the expense of reputable builders is that reputable builders pay the insurance premiums, which are now pretty exorbitant, for their staff and customers, while cowboy builders do not, thus exposing their staff and customers to unacceptable risk? A scheme such as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, suggested would stop that happening.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue is the great difficulty, which the noble Lord's question reflects, of getting anything enforced in the industry, particularly VAT and all the other issues. It is that very consideration that makes us reluctant to embark on a registration scheme for the whole industry. There are some very basic things that we need to enforce first of all.

Middle East: US Initiative
2.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the United States Administration's draft greater Middle East initiative.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are at the beginning of a process that is intended to respond to the needs that the governments of the region have themselves expressed. The United Kingdom Government and the United States Government are already engaged in wide-ranging discussions with the governments of the region on developments that will enable those countries to realise their full potential.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she accept that the draft greater Middle East initiative looks likely to be the most important dimension of American foreign policy towards its European allies in the next two to three months, for the G8 summit, the NATO summit and the EU-US summit? Does she also accept that the Foreign Secretary's speech to the Foreign Policy Centre last Monday, which I thought was rather thoughtful, offered a very different emphasis on western policy towards the Middle East than that contained in the draft Middle East initiative? Can she assure us that we shall do our best to make sure that this American drafted initiative works with British and EU initiatives towards the Arab and Muslim regions, particularly towards the Mediterranean or Barcelona process, rather than working across them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I emphasise that these questions of how Arab countries develop over the next two years have been matters of discussion for quite some time. I agree with the noble Lord that there are different nuances in the United States' presentation from that which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary presented in his speech last week, which I thought was excellent.
The noble Lord is quite right: we are working towards the G8, NATO and EU-US summits. However, he must remember that the United States' paper has not as yet been published in its final form; he knows that it was leaked. Unfortunately, the way in which it was leaked was not particularly helpful to the sort of dialogue that we want to develop on both sides of the Atlantic. By "both sides of the Atlantic", I mean that our European partners and we in this country want to develop a dialogue with the Arab countries. British officials are today in Brussels discussing the matter, and last week I asked all the Arab League ambassadors in London to come in to discuss it. I hope that those discussions will be positive and will have an agenda that we can take forward together.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's first reply and the implication that we shall continue to respond positively to requests for advice and help from governments in the Middle East on better governance. Nevertheless, is she aware that the press reports of the draft initiative—and I have myself seen only the press reports—are liable to be interpreted in the Middle East as attempts to impose inappropriate forms of government on those governments? Does she agree that we should perhaps wait to see how the constitution of Iraq develops—and, indeed, perhaps our own constitution—before attempting to impose constitutions on others?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would agree, if that was what we were attempting to do. However, we are not trying to impose constitutions on others. The fact is that there are questions that the Arab countries themselves have identified as needing urgent address. Of course, advice and help will be given when it is asked for, but given in a spirit of partnership. It is important to recognise that we are talking about promoting the values of good governance, human rights, tolerance and the rule of law. Those are not "western" values, but values that many Arab countries are developing. They are universal values—the very values that are detailed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is that agenda that we want to work towards.
I stress to your Lordships that I was in the region when the leak came, and I am very aware of how the leak struck the countries of the region. The Foreign Office will be working very hard to establish the spirit of partnership to which I alluded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister, together with the Foreign Secretary, use their influence to ensure that a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine is at the top of the EU and the G8 agenda? Is that not even more important than whatever progress can be made towards democracy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an enormously important question. I remind the noble Lord what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said when he made his speech last week. He said that,
"we must match our common engagement in support of reform with renewed international effort to make progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
He was very clear that it was not a question of doing one or the other and that the two things have to be matched with each other.
I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that before I came to the House today I had a meeting with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mr Abu Ala, who brought with him a very powerful team, including Nabeel Sha'ath, Sayeb Erekat and Salam Sayyad. This

977
afternoon, they are seeing my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to have further discussions on the important point that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, presumably, the big thought behind all this talk of a greater Middle East initiative—and the Minister has been very much involved in those matters—is that there should be a vast area of stability throughout the Maghreb and Arab world, in which terrorism no longer receives any sponsors or encouragement but, on the contrary, is removed from all the agendas of all the states involved. Will she continue with her work in that direction? There seem to be three different versions of this initiative: the EU version, the NATO version, and the American version that she mentioned, and indeed a British version of the American version. Will she ensure that they all gradually coalesce into an effective and sensitive operation for the entire area, that they pull together rather than pull apart, as so often seems to be the case nowadays?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not implying that we shall pull apart from each other. It is important to see this in the context of addressing some of the problems that countries in the Middle East have themselves identified—the questions about regional economic growth, which is failing to keep pace with the growing population of those countries. We must remember that there is an extraordinary problem when 60 per cent of the population is under the age of 18 and when youth employment is in the region of 50 per cent at the moment. The World Bank has said that over 100 million jobs need to be created in the region in the next 20 years.
The noble Lord is right to identify the question of terrorism. It is enormously important but we cannot look at it in isolation. A bigger picture must be painted. Stability will be part and parcel of economic growth to deal with the questions that I have just identified to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the history of British and American policy in the Middle East has not always been good? In the light of recent history and that of the past 100 years, we ought to tread with great caution. Will she also accept that until we focus our attention on the root cause of injustice in the Holy Land and seek some resolution of that issue, the spreading of peace and freedom in the Middle East will be extremely difficult to achieve?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree in part. It would be very interesting for some of your Lordships to hear what I hear when I visit countries in the Middle East because I hear about historic friendship. I hear a great deal about the way in which this country has contributed to the growth of the countries concerned and to establishing the ways in which they deal with their international relationships. The right reverent Prelate should not run away with the idea that all the countries of the Middle East bear a huge grudge
978
against this country. It is simply not the case. I hear a tremendous amount about friendship, historical links and the current vibrancy of our relationship. It is important to remember that countries such as Qatar and Bahrain are as different from Egypt and Saudi Arabia as we are from other European countries. One size does not fit all in this relationship. There are very different issues at stake and they must be addressed differently.
I do agree with the right reverend Prelate that we cannot separate out the problem of Israel and Palestine. For many countries in the region, this is a heart-felt, almost visceral, problem and it must be addressed. That was what my right honourable friend was doing in his speech last week.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the British Government have a clear understanding of exactly what the American concept of "the greater Middle East" covers? On Friday, I heard two American officials disagreeing about whether it was the Arab world or the Muslim world. Does it include Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and all the other "stan"s in Central Asia? Does it go, as one atlas put it, from Marrakesh to Bangladesh or further? Where is it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord sounds like those on the Benches opposite who asked me to define Europe or, on other occasions, those in your Lordships' House who want me to define NATO. I cannot speak for the American Administration. There are enough times when I am in the Middle East when I am asked to answer for American policy. I say very firmly that I am a British Minister and I answer the noble Lord as a British Minister. In the Foreign Office, we define the greater Middle East as the Arab world and the countries of North Africa that constitute the Maghreb.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I have two brief statements about today's business. First, as noble Lords will have seen on the annunciator, a Statement on the Equitable Life inquiry will be repeated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh later this afternoon. It will come at some time after 4.30 p.m. Secondly, I have done the arithmetic on today's Second Reading debate. I admit that meeting the target time of 10 p.m. may be tricky. Allowing a little flexibility, I can tell your Lordships that if all noble Lords speak for about eight minutes we would still get to any vote, should there be a vote, at around 11 p.m., even allowing for the Statement. Putting this in the most courteous possible way, of the 45 noble Lords on the list for today's debate, 23 noble Lords also took part in the debate on a very similar subject on Thursday, 12 February. It may be that a balancing act could take place between those who have already given us the benefit of their wisdom and those who are fresh.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Friday 26 March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to be taken first.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitutional Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Constitutional Reform Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Constitutional Reform Bill will abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor and make changes to the way in which the functions vested in that office are handled. It will also create the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, create the Judicial Appointments Commission and remove the right of the Lord President of the Council to sit judicially.
The Bill is one of the Bills referred to in this Session's gracious Speech. It is a significant part of the Government's legislative programme. We believe that the Bill should be considered by this House and then passed to the elected House for its consideration during the course of this parliamentary Session. That is how our democracy works. It allows Bills to be introduced into this House.
We must ensure that we get the detail of the Bill right. In ensuring sufficient time to do that, we must also ensure that the inevitable uncertainty that will surround the arrangements while they are being considered is kept to the minimum required to ensure proper scrutiny. A long period of uncertainty is not good for our legal system.
The essence of the Bill is not new. In 1972, in their report The Judiciary, leading members of Justice recommended the creation of an advisory judicial appointments commission, comprising precisely the sort of membership that we are now proposing: legal professionals, the judiciary and lay members. They repeated the call 20 years later in their 1992 report. The Law Society echoed this call four years ago in a report that called for:
"An independent [Judicial Appointments] Commission … responsible for the recruitment, selection and promotion of candidates from the widest possible pool".
980
Almost 10 years ago, shortly before his appointment as my predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg said in a speech to the 1996 Bar Conference:
"Labour favours an Advisory Commission on Judicial Appointments at all levels … It would include representatives of the judges and the professions, as well as a strong, high quality lay element".
That is precisely what we are now legislating for.
Similarly, it is five years since Justice made a similar call for reform of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the office of Lord Chancellor, saying:
"We firmly believe that the present arrangements are inherently flawed, and that reform of the judicial functions of the Law Lords and of the Lord Chancellor is not a luxury but a practical necessity. The profoundly changed role both of the judiciary and of the Lord Chancellor's Department, together with the changes being brought about by the renewal of the British constitution, make it imperative that there should be a final court with sufficient authority, expertise and resources to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice at the highest level".
The reforms have been consulted on in detail for seven months. They will be debated in Parliament for many months to come. They will receive detailed and proper scrutiny. In a constitutional change of this importance, proper consideration of the Bill is vital. That it should be considered by the elected Chamber is, however, the foundation of our parliamentary democracy. This House has almost always accepted that. Our role here is to scrutinise and revise. To prevent the Commons even looking at the Bill is to break with that approach. It has been done once before in modern times in relation to a government Bill—the Hare Coursing Bill, in 1975. That Bill, once referred to a Select Committee in this House, was killed there. The Commons never got a chance to look at it. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is that the Bill will certainly not be passed by Parliament within this Session and it may never be considered by the Commons, and that we oppose it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has just raised a very important issue which is crucial to the issue that will be put to the House later this evening. Can he confirm, therefore, that there is no reason why this Bill should not be a candidate for the procedures brought in by the Labour Government—namely, carry over—and that this Bill could be carried over into the next Session of Parliament for the House of Commons to examine it in the normal way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be a unique proposal put forward in relation to it. We are saying that the right course, this being a Bill in the Queen's Speech, is to deal with it within this Session. We thoroughly underline the need for proper scrutiny of the Bill, which a Committee of the whole of this House would be able to give it.
This Bill has two main strands, the first of which is abolition of the Lord Chancellor and the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission. To have a system where all judges are appointed by a judge who is a Cabinet Minister who can deploy and discipline those

981
judges and who is also the presiding judge in the final Court of Appeal is not a basis for long-term independence of the judiciary. It has worked well in recent years, but one failure would gravely undermine the system. We should change when we are strong. We should recognise that we can improve the system. The new arrangements must embed and preserve the independence of the judiciary. They must also allow the Minister to concentrate on his important ministerial functions and on running his department, which has responsibility for issues such as the courts and legal aid.
We have consulted in detail on these measures with the Lord Chief Justice, on behalf of the judiciary, on how to ensure the independence of the judiciary. We have reached agreement. That agreement, now called the concordat, is reflected in the Bill.
The second strand is the creation of a Supreme Court. We believe, along with the senior Law Lord, that the time has come to reflect the reality of our constitutional arrangements. The Law Lords are appointed to the final Court of Appeal, not the legislature. They are judges. We believe that the final Court of Appeal is currently a beacon of legal excellence and will remain so in the new arrangements. We also believe in the supremacy of Parliament. Ultimately, laws must be made by Parliament. The judges, in accordance with law, must construe and interpret those laws. However, unlike systems such as that in the United States of America, we do not want policy issues such as capital punishment, abortion or racial discrimination to be decided by judges. They must be decided by Parliament. That most certainly does not make our system any worse or better than that in the United States of America; it is simply different. It has not made the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords a second-rate final court of appeal. It will not make our new Supreme Court in any sense second rate.
I turn to the detail of the Bill. Right at the outset, we embed the independence of our judiciary. Clause 1 therefore provides a guarantee of continued judicial independence. It creates a duty on all Ministers of the Crown and all others with responsibility for the administration of justice to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. It also places an additional duty on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to have regard to defending the continued independence of the judiciary. This duty will also apply, for example, in his handling of the recommendations from the new Judicial Appointments Commission and in funding and running the administration of the courts.
In recognition of the important role of the Lord Chief Justice in the judiciary, Clause 2 makes him the President of the courts of England and Wales, including the magistrates' courts, and sets out his responsibilities, including representing the views of the judiciary to government, and the training, guidance, welfare and deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales. The role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is also important. It has been agreed between the Lord Chief Justice and myself that the functions of the Lord Chancellor that relate to the
982
judiciary and the court system should not in future be transferable between Ministers without primary legislation.
The Bill at present does not include provisions for the future handling of the Lord Chancellor's functions in relation to the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I will bring forward relevant amendments in Committee and, if necessary, on Report and in the other place.
Part 1 of the Bill also allows the statutory functions of the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Speaker of this House to be exercised by whoever fills that role. I expect to introduce later amendments to provide for any other necessary provisions once this House has further considered its response to the report of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
Part 2 provides for the establishment of a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, separate from Parliament, and for the transfer to that court of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords and the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The Bill seeks to make our constitution more transparent and logical by creating at the apex of the judicial systems a Supreme Court which is visibly independent of the legislature. I say "judicial systems" in the plural, for there is no single United Kingdom judicial system, and it is no part of the Government's plan to attempt to create one. The new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will maintain continuity through the current Lords of Appeal in Ordinary becoming the first Justices of the new court, with the senior Law Lord as its first president.
The doctrine of stare decisis will operate as it does in appeals to the House of Lords at present: any decision in an appeal will be binding only on courts in the jurisdiction from which the appeal came and merely persuasive in other jurisdictions. Scots, English and Northern Ireland law will continue to develop independently but in parallel. Neither this Government nor the Scottish Executive have any plans to give the United Kingdom Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals from Scotland since this jurisdiction is one which has never been exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
Members of the Supreme Court will be appointed by Her Majesty, but the process will be much more transparent. I appreciate the scope for differing views as to the precise nature of the process; that was debated by your Lordships in some detail on 12 February, has been discussed by commentators and will no doubt be further considered today. I am considering very carefully the views expressed and assessing whether the balance of factors to which I referred might need to be adjusted further to improve the procedure. In particular, I am looking again at ways in which account can be taken of the views of a devolved administration. I do not therefore rule out bringing forward amendments during the passage of the Bill on this and on the detail of different aspects of the procedure for appointing the President, Deputy President and Justices of the court.

983
The Bill places a specific statutory duty on the Minister to secure sufficient resources to enable the effective and efficient carrying on of the business of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court will not in any sense be part of the Court Service of England and Wales. It will instead form a separate entity administered for the benefit of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
As a logical consequence of the separation between judiciary and legislature, the Bill restricts the right of Members of the House of Lords to sit and vote for so long as they hold full-time judicial office. In addition to the Justices of the Supreme Court, this will also apply to the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord President of the Court of Session.
Finally, Part 2 of the Bill makes consequential and transitional provisions to allow the transfer of functions to the court. Included in this will be the renaming of the existing Supreme Court, both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, in respect of which I will bring forward amendments at Committee and Report stages in this House.
I now move to Part 3 of the Bill, which creates a Judicial Appointments Commission and a Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and makes provision for a new disciplinary process in relation to the judiciary. The selection for appointment of judicial officeholders in England and Wales is primarily the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor supported by officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. These arrangements have served us well in the past and given us a judiciary considered by many to be the best in the world.
But it can no longer be appropriate for a Minister to have this degree of control over appointments. The Bill therefore creates a new independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which will select judges for appointment in England and Wales. The commission will recommend to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs one candidate for each vacancy selected solely on merit. No one may be appointed who has not been selected by the commission. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have a very restricted role. He will be able to reject a candidate once and to ask the commission to reconsider a selection once. These arrangements will ensure that the role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is transparent, but that there is the necessary ministerial oversight and involvement to ensure proper accountability to Parliament.
Schedule 10 sets out the members of the Judicial Appointments Commission and its powers and responsibilities, which will reflect its status as an executive non-departmental public body. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the panel for appointing members of the commission will be chaired by Dame Rennie Fritchie. There will be 15 commissioners with a lay chairman supported by a chief executive and staff.
At present the Lord Chancellor has statutory powers to remove judicial officeholders below the High Court on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.
984
These powers will be transferred by Schedule 1 to the Bill to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to be exercised only if the Lord Chief Justice agrees. The Lord Chancellor also currently exercises a more general role in relation to disciplinary matters concerning judicial officeholders.
The Bill places all matters of judicial discipline and removal on a transparent statutory footing and provides a structure which reflects a proper balance between an independent judiciary and democratic accountability for the judicial system. The current role of the Lord Chancellor will be divided between the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. No removal or other disciplinary action will be taken by one of them without the agreement of the other. None of these powers will displace the existing role of Parliament in the removal of senior members of the judiciary.
Chapter 3 will also permit parties who are dissatisfied with the administration of the complaints procedure to seek review of the operation of the process by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.
There are four substantive amendments to this part of the Bill which I wish to table during Committee stage in this House. They will ensure that the Bill delivers the detail of the Written Statement I placed in the House Libraries on 26 January, the concordat. The first concerns the criteria that the commission will use to assess applicants for appointments to judicial posts. I will ensure that the definition of merit should be for the commission itself and not for Ministers. The second amendment will provide that the Lord Chief Justice be consulted about any guidance issued to the commission and that guidance shall be set out in a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. Such guidance will set out the expectation that the commission should seek to encourage a more diverse pool of potential appointees and should take account of the need for expert judicial knowledge. The third will set out on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may ask the commission to reconsider or reject a candidate. The fourth amendment will clarify the arrangements for appointing members of the Judicial Appointments Commission, in particular by ensuring that nominations for the appointment of the three most senior judges are made by the Judges' Council rather than by the appointments panel.
This Bill contains vitally important constitutional changes, which will strengthen our democracy and the rule of law. They are changes which will ensure our constitution protects and preserves the independence and quality of the judiciary as the pressures on them inevitably increase. We cannot afford to get them wrong. I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this Bill has confirmed our worst suspicions about the Government's constitutional intentions. I will touch on only three of our more serious concerns because I want to say something as well about the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
First, Clause 51 deals with the issue of merit. I am pleased to say that Clause 51(3) states:
"Selection must be on merit".
So far so good. But Clause 51(4) states:
"After consulting the Lord Chief Justice, the Minister may by order specify considerations that are to be taken into account in assessing merit for the purposes of the section".
Merit is the cornerstone of the system of judicial selection.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has actually been listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said that he would introduce an amendment to make sure that a Minister was not able to specify what was meant by merit.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but that is not the point I am about to make, which is that the whole definition of merit should be on the face of the Bill. It is vital that this definition is not, in any way, contaminated by any inappropriate ingredients. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will at least bring forward at an early stage in the Committee procedure a full definition of merit as an amendment to the Bill itself.
My second observation is the extent to which the executive is to be involved in judicial selection. I know that the Lord Chancellor also proposed some amendments to this aspect of the Bill in the course of his speech. But it is still a fact that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have considerable veto powers over the selection of most judges and quite extensive veto powers over the selection of judges in the Supreme Court.
I find that quite bewildering. The principle upon which these constitutional changes is based, as I understand it, is the principle of separation of powers. This principle has been applied most rigidly in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. The Lord Chancellor intends to remove the Lord Chief Justice from your Lordships' House; he intends to move the Law Lords from your Lordships' House; and yet when it comes to the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, we continue to have a relationship of deep intimacy.
I accept that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet, but in a very special constitutional position. He is a senior lawyer; he takes the judicial oath and he is a heavyweight politician on a par with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary; and he receives respect as such. He is also responsible to Parliament for judicial selection. Parliament is the only institution which has
986
the power to fire High Court judges. It is only right therefore that the person responsible for halving; the final word to hire them is a Minister responsible to Parliament.
Contrast the position of the Lord Chancellor with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. We understand that future Secretaries of State for Constitutional Affairs are unlikely to be lawyers. If they are not going to be lawyers, how can they possibly make an assessment of the merits of a candidate? How can they possibly exercise the discretion that they are given in this Bill to choose judges? Moreover, we all know that future Secretaries of State for Constitutional Affairs will be junior Ministers in the Cabinet. They will be unable to hold their ground against the invasive tendencies of more senior Cabinet Ministers.
In my submission, if the selection of judges is going to be done by this very close relationship between the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Judicial Appointments Commission, then the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have to be a clone of the Lord Chancellor.
My third observation, which I make very briefly, is about that part of the Bill that deals with the establishment of a Supreme Court. Our view is that establishing a Supreme Court is pointless and extravagant. Any dispassionate observer who react the debate on 12 February in your Lordships' House will see that the majority of speeches came to the same conclusion.
I now turn to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The Opposition were the first to call for the pre-legislative review, which we did on 26 January 2004. Our request is recorded at col. 18 of Hansard. We felt that we received some support from the Prime Minister on 4 February when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee in another place. The Times reported the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister to have said:
"In retrospect it would have been better probably had we published a paper, had we taken a step back and separated the reshuffle very clearly from departmental change".
On 9 February we again called for a pre-legislative review. On the following day, 10 February, at page 29 of the conclusions of the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee in another place, the draftsman says:
"The consultation process has been too short and the legislative timetable is too restrictive to deal with changes which are so far-reaching in their effects".
He went on to add:
"We recommend that the Government proceed with the Constitutional Reform Bill on the basis of its being draft legislation".
It is well known that that committee was chaired by a Liberal Democrat, Mr Alan Beith, with seven Labour Members and only three Members of the Opposition.
On 12 February, at cols. 1219 and 1220 of Hansard, we repeated again our request for a pre-legislative review. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, then tabled his amendment to leave out reference to,
"'Committee of the Whole House' and insert",

987
a reference to a "Select Committee". Given our previous approach to the question of pre-legislative scrutiny, we came to the conclusion that we would support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. If we had any lingering doubts about that, they were swept away by the publication of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, on the occasion of the centenary celebrations of the Squire Law Library in Cambridge.
The speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in your Lordships' House on 26 January on the occasion of the Statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on judicial selection concentrated very narrowly on the issue of the concordat and the criteria for judicial independence.
In the speech that the noble and learned Lord made in Cambridge, he ranged much more widely. Among the issues upon which the noble and learned Lord touched was the issue of the Supreme Court. His conclusions can be briefly summarised by three extracts from his speech. He states first of all—I quote from page nine of the Times online report:
"Among the Supreme Courts of the world, our Supreme Court will, because of its more limited role, be a poor relation. We will be exchanging a first class Final Court of Appeal for a second class Supreme Court".
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that,
"if I had a vote on the subject, I would be in favour of deferring a decision, until I knew, first of all, the building which it is intended the Supreme Court should occupy and, secondly, the method by which the other (non-judicial) members of the House of Lords will be appointed".
He continued:
"To push ahead now, despite the many reservations which have been expressed, would, it seems to me, be inconsistent with the desirability of achieving constitutional change by consensus".
Unlike the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, had much to say on the question of the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in the course of his intervention on 26 January. I hope that I shall not be accused of inaccuracy or unfair distortion if I make the comment that what he says on these issues in his speech suggests that some of the confidence he had in the arrangements to which he in effect gave his name on 26 January has been undermined since then by various events.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in his speech on this subject on pages nine and 10 of the Times report:
"If the Constitutional Reform Bill becomes law in its present form, we cannot take the continued individual, or collective, independence of the judiciary for granted. Fairly recent events cause me to still have real concerns for the future.
The Government has made no secret of the fact that in the future the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is likely to be a member of the Commons and could well be a non-lawyer. Particularly because of a perceived need for a joined-up approach to criminal justice, I am worried about the Department for Constitutional Affairs becoming a subsidiary of the Home Office or unable to compete with the dominance of the Home Office.
988
The result could be the Home Office being in a position to dictate the agenda for the courts which would not accord with the need for independence … I hope my fears are unjustified, but it is worrying when changes are advocated without apparent appreciation of their significance".
Why this sudden change? The answer is, in my submission, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has seen the new system at work. He has been negotiating with the Government—both the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs—and he has discovered that one of the components of these negotiations is their refusal to budge on the issue of whether there should be an appeal from asylum tribunals to higher courts—the issue of the ouster of jurisdiction.
The noble and learned Lord went on to describe his experience of this much vaunted co-operation between the judiciary and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The noble and learned Lord said that,
"our advice was that a clause of the nature now included in the Bill was fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law and should not be contemplated by any government if it had any respect for the rule of law".
He continued:
"The result was that clause 11 was extended to close the loopholes we had identified, instead of being abandoned as we had argued".
He continued further by saying that,
"there have been attempts to justify the clause, but these are specious and unsatisfactory. It is particularly regrettable that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State should find it acceptable to have responsibility for promoting this clause".
He concluded:
"What areas of government decision-making would be next to be removed from the scrutiny of the courts? What is the use of the courts, if you cannot access them?"
The final observation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on this issue was as follows:
"It also surprises me that the Government does not see it as inconsistent to promote a clause designed to exclude the courts from performing their basic role of protecting the rule of law at the same time that it is introducing the present constitutional reforms".
This is really the heart of the matter. The Lord Chief Justice has realised that he cannot trust the politicians to deliver their side of the bargain. The conduct of the Department for Constitutional Affairs on this occasion will be the future conduct of all departments for constitutional affairs.
In all the circumstances it is clear that this experience has not been a happy one for the judiciary. I believe that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is a timely one and I urge your Lordships to support it.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall not repeat the reasons why we on these Benches support the broad thrust of the Bill's proposals, on which some of us have worked for more than two decades. I shall concentrate on the practical choices that are open to the House, before turning briefly to some of the important matters in which we will seek to amend the Bill during its progress.

989
The House will have to confront a difficult dilemma at the conclusion of this debate in deciding what means are realistically open to us that will best protect and strengthen judicial independence and the rule of law. That should be our touchstone in reaching our collective decisions: what will best protect and strengthen judicial independence and the rule of law? Whatever reservations are held about parts of the Bill—and we certainly share some of them—the House will agree that it should be read a second time. But what happens then? Should the House agree, as we would hope, to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House so that the Bill can be amended and improved in the normal way, or should we follow the course to be advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, with the support of the Official Opposition, and commit the Bill to a Select Committee?
On the face of it, the course advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is beguilingly attractive. The way in which the Government introduced the proposals was botched, by their own admission, with the attempt to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor by press release. By acting clumsily, with undue haste and without consulting the senior judiciary, the Government lost much potential goodwill and support for proposals that would strengthen rather than weaken judicial independence and the rule of law. That was disheartening for those of us on these Benches and beyond who have developed broadly similar proposals for more than two decades.
The argument in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is that a Select Committee would be able to receive evidence and scrutinise the details of the Bill and make recommendations to remove its undoubted defects. That is at first sight an attractive argument that shortly will be put more attractively by the noble and learned Lord. But, if accepted, one of two unhappy consequences would be likely to result. I am sure that neither of those consequences is intended by the noble and learned Lord and neither of them would afford the best protection of the paramount constitutional values of judicial independence and the rule of law.
The first consequence would be the real risk that the Bill would be slowly scuttled. That would be for two main reasons. First, the legislative process would be halted until the Select Committee had completed its work, say by some time next autumn. There would be no likelihood that the Select Committee's work would hasten the passage of the Bill through this House, even if its recommendations were positive in nature. Detailed scrutiny and revision of the Bill would still be needed and people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who have root-and-branch objections to the parts of the Bill dealing with the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and the creation of a Supreme Court, would not give up their opposition. Although the Bill could, in theory, be carried over until the next Session, there would be no certainty, or even a strong probability, that it would be enacted by both Houses before a general election next spring.
990
Some root-and-branch opponents, including the Official Opposition, would be delighted with the prospect of sinking one of the Government's flagship Bills in that way. But, we need to look realistically at the practical consequences of sinking the Bill. We would be left with a Lord Chancellor who has candidly accepted that the division between his political loyalties and his professional loyalty to judicial independence mean that there is now an institutional schizophrenia that has become constitutionally unacceptable. It is also regrettable that recent events have seriously weakened judicial confidence in the effectiveness of ministerial protection that has traditionally been given by previous Lord Chancellors and Home Secretaries to maintaining judicial independence and the rule of law. And as the Lord Chief Justice said, in his powerful Squire Centenary lecture, there is a risk of the Department for Constitutional Affairs becoming a subsidiary of, or being unable to compete with the dominance of, the Home Office.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also explained that he has reluctantly joined those who say that the Lord Chancellor can no longer play his traditional role as head of the judiciary unless his responsibilities are significantly reduced. But, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, rightly recognised that it is now not possible simply to go back to the position as it was before 12 June. He said:
"I have reservations as to whether there is any way of putting the clock back once you have had a Secretary of State and a Lord Chancellor; a combination of roles that I regard as wholly inconsistent one with the other".
He added:
"I also have doubts whether it would be possible now to restore the special culture that needs to exist if the Lord Chancellor is to successfully combine his different and conflicting responsibilities".
The noble and learned Lord explained the reasons why he and the judiciary had concluded, after the sudden removal of the last traditional Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on 12 June, that
"the independence of the judiciary requires increased statutory protection".
One matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, described as "particularly regrettable"—and has been mentioned already—is the fact that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State should find it acceptable to have responsibility for promoting Clause 11 of the current Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill when the judiciary had advised him that such a clause,
"was fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law and should not be contemplated by any government if it had respect for the rule of law".
We entirely share those concerns. But if this Bill is scuppered as a result of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the present Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State will remain yoked in double harness in office, without the much-needed statutory safeguards of judicial independence; and, constitutionally, the Lord Chancellor, with the Prime Minister, will remain exclusively responsible for making all appointments to

991
the senior judiciary in England and Wales, and to some extent Northern Ireland, and to the Judicial Committee of this House and that of the Privy Council. We will lose all the benefits of the safeguards in Parts 1, 3 and 4—especially the benefits of a statutory judicial commission for England and Wales.
The Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should be congratulated on having achieved a concordat which, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, provides,
"an appropriate constitutional framework for the future relationship between the Government and the judiciary. It will ensure that the judiciary comes of age and takes on responsibility for those features of the relationship that are critical to its future well-being".
If this Bill is scuppered, the concordat will not be turned into a binding statutory scheme during the lifetime of this Parliament. There will be no guarantees of continued judicial independence and no statutory Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales to ensure appointment on merit and freedom from political interference. Although the sap is rising on some Benches, surely that is not the best way of upholding the rule of law and judicial independence.
These Benches strongly favour the creation of a powerful ministry of justice with the legal stature and qualifications of a traditional Lord Chancellor and that has a specific duty to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system. We hope that the Official Opposition will agree with that core policy of our party. It would do much to repair the damage done in the aftermath of 12 June. However, if the Bill is scuttled the House will disqualify itself from introducing that essential bulwark into the statutory scheme at the present stage.
The other likely scenario, if a majority of the House accepts the amendment, is that the Government will withdraw the Bill from this House and introduce it in the other place. It is a flagship Bill to which they are firmly committed. If they do so, that will greatly reduce our power to influence the Bill's contents, not least because it is likely that the Government will invoke the Parliament Act in the name of upholding good governance, judicial independence and the rule of law.
The Government have paid us a compliment by introducing the Bill in this House, where they lack an inbuilt political majority, rather than in the other place. Surely it would be wiser to keep the Bill here, firmly under our control, rather than weakening our real influence if the Bill is transferred to the Commons. We will then have ample opportunity to scrutinise and revise the Bill in the ordinary way.
Like many across the House, we on these Benches would oppose the creation of a Supreme Court separate from and independent of this House, unless and until it were given a proper home and sufficient resources. The way to deal with that is not by sinking the Bill, but by amending it to ensure that Part 2 cannot be brought into force until those requirements have been fully met. For all those reasons, we hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will
992
resist the temptation, great though it is, to press his amendment to a Division, and we hope that if he does press it, the House will not give the amendment its support. If it does, it will score a short-term victory against the Government, but in the longer term it will prove to have scored an own goal that will undermine our effectiveness in protecting judicial independence and the rule of law. It will be a classic case of a pyrrhic victory.
I have already explained that the main proposals in the Bill have our support and that they reflect longstanding core Liberal Democrat policy. But there are several flaws in the Bill that need to be tackled. I mentioned the pressing need for a well qualified Minister of Justice with a clear duty to uphold judicial independence and the rule of law, and who is a lawyer. We also believe that there should be a formal procedure, by means perhaps of a Joint Committee of both Houses, through which the views of the judiciary can be given to Parliament. We are grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State has just conceded that the concordat has not been fully translated into the Bill, but we greatly welcome the fact that he has undertaken to introduce necessary amendments. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, I will spell out—so that there is no doubt about—it what has been said. The panel to appoint members of the Judicial Appointments Commission for the Supreme Court will be an appointing panel and not an advisory panel to be consulted by the Minister. That is the first point.
The second point is that appointments on merit are of fundamental importance. What we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that he will amend Clause 51 so that it will be the Judicial Appointments Commission and not the Minister that specifies the considerations to be taken into account in assessing merit. As Professor Sir Colin Campbell, the wise chair of the Commission for Judicial Appointments, noted in his letter to the Times on Saturday, it is:
"an invidious role for a politician".
As regards Part 2 of the Bill, we believe that the process of appointment to the Supreme Court for the UK should correspond to the process for the appointment of senior judges in England and Wales, with only one name—rather than two to five—being submitted by the Appointments Commission. The name of that candidate should be submitted not to the Minister—at least certainly not unless we have a Minister of Justice—but to the Prime Minister, with a requirement to give reasons to the commission for the rejection if the Prime Minister does not find the candidate acceptable. Those changes would reduce the scope for political interference.
When selecting candidates for the Supreme Court, the commission needs to be broad-based and to include members of the Scottish and Northern Ireland commissions. The provision in the Bill for further consultation by the Minister with politicians in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and with secret soundings by Ministers with senior judges, is wholly objectionable because of the risk of political

993
interference. Sir Colin Campbell has rightly drawn attention to the defects in the present system of secret soundings.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, during the debate on 12 February, explained that his reasons for favouring the creation of a new court were "entirely practical and pragmatic". He said:
"The fact is that this House can no longer provide the accommodation, resources and facilities which a properly serviced Supreme Court requires—or, if it can, it is not minded to do so".
He said, and I agree,
"We are probably the worst supported Supreme Court of any major jurisdiction in the world and we act throughout on a shoestring. The time is rapidly approaching when this simply will not do.—[Official Report, 12/2/04; cols. 1293–94.]
The senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Steyn and Lord Woolf, have expressed similar views, combining pragmatism with constitutional principle. The House will surely agree with them that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom must have adequate resources not only to promote efficiency and quality in the judicial process but also for the lawyers and the general public. It has to be at least on a par with other final courts across the Commonwealth.
The Supreme Court should have responsibility for the administration of its own resources and for negotiating them with the Treasury. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, explained in his evidence to the committee in the other place that the Supreme Court should have its own staff, employees and budget. That committee concluded that,
"The Department for Constitutional Affairs is not the appropriate organisation to run the new court because it is too associated with the England and Wales court system and because giving the Government control over the administration of the new court could offend against the principle of judicial independence".
We agree with that. In Australia, a one-line budget is annually agreed between the High Court's chief executive officer and the attorney-general. In the Law Lords' response to the Government's consultation paper on a Supreme Court, the Law Lords agreed that a similar arrangement to the Australian model would be appropriate here.
Again we agree. The Supreme Court should have responsibility for administering its own resources. Its running costs should not be recouped by imposing a surcharge on court fees, but should come from general taxation.
To conclude, we support the main proposals for constitutional reform contained in this Bill and recognise the pressing need for the Bill to be enacted before the next election. We oppose referring the Bill to a Select Committee because we believe that it would sink the Bill and weaken judicial independence and the rule of law, instead of enabling the House to have primary responsibility for scrutinising and revising the Bill. We will seek to amend the Bill in important respects to give greater protection to judicial independence and the rule of law. We support deferring Part 2 until suitable accommodation and resources for the new Supreme Court become
994
available. We will undoubtedly vote against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, if he divides the House.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, as I spoke in the debate on 12 February I will follow the Chief Whip's advice and concentrate today solely on the question of whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee—a view which was expressed by very many speakers in the debate on 12 February, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who I see is present, together with a number of the other right reverend Prelates.
Before I come to that, I add a short postscript to what I said last time on the question of Part 1 of the Bill. It arises out of something which was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in his lecture the other day—a lecture which has already figured largely in what has been said by Members of the House. If I read him right, he said that he had reluctantly now come to the view that it was, or might be, too late to put the clock hack to where it was on 11 June. He said that that was a view which he was expressing personally, not on behalf of the judges. It seemed to me to be a view which went rather further than the views which he expressed when he last addressed this House. But whether that be so, I have to say that I do not share that view. It is not too late to save the office of Lord Chancellor. That is what I hope we shall do, and I hope that very soon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that it is not part of his case that it is now too late to put the clock back, as appears to be the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
What would that mean if that were so? It would mean that the Government could make fundamental changes in our constitution without any mandate from the people—none has been suggested—and without any consultation of any kind. Then he might say, eight or 10 months later, "Sorry, the die has been cast; it is now too late to go back". All of us would regard that as intolerable and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that it is not too late. Otherwise, it seems to me that we are making a mockery of parliamentary control of executive action.
Two years ago, on the initiative of the then Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the House accepted a recommendation that virtually all major government Bills should, as a matter of course, be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That has been government policy since 1997, as one can see from the first report of the Modernisation Select Committee in the other place. It said that there is almost universal agreement that pre-legislative scrutiny is right in principle. I assume that that is still government policy on the Front Bench. I look to see whether there is any sign of assent to that, but at the moment I see none.
On any view, the Bill is of major importance, yet there has been no proper consultation even now. Yes, there has been consultation on the details, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out on 12 February,

995
but when I asked him about the principles, he said—perhaps more implied—that consultation on the principles was not required because it was a matter of government policy. And anyway these ideas had been, as he said, around for generations. Lots of ideas have been around for generations, but that is not a substitute for specific consultation.
It follows therefore that this Bill was an obvious candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny. All the more so since the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, under the chairmanship of the right honourable Alan Beith, with a large majority of Labour Members, made a strong recommendation that the Bill should be published in draft form so as to allow proper scrutiny for what they called "fundamental changes". I had the honour of appearing before that committee, as did many of my colleagues.
Yet when the Bill was published three weeks later, the Government simply ignored the committee's advice without any apparent explanation. If I had been a member of that committee, I should have been somewhat aggrieved. If the Bill had started in the House of Commons, I would have expected someone to get up and make suitable noises. But that could not happen because the Government decided, for their own purposes, and in my respectful view rightly decided, that the Bill should start not in the Commons but in your Lordships' House. It seems to me to follow, therefore, that it is not only right but our bounden duty to give this Bill the kind of scrutiny which the Commons Select Committee so strongly recommended and on which it might have insisted. We ought to do that if only out of respect for the other place.
Let me give two examples of how we should be helped by a report from a Select Committee. First, there is the question of costs. The only information we have appears on page 50 of the Explanatory Notes. The current gross cost of running the House of Lords as a judicial body in this House is given as £623,000. The net cost—that is, net of fees—is £168,000. I would expect your Lordships to be astonished by those figures. It seems to me to be extraordinarily good value for money.
What will be the cost of removing the Law Lords to what was the other day called "a place of safety"? The capital cost is given as between £6 million and £32 million, which seems a wide bracket. The annual running costs, excluding Law Lords' salaries so as to make it comparable with the other figures I have given, will amount to £8.7 million, if my arithmetic is correct. These figures cry out for an investigation by a Select Committee before we can go any further with the Bill.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and hinted at by the Government that we need not worry about those figures because the legislation will not be brought into force until a new building has been found or created and the Law Lords are in a position to take possession of it, like the gods entering the new Valhalla. But that objection misses the whole point. We cannot even begin to legislate without knowing what it is all going to cost. How can we form a view,
996
how can we express any sensible judgment, unless we are simply to be asked to buy a pig in a poke? We should resist that at all costs.
Then it is said that the enormously increased running costs do not matter because most of them can be recovered from those poor souls who are using the lower courts. But why should they be asked to pay? What will they get out of it?
That brings me to the second point which seems to me to cry out for further investigation. If we are to have a cost/benefit analysis of the new Supreme Court, what exactly is the alleged benefit? The only benefit so far identified by the Government is the removal of a so-called perception in the mind of the public: a perception that the Law Lords are not independent; a perception that their decisions are politically motivated; and a perception that they are operating under the shadow of Parliament. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Government in their consultation paper. I find it very difficult to take those words seriously.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to take seriously the words of the Government as published in their White Paper, is he prepared to take seriously the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior Law Lord, when he said that it is high time that we have a Supreme Court divorced from the legislature and therefore representing in institutional terms what the constitutional reality is and that judges are not legislators, they are judges?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, of course I take seriously the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. But they are all what I would call constitutional purists. I am a realist. I see the cost of making this change and I am trying to compare it with the benefit.
The benefit appears to be the so-called perception. I have never met anyone with those perceptions and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done so. This is not the point being made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham; it is the point the Government make about what people perceive of the judiciary. The Government have put no evidence forward that any such perception exists. There has been no response from the public on that point because the Government did not ask the relevant question.
It may be said that the Government do not need hard evidence of such a perception because it is the job of politicians to know the public mind. So we in this House are being asked to legislate on the basis of a double perception—I adopt the brilliant phrase used the other day by noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—because we are being asked to legislate on the basis of the Government's perception of a perception in the mind of the public. I prefer to stand with my feet firmly on the ground and settle for what we have. Otherwise, we shall risk spending much time and money and cause huge upheaval in solving a problem that either does

997
not exist at all—that is my view—or, if it exists, does so only in the minds of those constitutional purists to whom the noble Lord referred just now.
On a cost/benefit analysis, it seems to me that there can be only one outcome. Indeed, the situation is worse than that. Noble Lords who heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, speak a week or so ago, supported by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Hoffmann, will realise that there is a real risk, not just of an absence of benefit but of a positive detriment, in moving the Law Lords from their present position to another building. We thus have a novel concept: not a cost/benefit analysis, but a cost/detriment analysis.
Perhaps I may end by addressing a few words to the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. I am very impressed, as I believe is the whole House, by the detailed analysis that he is giving of what could be achieved through his amendment to improve the Bill. My puzzle or problem is that on 12 February, when he made a typically trenchant speech, he closed, quite rightly and powerfully, saying:
"A case has not been made and I hope that the legislation will never be brought forward".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1265.]
What has happened in the past 14 working days?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord exactly what has happened. The last words in that speech were said in a mood of such exasperation that they may have been better thought out. They were perhaps not the exact words that I should have used.
As I say, I end by addressing a few words to the Liberal Democrat Benches. We all know that a policy of theirs is, and has been for many years, to create a ministry of justice, in place of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Therefore, this Bill undoubtedly represents a step in the right direction. I can well understand that. What I cannot understand is the need to hurry.
From the point of view of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, surely it is all the more important to get this vital step right, even if it depends on waiting for three months, say, for a report from a Select Committee. Evidently, that was the view of the right honourable Alan Beith, chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee, a view which no doubt Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House will take very seriously. For it would appear odd if the Liberal Democrat Peers took a view that was different from that taken by Alan Beith and his committee in the House of Commons.
Of course, I could understand Liberal Democrat anxieties if this Motion meant that the Government would lose the Bill altogether. But that will not be the consequence. The Select Committee would need about three months to gather evidence and to form a view. It could report by the end of July, which means that the Bill could be through this House by the end of October and, as a matter of course, it could and would be carried over, in the Commons, to the next Session.
998
Where a Bill is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, whether it has been mentioned in the Queen's Speech or not, it has always been contemplated that it may be necessary to carry it over—and why not?
That point appears to have escaped the Lord Chancellor—unless I missed something—when he was engaged in whizzing around studios this morning. When he was asked a specific question he made no reference at all to the possibility of the Bill being carried over. It seems to me that if my figures are right, the Bill could be on the statute book before the earliest date for the next election. I hope that that will provide some comfort to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
We are at a crossroads. Do we mean what we say about pre-legislative scrutiny or not? Do noble Lords regard my amendment to the Motion as a mere device, which was how it was described by the Lord Chancellor this morning, to prevent the House of Commons even considering the Bill or not? As far as I am concerned, this is not a device. For I cannot imagine a Bill that is more deserving of pre-legislative scrutiny and I cannot imagine a Bill in respect of which there is less haste. We are not dealing with a sudden catastrophe; we are not dealing with a breakdown in the health service, or a new wave of international terrorism; we are dealing with institutions that have been around for centuries. We have two former Lord Chancellors with us who have carried with distinction the heavy burden that everyone knows rests on the Lord Chancellor's shoulders, a burden which the present Lord Chancellor says he finds too difficult or perhaps too distasteful to carry.
Law Lords have been around since 1873 and before that there were famous judges. Great changes in the constitution, especially when they concern the administration of justice, should be made by consensus and not by government diktat.
My amendment to the Motion would mean that the whole Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. But I would not expect that committee to have any trouble with Part 3, which has already been subject to the closest possible pre-legislative scrutiny by the Lord Chief Justice himself and the judges. What better pre-legislative scrutiny could one have? It is Parts 1, 2 and 4 that worry me.
My last point is that last Thursday I had a conversation with the Chief Whip at his request. He asked me to bear in mind that if my amendment to the Motion were carried it would mean that this House would never again, during the lifetime of this Government, have a major Bill for consideration at the start of a parliamentary Session.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I can respectfully say that there were two parties to that conversation and that certainly is not what transpired between the noble and learned Lord and myself. I said to the noble and learned Lord—I took the precaution of noting it down—that it would make it extremely difficult for business managers such as myself to argue with other colleagues

999
in government that major legislation should start in this House if the effect were to delay it or even prevent it proceeding to the other Chamber.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I entirely accept the correction, but it makes not the slightest difference to what I was about to say. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers, was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to inform the Cross Benches of what would be the likely result if the amendment to the Motion were carried. I do not know whether that was an attempt to twist my arm. On the whole, judges are not used to having their arms twisted. But if my arm was being twisted, I did not feel any pain. I told the Chief Whip that if that were a factor in the equation, it was not for me to decide, but for the House as a whole, which is why I mention it now.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that as he had spoken on 12 February he intended to truncate his remarks. I cannot help wondering how long he would have spoken for if he had not spoken on 12 February.
It had not been my intention to speak in this debate, but I decided to do so when I saw the amendment that was tabled and has now been spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. To send a major Government Bill to a Select Committee is completely unprecedented and the procedure of such a committee is singularly inappropriate for the consideration of a major Bill. I will show this later in my speech. As we have heard, only one government Bill has ever been sent to a Select Committee—the Hare Coursing Bill 1976. That was an important but not a major Bill. The Select Committee effectively killed it. Incidentally, that Bill was produced by a Labour government and the Conservative opposition proposed the setting up of a Select Committee. With this one exception, the Select Committee procedure has been used only for Private Members' Bills.
Before dealing with what I regard as the fatal flaws in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I should like to deal with the anomalous position, in respect of this Motion and the proceedings of the House generally, of the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the eight retired Law Lords who are still eligible to sit judicially. In my view, this anomaly shows exactly why it is right that the Law Lords should no longer be Members of this House, as set in Clause 94.
The principles of participation by the Law Lords were clearly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, in his Statement of June 2000. He stated that:
"As full Members of the House of Lords the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary have a right to participate in the business of the House. However, mindful of their judicial role they consider themselves bound by two general principles when deciding whether to participate in a particular matter or to vote: first, the Lords of Appeal
1000
in Ordinary do not think it appropriate to engage in matters where there is a strong element of party political controversy; and secondly the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary bear in mind that they might render themselves ineligible to sit judicially if they were to express an opinion on a matter which might later be relevant to an appeal to the House."—[Official Report, 22/6/00; col. 419.]
The amendment that we are considering is clearly a matter of party political controversy. The Government are strongly opposed to the amendment, but the Opposition, as we have heard, support it. If the principles of the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, are to be observed, the Law Lords should not participate or vote on this amendment or indeed take part in proceedings on the Bill.
This Bill and this Motion directly concern the future of the Law Lords and the role of the judiciary, yet by their own self-denying ordinance the Law Lords remove themselves from the debate and the vote. Nothing could more clearly show the anomaly of the Law Lords as Members of this House. In my view, if there was an argument for them staying, it was effectively ended by the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who has not spoken in this House since that statement. I would interpret the statement as also applying to the eight retired Law Lords who are still eligible to sit judicially. It is interesting to note that of those retired Law Lords, seven have either not spoken at all since June 2000 or have spoken on four occasions or fewer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has spoken on 36 occasions since June 2000 and has sat judicially 28 times, most recently in December 2003.
I use those figures to illustrate the anomaly of the Law Lords being Members of this House. It is clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, does not consider that that part of the Bingham statement referring to party political controversy applies to him, since if he did he would not have been able to table his amendment or vote for it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, one of the reasons why the House has heard so much from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is that he was asked by the former Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to chair a committee on the Speakership. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has naturally spoken on many occasions on that subject.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is quite wrong. If he examines the table helpfully prepared by the Library, he will find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has spoken on 36 occasions on a number of Bills on all sorts of issues, not just on the Speakership of the House.
I am sure that a number of the noble Lords who support this Motion are thinking of a Select Committee that would take evidence and then report in rather the same way as the committees on stem-cell research or incitement to religious hatred, or indeed as a Select Committee of this House or a joint Select Committee of both Houses would in relation to a draft Bill. Having chaired two Select Committees on draft Bills, I know how useful the procedure can be. The case has been advanced that the Constitutional Reform Bill

1001
should have been a draft Bill. That argument is irrelevant to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lloyd of Berwick. The Government have not produced a draft Bill. There is a substantive Bill before the House and the procedure of a Select Committee on a Bill is very different from that of the type of Select Committee that I am sure many noble Lords have in mind.
I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, consulted the Companion to make himself aware of the specific procedure before he tabled his amendment. It might help the House in this debate to know whether he did. I shall give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, if he would like to inform the House whether he is aware of the specific procedure for a Select Committee on a Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, indeed I am and I have consulted the Officers of the House. They have informed me that what I am proposing is the correct way to approach pre-legislative scrutiny in this House today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, let us see what the Companion says. It states:
"When the Committee has completed its deliberations, it makes a report to the House on the provisions of the Bill, recommending whether or not it should proceed."
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, we are not concerned with what the Companion says, but with the answer to the question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked. What was the advice that was given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick? That is what we are concerned with.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that advice was entirely correct. Of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, can table an amendment such as this. However, there are rules that govern the sending of a Bill to a Select Committee. The Companion states:
"If it considers that the bill should proceed, the committee reports it with such amendments as it thinks fit, and the bill is then recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in the form in which it has been reported. If the committee considers that it should not proceed, it reports the Bill accordingly, without amendment.
"When a select committee reports that a bill should not proceed, the Bill is not recommitted … The bill remains in the list of Bills in Progress until the end of the session under the heading 'Reported from the select committee that the bill should not proceed'. The House normally acquiesces in a report from a select committee recommending that a bill should not proceed, and no further proceedings on the bill take place."
Are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and those who support his amendment really proposing that 12 or perhaps 16 Members of this House should have the power to recommend that a major constitutional Bill should not proceed, or should have the power substantially to amend the Bill? Is the power of such a Select Committee to amend the Bill to be preferred to the Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill on the Floor of the House?
1002
It is no accident that only one government Bill has ever been sent to a Select Committee. If the House were to accept this amendment, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent. It is clear that the Bill could not be completed this Session. The House would be ignoring a very powerful convention that the Government of the day are entitled to get their business through without unreasonable delay.
If the Opposition were to support this amendment, it would be the second occasion in less than two years on which they have supported unprecedented procedures to delay government business. The first occasion was that of the Animal Health Bill 2002, and this is the second example. I find it hard to believe that the Opposition really believe that they will form the Government after the next election if they behave in this way.
I say in the friendliest possible way to the Opposition that the Chief Whips are renowned for their longevity and their long memory for devices which delay government business. I see from today's press that Mr Alan Duncan, the opposition spokesman in the other place, said that the Government should bin the Bill. If that is what the Opposition think, why did they not have the courage of their convictions and table a Motion that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading? Instead, they have hidden behind the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
I have set out very clearly why a Select Committee on a major government Bill is unprecedented and why its procedure is singularly inappropriate. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to consider very carefully the implications of what he proposes. If the amendment is put to a vote and accepted, it will be an unprecedented challenge by a House where the Government are substantially in the minority to the undoubted right of the elected Government to secure their business, and it would go to the heart of the powers of this House to scrutinise and revise legislation.
If the amendment were accepted, in my view, the Government would be acting entirely properly and well within their rights if they withdrew the Bill and immediately introduced a No. 2 Bill in the Commons. In that event, this House would lose the advantage of being the first House to consider the Bill, which would then, of course, become subject to the Parliament Acts.
This House should not allow itself to become party to a confrontation between some elements of the judiciary and the Government.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I speak as someone who does not want to become a party to any confrontation but who is trying to achieve decent legislation in decent form, and I address the noble Lord, who, as a government Chief Whip, was a very fine supporter of this House. Can he give his view on whether the Bill should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny before it was introduced?
Lord Carter: My Lords, there were two major consultation papers and 442 responses to those consultations on reforming the office of Lord Chancellor

1003
and setting up a Supreme Court. Thorough consultation has taken place with a substantial response. Incidentally, if the Select Committee were set up, presumably all the people whose evidence is already in the public domain would have to repeat it for the Select Committee.
This House should not allow itself to become party to a confrontation between some elements of the judiciary and the Government. I ask the noble and learned Lord and those who support his amendment to think very carefully indeed about the course of action that he is proposing.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, as I see it, my role in your Lordships' House is, because of the office that I hold, to communicate to your Lordships directly the views of the judiciary and, in particular, those of the Judges Council, of which I am chairman. I appreciate that the desirability of the Chief Justice of the day continuing to perform that role is controversial. However, for the time being, I shall continue to assist the House to the best of my ability without aligning myself with any political party. Consistent with that position, I do not, and will not, vote while I hold my present office.
Whatever may have been the position historically, the modern judiciary, far from being opposed to change or reform, is willing to embrace it and support its implementation. However, it wants to see that what is proposed will improve the quality of justice available to the public. Increasingly, it is the judiciary's experience that, if it is involved in proposals for reform from an early stage, it can help to ensure that the changes are successfully devised and implemented in a way that would not be possible without its support.
That experience has dictated the judiciary's approach to the proposals for constitutional reform. In the past, I have made no secret of the judiciary's unhappiness about the manner in which the proposals were first announced. However, we have put that concern to one side in order to focus on the future. Representatives of all levels of the judiciary have worked, within a constrained timescale and in close co-operation with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to identify the safeguards that need to be put in place to protect judicial independence.
That work resulted in the agreement reached between the judiciary, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and myself, which we have heard described in this House as the "concordat". Its terms have been included in the Bill, subject to certain amendments which the noble and learned Lord has agreed are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was right and correctly quoted from the speech that I gave last week. However, nothing that I said in that speech was intended to detract from the concordat or to indicate that I am in any way dissatisfied with it. However, as I indicated in that speech, it is correct that there are matters of concern to which I referred and, in particular, one matter which is not before this House today.
1004
The judiciary considers that the parts of the Bill that reflect the concordat are a highly desirable package of measures designed to ensure the continued independence of the judiciary. The provisions reflect the need, which the judiciary recognises and welcomes, for the executive and legislature to have an appropriate share of the responsibility for the justice system. The continuation of a spirit of partnership between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is critical if the courts are to be able to meet the evolving needs of society. In that connection, I was pleased to hear this morning during the appearances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the radio that he is now prepared to reconsider whether anything could be achieved in relation to Clause 11 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill.
However, given that the concordat is designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, I would expect the parts of the Constitutional Reform Bill which are based upon the concordat to be welcomed by all sides of the House. If they are, that will be highly satisfactory as, in my judgment, constitutional reform should be by consensus whenever possible. In that regard, in relation to the concordat, I was pleased to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick indicate that it is not Part 3 of the Bill which he considers should be the subject of scrutiny.
I accept that it is extremely important for the Bill to be properly scrutinised during its passage through this House. However, I hope that that can occur in the conventional way because the transitional position is, in my view, wholly unsatisfactory for the administration of justice. I can see, and would accept, that a delay of about three months might be manageable, but I would consider it an unsatisfactory situation if the present position were left in place.
I base my comments on my experience of dealing regularly with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I have immense personal admiration for the civil servants who work in that department, and I know the ability that civil servants have to change their approach as a result of a change in administration. However, I have to say to your Lordships that I and my colleagues have reservations about whether it is practical to go back to where we were before 12 June—whether such a situation is regrettable or not.
Quite apart from that matter, a new method of appointing judges is urgently necessary. We need an appointments commission. The present method of appointing judges has proved unsatisfactory by modern standards. We have done our best, and successive Lord Chancellors have done their best, but it is not a novel statement to say that a fresh approach is needed. This could only be properly and appropriately provided by an appointments commission.
The judiciary does not want the present situation to continue longer than is absolutely necessary. It wants to see the protection for the justice system that the package provides enshrined in statute at the earliest appropriate date. It would be concerned if the House took a course which meant that there was a serious risk of that not happening.

1005
The position as to the Supreme Court is different. Here, the judiciary has no agreed position that I can report to the House. I am myself ambivalent on the subject, and have been very much influenced by the speeches that I have already heard in the House on the advantages and disadvantages of having a Supreme Court. What the judiciary is agreed on is that, if there is to be a new Supreme Court, it should be appropriately accommodated and resourced.
There is but one more matter to which I wish to refer. An advantage of addressing your Lordships in person is that it avoids being quoted out of context. I believe this happened last week, and, as a result, an unfortunate impression was created that I personally intended to be discourteous to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I can assure the Lord Chancellor that no discourtesy was intended, but I apologise if offence was caused.
What happened can be seen from the full text of my Cambridge lecture. In the course of my speech I referred to that mythical legal figure "the man on the Clapham omnibus". I suggested that he might not take seriously my concerns about having a single person performing both the roles of a Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, since, after all, that,
"engagingly friendly and cheerful chappie",
appeared quite happy performing both roles.
I hope that it is not inappropriate to describe my noble and learned friend as "engagingly friendly and cheerful". This may or may not be a description that all Lord Chancellors would have had applied to them. However, I confess that it reflects my opinion of the present Lord Chancellor.
The rub is the use of the colloquial word "chappie". It betrays a degree of undue familiarity when used of a person holding a high office of state. If I had not been attributing the words to the man on the Clapham omnibus—in a vain attempt to inject a lighter note into a speech out of sympathy for my audience—I would not have used it. However, now that I have explained, I hope it will be accepted that I intended no disrespect.
On reflection, I suspect that I should also apologise to the venerable gentleman on the Clapham omnibus, who I now appreciate would never use the word "chappie".
I also apologise to your Lordships for raising the subject. However, my use of the word "chappie" has over the past few days—to my horror—been treated by a number of commentators as indicating that the country is in a state of crisis, and I thought that your Lordships should see the context.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, might I ask him whether he would be prepared to help the House—if it is an inappropriate question I apologise—and if he is prepared to express a view on whether or not the
1006
independence of the judiciary would be in any way imperilled if this Bill is either delayed or, ultimately, not passed.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, as far as I can venture an opinion—and I make it clear that this is my own opinion—delay can be accommodated and it would not affect the independence of the judiciary.
I would, on the other hand, be very concerned if this Bill was not passed, and we were left with the present situation with regard to the appointment and disciplining of judges, and the great many other matters—I think that there are 700 of them—which are the subject of the agreement that was reached in the concordat. They deal with a range of responsibilities which we have never needed to sort out, which we accepted should lie in the hands of Lord Chancellors and which were safely there because Lord Chancellors exercised the powers in fact in a way that was not inconsistent with the independence of the judiciary.
If we have a situation where a Lord Chancellor is also a Secretary of State and so has a dual loyalty, then I am bound to say that I have concerns.

Equitable Life
4.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about Lord Penrose's report into the events at Equitable Life, which I can confirm is being published in full today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"As the House will remember, following the closure of Equitable Life to new business and the cuts in policy values in July 2001, the Government established an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose on 31 August 2001. The terms of reference were:
'To enquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of relevant life market background, to identify any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury ministers'.
"I would personally like to thank Lord Penrose and his team for their hard work and dedication. The report presents a full and forensic account of events, covering some very complex issues and spanning a period of over 30 years.
"The Government sympathise with the plight of policyholders who have suffered much worry and distress over the past four years and who have seen significant reductions in their expected income in retirement.

1007
"Lord Penrose says:
'I have interpreted the remit [of the inquiry] as requiring me to focus on the events that explain the Society's fate'. (Foreword/11)
He also makes clear that,
'it was inevitable that hindsight would instruct much of the inquiry's work and many of its findings'. (Foreword/8)
"He does not attempt to judge any person's actions, saying:
'It was not for me to measure any person's actions against accepted standards of conduct defining the legal duties of other people performing comparable duties in other organisations and other similar circumstances'. (Foreword/8)
He observes:
'Breach of duty, and the financial consequences of breach, are properly matters for the established courts of justice and for other appropriate tribunals in the financial sector'. (Foreword/9)
He adds:
'An open adversarial process such as would have been necessary to replicate the litigation process over the longer period and the wider range of issues would have been beyond contemplation'. (20/77)
`It would', he said,
'be unthinkable for a [non-statutory, non-adversarial] inquiry such as this to have embarked on such a process'. (Foreword/10)
And moreover, he says,
'There was no mechanism that could have been devised and put into effect within a time scale that would have had regard to the wider public interest in obtaining the account of the developments of the Society's position'. (Foreword/10)
"Lord Penrose argues that the judgment of the House of Lords in the Hyman case in 2000, which disallowed the society's practice of reducing terminal bonus to meet guaranteed annuity claims, precipitated a crisis, but was not, as some have claimed, solely responsible for it. He notes:
'Superficially claims of £1.5 billion should not have brought down a Society with funds of £32 billion' (2/113).
Lord Penrose observes:
'The Society's uniqueness lay in the approach adopted by its management, not in the essential characteristics of its business' (19/119).
"Lord Penrose describes how a culture of what at various times he calls manipulation and concealment on the part of some of the company's previous senior management allowed a bonus policy to develop that led to the society's financial weakening, a policy left unchecked by its own board. It was the society's own actions which ultimately precipitated its financial crisis in the summer of 2000.
"First, the report details how executive management failed to keep the board fully informed about the true state of the company's financial position, despite the clear responsibility placed on the appointed actuary to inform the board in that regard.
"Lord Penrose outlines how Mr Roy Ranson, appointed actuary from 1982 and both chief executive and appointed actuary of the company between 1991 and 1997, did not inform the board,
'of management decisions in the period 1983–93 related to the recovery of the cost of annuity guarantees from terminal bonus' (19/126);
1008
did not inform the board,
'of the risks to which Policyholders not entitled to annuity guarantees were exposed by the policies and practices adopted'(19/126);
and did not inform the board,
'about the business risks inherent in the general actuarial management of the Society' (19/126).
"This meant, Lord Penrose says:
'the Board's understanding of the annuity guarantee issue was at best limited until the autumn of 1997, and some directors may not have had any understanding of the position' (9/45).
"As a result, the decisions of the board,
'brought the Society to the position of weakness in which it found itself in 2000 and 2001 without full knowledge and understanding of the developing position' (19/88).
"He does not offer judgment on Mr Ranson's failure to keep the board adequately informed. In line with his interpretation of his remit, he says:
I have not sought to form or express a view whether Ranson was in breach of duty … that is a matter for the courts and for his professional institute' (19/119).
"But Lord Penrose observes:
'The Board at no stage got fully to grips with the financial situation faced by the Society: information was too fragmented. Their collective skills were inadequate for the task, and there were no effective arrangements for ensuring that there were detailed examination of, and onward reporting to the Board, on actuarial reports' (20/50).
He adds:
'The non-executive directors were so wholly dependent on actuarial input from the chief executive/actuary that they were largely incapable of exercising any influence the actuarial management of the Society' (20/50).
"Lord Penrose also finds there was,
'serious omission in communication to policyholders of relevant information about their prospective interests' (19/24).
He reveals how the differential terminal bonus policy,
'was not disclosed to policyholders … in any way until 1996' (19/24).
"Even when the company decided to inform policyholders about the terminal bonus policy in 1996, Lord Penrose argues that it was done badly:
'Attempts were made to change expectations in 1996 and later years. These were ill-conceived, poorly expressed and confusing. The intimations to policyholders were generally uncommunicative' (19/72).
"Lastly, Lord Penrose finds that the society concealed information from the regulators. Mr Ranson was 'obstructive' of scrutiny and 'dismissive' of regulators' concerns. The regulatory returns were, Lord Penrose says, 'opaque and uncommunicative'. (19/129)
"The society did not inform regulators properly about:
'a series of particular valuation practices of dubious actuarial merit' (19/240(5)),
being used by management to sustain the society's capital position and prop up its solvency.
"Lord Penrose reveals how from 1992 to 2000,
'the Society never clearly communicated the nature of its quasi-zillmer adjustment to GAD' (7/24),

1009
an adjustment which,
'was not a legitimate device … on the terms of the regulations' (7/26).
"And Lord Penrose finds in relation to guarantees, that,
'Such references as were made … failed properly to disclose their nature and extent to the regulators' (19/128).
"More recently, Lord Penrose observes the then Appointed Actuary, Mr Christopher Headdon, wrote a crucial side letter relating to a reinsurance contract, which recorded that it would be cancelled rather than renegotiated in the event that more than £100 million was claimed.
"Lord Penrose notes that had the FSA been made aware of this side-letter,
'they would not have been prepared to accept the reinsurance arrangements as providing as much security for reserving purposes as was in fact taken' (7/93).
"Lord Penrose writes:
'Those involved at the Society were not in any doubt that a right for the reinsurer to cancel in these circumstances would undermine the regulatory value of the agreement' (7/96).
Lord Penrose says,
'these matters are potentially the subject of other proceedings, so I do not propose to comment on what may or may not have been the intention in writing the side letter or its legal effect' (7/96).
"In short, Lord Penrose makes clear that the society's former management adopted a series of `dubious' practices, many of which it concealed from its own board, its policyholders and the regulators. This, he argues, led to the situation in which the society found itself in July 2001. It meant that, Lord Penrose says,
'the Society was able to over-allocate bonus beyond available assets at market value, and in particular to make payments on claims that exceeded the relative available assets at the time' (19/49),
weakening the society so greatly that it was unable to withstand the claims on guaranteed annuities.
"Lord Penrose's central finding is that,
'principally, the Society was the author of its own misfortunes' (20/84).
The House will be aware that Lord Penrose sent his report to the Serious Fraud Office. The Treasury followed up by passing the report to the enforcement arms of the FSA and DTI. All three are currently considering the evidence of the report.
"As I have described, Lord Penrose lays the blame for events at Equitable Life at the heart of the society. He calculates that by the end of 2000, as a result of the excess bonus declarations, the society's liabilities exceeded its assets and £1.8 billion had been lost to the fund as policies matured taking more than their fair share of assets. This past overbonusing was a driving factor, he says, behind the need to cut policy values in July 2001.
"The current management argues strongly that the cuts in policy values in 2001 reflected different factors. The House will appreciate that this is a complex legal, actuarial and accounting issue, which could ultimately only be determined by the courts.
1010
"Lord Penrose himself makes clear that he could not,
'adjudicate on the policyholders' complaints',
and claims:
that again is a matter for other Proceedings' (Foreword/14).
"It was important, however, that the Government acted with due diligence to check with the FSA the potential impact of Lord Penrose's findings on the society's current policyholders and wider financial stability.
"The current board of Equitable Life will, together with the FSA, assess the impact on the society's liabilities and any risks to policyholders posed by Lord Penrose's findings. Those who have already seen limited extracts of the report on behalf of Equitable's board have concluded that it is in the best interests of policyholders to continue in business as before.
"To conclude on overbonusing, Lord Penrose himself makes clear on claims that,
'that again is a matter for other proceedings' (Foreword 14),
and the FSA will continue to monitor the society closely and take whatever action is needed to protect policyholders.
"Lord Penrose raises a number of important issues about the deregulatory, light-touch, reactive system in the decades before the creation of the FSA. It was a system, however, which in that period clearly reflected the will of Parliament. He finds that the,
`lack of co-ordination of prudential and conduct of business regulation … was unacceptable' (20/64).
and that,
'the accounts did not reflect the realistic [financial] position of the office' (20/27).
"In 1997, as soon as this Government came to power, they took action to put an effective regulatory system in place, setting up a single integrated regulator combining prudential and conduct of business regulation. A key part of the new regulatory regime was the creation of a comprehensive Financial Services Compensation Scheme and a single financial ombudsman service.
"Since then, the FSA has proceeded to introduce risk-based insurance regulation and individual capital standards. It is also in the process of introducing realistic accounting by life offices, including a requirement to reserve for terminal bonus. In addition, the use of future profits implicit items is being phased out.
"The FSA is also removing responsibility for making key decisions on asset allocation and distribution in with-profits funds from the appointed actuary and transferring it to company boards. And it has brought forward proposals on better treatment of customers by firms and fuller transparency of with-profit funds.
"Lord Penrose fully endorses the Government's actions since coming to power, saying that the FSA's reforms reflect,
'a major, comprehensive reassessment of the requirements of an efficient regulatory system for the insurance sector' (Appendix E/3).

1011
In particular, he welcomes the FSA's detailed proposals for realistic accounting which, he says,
'are clear recognition of the importance of looking beyond a narrow concept of solvency' (19/165).
"In summary, Lord Penrose argues that the FSA's work since 1997,
'has sought to anticipate many of the lessons that might be drawn by this inquiry and it should come as no surprise that it has largely succeeded' (20/3).
However, his report deals with a time when a different regulatory system was in place—and a regulatory culture that was light-touch, reactive and placed the responsibility for monitoring policyholders' reasonable expectations firmly on the appointed actuary of companies. That regulatory system was argued for by Ministers and reflected the will of Parliament.
"Lord Penrose notes that in 1973, during the passage of the Insurance Companies Amendment Act, DTI Ministers resolved,
'that action on the basis of policyholders' reasonable expectations would be reactive to what was found in the [annual regulatory] returns so as to restrict the workload that a less restrained approach would involve' (13/56).
"Lord Penrose argues that the system was not updated to take account of developments in the industry, particularly the trend towards terminal bonuses. He notes that aspects of the regime were reviewed, but that no proposals for change were pursued by Ministers. He writes:
'Virtually no primary legislation in the regulatory area for which DTI was responsible was taken forward by Ministers … there were specific proposals for change that Ministers did not pursue' (19/162).
In particular, a proposal was made in 1988 to update life insurance regulation. But, he says,
'the minister … [the right honourable gentleman for Bromley and Chislehurst] did not regard the subject as a high priority for legislation' (13/116).
"Lord Penrose notes that senior regulatory officers argued to him that,
'the Government required a "light touch" approach to regulation, and allocated resources accordingly' (19/161).
`I was urged', he says,
'to take into account the political climate that prevailed for most of the 1990s when the Government's objective was to deregulate to reduce regulatory burdens on business, to avoid interference in private companies, and to let market forces prevail' (19/161).
"Lord Penrose goes further. He says that Ministers argued against reform in the early 1990s—a critical time of development in the industry—when the Third Life Directive was being negotiated in Brussels, maintaining that the reactive approach to PRE based on regulatory solvency was sufficient.
"According to Lord Penrose, the DTI believed that forcing insurance companies to reserve for terminal bonus would have been 'over cautious' (10/26). And he says that the UK delegation led the resistance' to measures requiring more cautious valuation techniques (10/28).
1012
"Lord Penrose says:
'As for the regulatory system, I do believe it has failed policyholders in this case' (20/83).
He emphasises, however, that,
'regulatory system failures were secondary factors' (20/84),
and argues that it was,
'the system that failed to provide the regulation that changing circumstances in the industry required, not that there was failure to implement what was fundamentally a satisfactory system' (20/69).
That system was one that Ministers and Parliament intended.
"Lord Penrose makes no recommendation for the payment of compensation. His central finding is that,
'principally, the Society was the author of its own misfortunes' (20/84).
And when he itemises specific findings about the regulator he is clear that these are matters that are not for him but for the courts. Nor does he conclude economic loss was caused to policyholders by the regulatory system. He states:
'The deficiencies are not so obvious as some are inclined (or wish) to believe. And … it is not enough in this case, to infer from the coincidence of systems deficiencies and loss that one caused or contributed to the other' (20/84).
He stresses that he examined the regulators with the benefit of hindsight and that they were operating under a system different in its approach, resources and values from that applying today. The misfortunes of the society were caused primarily, he finds, by deep-seated management problems which began as early as the 1980s.
"Lord Penrose makes no allegation of maladministration nor of negligence against the regulator. He clearly establishes, with the benefit of hindsight, that the 'light-touch' approach to regulation was inappropriate. It was not updated to meet the requirements of the industry. But it clearly reflected the will of Ministers and Parliament. He says:
'Ministers resolved that scrutiny would continue to be based on the examination of the regulatory returns, and that action on the basis of policyholders' reasonable expectations would be reactive to what was found in the returns' (13/56).
"So it is a question of the laws that Parliament enacted and the context in which Ministers resolved how those laws should be implemented which Lord Penrose criticises rather than the discrete actions of regulators. Indeed, he accepts that it cannot be the role of the regulator to prevent all failures. The costs of regulation are paid ultimately by the customers, rather than by the institutions themselves.
"Lord Penrose accepts that even had a different, proactive regime been in place earlier, no regulator can guarantee to protect consumers against what he calls at times concealment and manipulation. Indeed, the losses suffered by policyholders are attributed by Lord Penrose to decisions that were made by the management of the society from the early 1980s onwards. He observes that,
'by appearing to insulate consumers entirely from the risk inherent in the selection of an investment product such an approach could give rise to perverse economic incentives for both consumers and providers' (20/70).

1013
"This position is, I know, shared widely across the House. In July 1995, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right honourable Member for Rushcliffe, said that,
'I should like to remind the House of an important point. No regulatory system can provide a 100 per cent. guarantee against a bank failure, especially where there is a deliberate intention on the part of individual traders to conceal or deceive, combined with inadequate management controls. In cases such as this, it is important that lessons are learned quickly and promulgated widely, so that all parties, including the management of other financial institutions, can learn from the unfortunate example'.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/95; col. 1457].
"Many people have drawn parallels between Equitable Life and Barlow Clowes. It has been put to us that as the then government provided redress in the Barlow Clowes case we should do so with respect to Equitable. But there are major differences between the two cases. Barlow Clowes had ceased trading; Equitable is still trading. In the case of Barlow Clowes there was a finding of maladministration; here there has been no such finding. At the time of Barlow Clowes there was no compensation scheme; now there is the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Those who continue to argue that what happened over Barlow Clowes should also happen here in the case of Equitable Life have got to take into account both the existence of a compensation scheme and no finding of maladministration.
"In the event that Equitable Life were to be subject to insolvency proceedings there is now—what was recognised not to be available at the time of Barlow Clowes—a statutory safety net to protect investors provided by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which would pay out 90 per cent of guaranteed policy values.
"Further, this Government have also provided for a single Financial Services Ombudsman to consider individual complaints. I understand that he is currently considering the cases of a number of different categories of former policyholders who have made claims for redress, for which the Society has already made provisions. I want to make it clear to the House that we stand ready, if requested, to assist the Financial Ombudsman in expediting the resolution of these complaints. As I have made clear, Equitable's current board stresses that the company is solvent and policyholders' interests are best served by remaining in business.
"In his report, Lord Penrose raises a number of issues concerning the unlimited liability status of Equitable Life. I can announce today that the Government intend to publish and consult on, at the earliest opportunity, draft legislation to protect policyholders in the event that this were ever to become material.
"In line with his interpretation of his remit, Lord Penrose does not set out a comprehensive list of recommendations for the Government. Nevertheless, he does make a number of observations that merit further action. I have no doubt that committees of this House which have taken an interest in these matters will wish to examine what further can be done. The
1014
principle that the regulatory system—even one so recently updated—should be subject to constant review is one that we accept. I can announce today a programme of work to build on Lord Penrose's findings.
"The Government accept the need to re-examine the corporate governance arrangements applicable to mutual life offices in the light of the experience at Equitable Life. I can today announce a review of the governance of mutual life offices, to be led by Paul Myners, so that the boards of mutual life offices are as accountable to their members as those of comparable companies are to their shareholders.
"Lord Penrose also offers a number of criticisms of the actuarial profession. He says:
'The profession resisted prescription. The individual judgment of the appointed actuary prevailed' (13/101).
He adds:
'The guidance offered no standards of performance that might reflect generally accepted principles or rules of conduct such as one might have expected of a professional body' (13/58).
"I can announce today that Sir Derek Morris will lead a review of the actuarial profession with a particular focus on considering how best to modernise the profession and see that high standards are delivered in a more open, challenging and accountable professional culture. I can also announce that I have asked the independent Accounting Standards Board to initiate a study into the accounting for with-profits business by life insurers. The study will have a particular emphasis on identifying ways of improving the transparency of reporting.
"Lord Penrose also argues that there is a clear responsibility on government to inform and educate consumers about the nature of the financial system. This Government were the first in the world to incorporate consumer education as a key statutory objective of the financial services regulator. The FSA has recently stepped up its work in this area, with the launch of the Financial Capability Steering Group, which will examine the approach to consumer education from first principles.
"I have today set out Lord Penrose's account of events leading to the situation in which Equitable Life found itself in July 2001. Lord Penrose finds that:
'The first and most significant failure identified in this report lay at the heart of the Society'.
He adds that a key lesson from the report is that:
'It is important to ensure that the continued relevance of the regulatory tools is regularly assessed in the light of a constantly developing industry, and to ensure that those tools are diligently and intelligently applied' (Letter, 11).
He continues:
'It seems not unreasonable to suggest that those in control of any supervisory regime have a duty … to take steps to ensure that the systems of regulation that are in force and enforced remain relevant to the changing requirements of the industry' (19/205).
"We made those changes. Inevitably, certain key issues arising from Lord Penrose's report, as he recognises, can be resolved only in the courts. Nevertheless, as a result of his findings, we will be

1015
publishing and consulting on draft legislation to remove any possible concerns relating to unlimited liability potentially facing Equitable Life and some other policyholders. We stand ready, if requested, to assist the Financial Services Ombudsman in the resolution of any consequential issues before him and his staff. The FSA is working intensively to ensure that all its current policyholders are treated fairly.
"Looking forward, there will be a programme of comprehensive reviews—on corporate governance of mutuals, actuarial standards of performance and accounting standards. These, alongside the FSA reforms welcomed by Lord Penrose, are developing the architecture of the life assurance industry for present and future policyholders. It is now for the Serious Fraud Office and the DTI to decide whether a prosecution should follow".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement made in another place. I declare an interest in Equitable Life.
This inquiry was set up as long ago as August 2001. My understanding is that the report was presented to the Treasury many weeks ago. As far as timing is concerned, it is singularly unfortunate, after we have waited for this report to be laid before the House week after week after week, day after day after day, that the Government should decide to make their Statement today in the middle of a vitally important debate for the House.
There is a famous e-mail, I believe, entitled,
"It is a good day to bury bad news".
On a day when there are two main headlines on display in the national press, it is unfortunate that both issues should come before your Lordships' House simultaneously. Whether this is the longest ever Statement made to either House, I rather doubt. It certainly, for those who had the misfortune to hear it verbatim straight off the top of the noble Lord's oratory, may be rather difficult to comprehend. I thank the Minister for allowing me to see a copy of the report and a copy of the Statement during the course of the afternoon. Clearly, it will require far more detailed scrutiny. I am sure that the House will wish to debate it at length later.
It is an appalling history of mismanagement, which is brought out clearly in the report, with disastrous consequences for many individuals and a serious effect on the confidence of the public in saving and encouraging people to provide for their retirement. That is a matter of great concern, and we are grateful to Lord Penrose for his report.
We must be clear that this inquiry was set up by the Treasury to look into the Treasury, the DTI and the FSA on terms of reference that were determined by the Treasury. I said at the outset, many months ago, that it did not seem to me that those terms of reference were sensible. It is becoming increasingly clear, from
1016
the Butler report and the Hutton inquiry, the extent to which terms of reference are becoming a weapon of mass destruction. Perhaps the most appropriate place to look in the report is the sentence immediately after the section headed, "Postscript". It reads:
"Many readers of this short report will be frustrated that it does not provide answers to two questions: who is at fault for the problems encountered by the Society, and who deserves redress as a consequence? It has been no part of this inquiry to attempt to answer either question".
Those were above all the two questions to which everyone wanted answers. The fact that the terms of reference have been interpreted in this way seriously undermines the value of the report that we have before us.
I was going to inquire why there has been such a delay in publishing the report. I was kindly given the script of the Statement that was to be made this afternoon, and two paragraphs puzzled me:
"It was important however that the Government acted with due diligence to check with the FSA the potential impact of these complex issues on the Society's current policyholders and on wider financial stability. This is why we have been unable to publish the report earlier. The current board of Equitable Life will together with the FSA assess the impact on the Society's liabilities …".
I may be wrong, but I do not think that the noble Lord read out the sentence:
"This is why we have been unable to publish the report earlier".
A Noble Lord: Hear, Hear!
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think someone agrees with me. Whether the Minister read it out or not, it is clearly not a good reason for delaying the publication of the report. The FSA may have been consulted on these matters, but nothing will happen as far as the board of Equitable Life is concerned. Therefore, the argument that the Government could not publish earlier because they had to make sure that there were not disastrous consequences in the market simply does not stand up. They still have not taken the action that would be necessary to prevent any disasters in the market. I am not suggesting for one moment that that is so, but it is certainly not a reason for delaying the publication of this report.
The crucial question is: has there been a regulatory failure on the Government's part? I make no party point whatever; it is abundantly clear that this has been going on for very many years under both Conservative and Labour governments.
The Government put enormous stress in their Statement on the regulatory framework which existed at the time; they seek to suggest that that was where the problem lay, not in some failure of regulation. But if one looks at the report—even in the time available, I think it is apparent—it is clear that there was regulatory failure even within the context of the very light-handed approach on which the Government are relying to say we must not take any action on this. For example, paragraph 83 on page 745 states:
"As for the regulatory system, I do believe that it has failed policyholders in this case … I do take the view the system itself was not overseen … was not kept up-to-date, and operated in an ineffective manner".

1017
Paragraph 235 states:
"Any reasonably diligent enquiry would have elicited information about the December 1993 Board resolution, and the terms of the bonus declaration … that would have informed GAD"—
the Government Accountancy Department—
"and regulators of the problem before it became a disaster for the Society and its policyholders".
It is clear, in my view, that there was a regulatory failure, and the fact that it was in a different environment does not undermine that.
The question is where we go now. I shall not touch on the reinsurance contract—that is subject to legal inquiries, and I understand why. It is also difficult, looking forward, to take into account the fact that there are many different policyholders in different positions. Some are without guarantees, and some are not; some have with-profit payments, and some do not. Some are late joiners. Indeed, it was extraordinary how the society went on advertising for people to take out policies when, despite what the Minister said, it must have known how dangerous the situation was. If we are to deal with all those issues, there are very real problems.
There was no mention in the Statement about the Parliamentary Ombudsman, although there was reference to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The former Parliamentary Ombudsman was very clear about what the problems were. This was stated in the report he made to Parliament way back in 2001. He said:
"The root cause of the problem in my view is the failure of the authorities"—
by which he meant the Government—
"to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair, including the issues of possible personal injustice due to maladministration and redress for such injustice if it should be demonstrated".
That ombudsman's successor decided not to take any further action on the issue, but I gather that she has now changed her mind. Will the Government confirm that it would be appropriate for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to look at these issues, particularly that of the Government Accountancy Department, which seems to have been one of the main failures in the matter?
Finally—I am anxious not to delay the House longer than I need—my right honourable friend Mr Letwin, in another place, is putting forward what he believes is a sensible and constructive way forward. It is not a party issue, but we think there is a case for widespread consultation between the Government, the Opposition and all related parties to see in what way suitable remedies could be applied if it is shown that there has been a regulatory failure, particularly whether there was negligence on the part of the regulators. I do not have time to go into the details of the report but I will refer to them on another occasion if the Minister wishes. To some extent, that issue was reflected in the point made earlier that there was also a failure to do anything about the obvious conflict of interest on the part of the chief executive, who was also established as the accountant in charge of these matters in the society.
1018
I hope we can proceed on those matters in a constructive spirit, because there are serious problems to be addressed. I certainly hope we can have a debate at an early date once we have had a chance to look at this enormous piece of work carried out by Lord Penrose.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. However, having received the report some 80 minutes before the Statement was due to be made, and despite having once done a speed-reading course, I think that being expected to look through a report, with no executive summary, at a rate of eight pages a minute, simply is not sensible. When next we have an equivalent report, I urge the Government to give the opposition spokesmen time to look at it in a sensible way.
Given that it is frankly impossible to draw very much out of the body of the report this afternoon, will the Minister facilitate a debate on the report in your Lordships' House in Government time? It raises a number of issues, not just in relation to this specific case, but more widely, on the regulation of the financial services industry. I think that everyone would agree that the Penrose report has major implications not only for Equitable Life policyholders but for future confidence in the private pension sector and in the life insurance business generally.
We note that the report finds that the principal cause of the problem was that the society was the author of its own misfortune. All noble Lords will have been appalled at some of the action taken by senior management of Equitable Life over the years and will welcome the fact that the Serious Fraud Office is looking into those matters. However, it seems that more weight was given to that part of the report than to the failures in the regulatory system. Do the Government agree with Lord Penrose when he says:
"As for the regulatory system, I do believe that it has failed policyholders in this case"?
Flipping through the report, I believe that Lord Penrose raised a whole range of issues with regard to regulatory failure, only one of which I have had time to dig out. The actuarial profession is revered, yet actuaries seem to come out of this report almost uniformly badly. Penrose says:
"Government actuaries did identify relevant issues but consistently these were not followed through and allowed to evaporate".
If the Government accept that there were serious regulatory failures in the regulation of Equitable Life, why do they not, as in the case of Barlow Clowes, accept that they have a clear moral obligation to take the question of compensation further?
The Statement makes a number of comments about how the Barlow Clowes case was not directly analogous to this case. It says that in the case of Barlow Clowes, maladministration was determined, whereas in this case maladministration has not been determined. Of course maladministration has not been determined, because in the case of Barlow Clowes, that word simply

1019
refers to the report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. We are not talking about the Parliamentary Ombudsman here, we are talking about Penrose. I believe that the Parliamentary Ombudsman should be asked to have another look at the issue and express a view about whether compensation is due, and in what form. I should be grateful if the Minister could say something further about why the Government have set their face so firmly against that.
The Government say very boldly that Lord Penrose does not recommend compensation, the implication being that none is due. However, it was simply outside his terms of reference. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, the Government are developing an unsatisfactory habit of initiating inquiries with limited terms of reference and then, when the report is in line with those terms of reference, claiming that they have been exonerated on broader issues, which the inquiry was forbidden to consider. That happened with Hutton, and the Government are now doing the same with Penrose. It is very difficult to believe that the Government's response to Penrose is not really just a whitewash that seeks to distort the findings of Lord Penrose by putting all the blame on the management of Equitable, blame-worthy though it was, in order to shift the blame, and therefore any issue of compensation, from the Government. It is the view of these Benches that that is a most unsatisfactory approach, and we shall seek to pursue the issue further in the House and elsewhere.
5.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of what was, I admit, a long Statement—27 minutes. I have beaten that, I am sorry to say, on more than one occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, started by criticising the timing of the announcement made today. Of course, it was not made in the House of Lords but in the House of Commons. The Government cannot really be held responsible for the timing of Statements in both Houses; they cannot ensure that Statements, which are certainly important, do not conflict with all other important business. Parliament could not be made to work that way.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Newby, made a plea for further debate, and I am sure that the usual channels will take that into account. They both made what seemed to me a strange attack on the terms of reference. I read out the terms of reference, which were:
"To enquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of the relevant life market background; to identify any lessons to be learned for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury Ministers".
I cannot see how those can be thought to be restricted terms of reference. It is certainly the case that Lord Penrose, who is clearly an admirer of the adversarial system in our courts, preferred on many
1020
occasions to interpret those terms of reference in such a way as not to anticipate what legal action might follow. But that was not a failure of the terms of reference; it was the way in which Lord Penrose chose to interpret those terms of reference.
I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that issues of compensation were outside the terms of reference; if we are talking about regulation, we are talking about compensation. Lord Penrose did not in fact say that issues of compensation were outside his terms of reference; he said that they were better determined by the courts. In some cases, some of the things that he said should be determined outside should be determined in the context of criminal prosecution.
Yes, there has been a delay in publication; there was a delay in production of the report, and it was issued to Treasury officials on 23 December. However, it was not only the FSA that had to be involved; the Serious Fraud Office, the DTI regulatory system and a whole number of people had to be consulted about the likely implications of the report. That was why the Statement that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made was able to make a number of announcements about positive action. If there had not been a significant delay, she would not have been able to do that, and the House would have been the poorer for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, claimed that the regulatory failure occurred under both Conservative and Labour governments. If he reads the report carefully, he will see that the bulk of the complaints about the regulatory system are made about the 1980s and the earlier part of the 1990s. When Lord Penrose refers to the reforms introduced by this Government with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and in other ways, he is of the view that the reforms addressed the deficiencies in the regulatory system that had existed before and were, alongside the primary responsibility of the society, among the causes of the problems that we are debating today.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, quoted, as I did, the phrase of Lord Penrose that the regulatory system,
"failed policyholders in this case".
That is in chapter 20, paragraph 83. However, Lord Penrose went on to say:
"Regulatory system failures were secondary",
that it was the system that failed, and that it was not a,
"failure to implement what was fundamentally a satisfactory system".
The system was one that Ministers and Parliament intended. Lord Penrose said:
"The deficiencies are not so obvious as some are inclined (or wish) to believe. And, it is … not enough … to infer from the coincidence of systems deficiencies and loss that one caused or contributed to the other".
That is from chapter 20, paragraph 84. One might call that a cautious statement; indeed, I imagine that some people would call it excessively cautious. However, it does not justify the interpretation that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, put upon it.

1021
The noble Lord also asked me about the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the issue of whether she should take the issue up again. That is a matter for her; she is independent, and it is not for the Government to suggest what issues she should take up. He asked, too, about negligence by regulatory authorities; it will be noticed, however, that Lord Penrose does not use the word "negligence".
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in the context of compensation, asked about the differences between Equitable Life and Barlow Clowes. I believed that I had made it clear, and that the Financial Secretary made it clear in the Statement, that there were three major differences. First, Barlow Clowes had ceased trading, whereas Equitable Life is still solvent. Secondly, with Barlow Clowes there was maladministration, which is not Lord Penrose's finding. Thirdly, there is a financial services compensation scheme which, in the appropriate circumstances, would compensate policyholders up to 90 per cent of their original entitlement. In all those respects, which are very major respects, there is a great difference between Barlow Clowes and Equitable Life.
I am very sorry, given the respect that I have for him, that at the end of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Newby, should have used the word "whitewash". If this were not the House of Lords, that might well attract headlines. However, it is not applicable either to Lord Penrose's report or to the Government's reaction to it.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I can be very brief, as I am not a lawyer—I am only an accountant. However, I declare a past interest as a substantial holder of an annuity in Equitable Life, although, happily, I was able to leave it before the trouble started.
I have a simple question for my noble friend. The question of compensation has been mentioned; surely, he would accept—and I hope that he can give an assurance—that if we started to use taxpayers' money to compensate when a private company's management and directors made serious errors, that would be a very serious way forward. I hope that he will resist it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, got out from Equitable Life in time—I hope that it was not on the basis of inside information. I am still with Equitable Life for the AVCs on my ministerial salary. I suppose that I should have declared that interest right from the very beginning. Of course, there are very good reasons why government should not be lavish in compensation for those who are badly treated by private companies. That is why we have a Financial Services Compensation Fund.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a life company and as the recipient of a very small annuity through the Parliamentary Pension Fund. Lord Penrose says that the society was the author of its own misfortune. In his Statement the Minister highlighted a number of situations that happened with that society, particularly that the appointed actuary did not follow best practice—I
1022
thought it was law, but it was only best practice—and made a recommendation on bonuses. It was for the board to decide whether that recommendation was acceptable.
Equitable Life trumpeted that its business plan was different from what everybody else was doing in the market. It trumpeted that it had no salesmen, its ratios were far lower than others and that it did not need the same sort of savings ratio as everybody else needed. Is not the real lesson that if a society, a company or any other organisation trumpets such a business plan, it is the signal to a regulator of any sort that it is worth having a close look at it?
In his Statement, the Minister said that we are to have three new reviews into the mutual movement. That is not welcome. Has there been any consultation with the FSA, particularly about the actuarial and accounting dimensions? The mutual movement and the normal movement have just gone through an exercise with the FSA, which is just coming to fruition. If the Minister is now saying that we have to start again, it is terrible news for any organisation that serves the public in savings. Has there been any consultation with the FSA before today's Statement about setting up those two reviews? What is the point of a third review on corporate governance when those of us involved in corporate governance have only just got to grips with Turnbull and Higgs and have started to implement all those recommendations?
Finally, can we have an assurance that these specific reviews that are, as I understand it, for the mutual movement, and presumably just for the mutual life movement, will not result in discrimination against the mutual movement as opposed to the commercial movement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this report was very thoroughly "Maxwellised" before it was published. I rather think that anything I say should be "Maxwellised", particularly if I am speaking without a script in your Lordships' House. In view of the fact that Lord Penrose says that there are matters that may go before the courts, I have to be extraordinarily careful in expressing any opinions that might affect that. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, will forgive me if I do not go into his first point.
I do not think he is being fair about the three reviews. One of them—the Paul Myners review—will be about the governance of mutual life offices. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there have been serious criticisms about the governance of one mutual life office. I hope that he and his company will not resist co-operation with Paul Myners in that review.
The other two reviews are rather different. One is to be about the actuarial profession. That is the review to be led by Sir Derek Morris, which is not particularly about mutual life offices. The third is the Accounting Standards Board's review into accounting for with-profits businesses by life assurers. All of those follow rationally from the conclusions of Lord Penrose.

Constitutional Reform Bill [H.L.]
5.44 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it seems to be a strange coincidence that we should have been discussing the report of Lord Penrose as he was a pupil of mine in years long gone by.
On the radio the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke of "the nuclear option" in discussing the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, and particularly what is now Clause 11 of that Bill. By that, I understood him to refer to the possibility that if the courts saw that an Act of Parliament precluded them from intervening in an injustice, they might be in a difficult position in deciding their course of action in the light of that problem.
Under the arrangements that the present Bill proposes to replace there are two safeguards against the occurrence of the nuclear option—I am assuming from that description that most of us would agree that the nuclear option is to be avoided if possible. The first safeguard is the existence in the Cabinet of a person who took a judicial oath and who the Prime Minister of the day thought competent to preside over the highest court of appeal in this country. Therefore, one would believe that the chances of an unconstitutional measure getting through the Cabinet would be reduced by the existence of the Lord Chancellor.
The second is the existence of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in this House. Whatever they have done to indicate situations in which they would neither speak nor vote, I do not believe that that was intended to apply to a situation in which the Law Lords thought that the House was being asked to pass regulations or laws that were unconstitutional. I believe that the Writs of Summons, which they all accepted, put them under the obligation, if such an occurrence came to their notice, to do what they could by exercising the powers that Parliament and the state had given them to avoid that. I see nothing to replace that in the proposals that the Lord Chancellor has put before us in the Bill.
A great deal is said—and there is the question of how effective it is—about judicial independence, but there is not much use having a lot of independent judges waiting to do the work if they are deprived of the jurisdiction by Act of Parliament. There would be massive unemployment of highly independent judges. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to protect against that possibility. It is not an entirely theoretical possibility because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—who I am glad to see has returned to be with us—was talking about a particular issue when he mentioned the nuclear option.
I am conscious of the fact that I spoke in the previous debate and I am endeavouring to give effect to what the Chief Whip said and I shall not go over what I said before. But there is one aspect of what was said in the previous debate that does trouble me—that
1024
is when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, vividly described the tension that exists in the office of Lord Chancellor. I am conscious of the fact that any Minister has a desire to do his best for the interests that he serves. Sometimes, perhaps more often than not, the Treasury is apt to come along and limit the success of his aspirations. That is a tension that the Lord Chancellor, like every other Minister, faces. But this seemed to be something different: a tension between the requirements of the Lord Chancellor's office and those of the ministerial office. If that means that as a Minister he wants to do something that as Lord Chancellor he should not do, it raises serious questions about what is involved. If the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities prevent him doing, or not doing, something that the Minister either will do, or will not do, it seems to me that what the Minister is proposing needs to be examined in some detail.
I pass to the Supreme Court and those proposals. I entirely accept the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead—a very experienced judge in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as a head of division, and as the longest serving of the present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In my view he expressed eloquently and moderately the difficulties in the way of a Supreme Court.
If a Supreme Court is to be set up, I would suggest that those who have been British advocates general or British judges in the European Court at Luxembourg, the British judge at the European Court of Human Rights or the British judge at the International Court of Justice should be considered for eligibility to serve on the Supreme Court.
I feel that the Lord Chancellor's deliberate refraining from giving me an undertaking that the Supreme Court's facilities would be in position before the Act was brought into force indicates something about the importance that they attach to a Supreme Court. What could be a more inauspicious beginning for a new court than to continue in this building under the present arrangement, presumably with a sign up pointing to the Supreme Court? It would be interesting to see where the sign would lead you. That strikes me as an extraordinary way to start; and yet the Government have made it clear that they are not prepared—voluntarily, anyway—to give an undertaking that the facilities would be in place first.
We have some explanation about what will be done on finances in the passage in the Explanatory Notes to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred. I have not understood fully what these passages are saying, but I think that they say, among other things, that the level of fees to be charged in this new Supreme Court will be of the order of 10 times the fees presently charged in the House of Lords and that the balance of the money required will be raised from the other civil courts in the country—England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—right down to the lowest. So, for example, someone pursuing a small claim will have to pay a proportion of the additional costs incurred as a result of setting up the Supreme Court.

1025
There are, of course, other difficulties. The spread shown for the figures on total cost is not reflected when one tries to bring these costs down to the individual cases.
Those matters all suggest to me that the proposals have come forward with a degree of haste which is inappropriate for a major constitutional issue. To call it a government flagship is a good idea; I am sure that it is very important. However, I think that fundamental constitutional change requires a degree of deliberation. One of the reasons I say that is that the Select Committee of the House of Commons dealing with constitutional affairs—presided over by a very experienced Liberal Democrat, and with a substantial Labour Party majority in it, at least two of whom have great experience in the law—came to the conclusion that these changes should be considered first in a draft Bill.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, as a law student it was told to me that constitutional principles provide the necessary integrity to our democracy. If that makes me a constitutional purist, I plead guilty. I find it difficult in the extreme that those such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Nicholls, should describe themselves as unreconstructed pragmatists. It is an intellectual concept of constitutional law which I cannot grasp. The importance of constitutional principle is at the heart of the Bill. A Supreme Court separate from the legislature, an independent commission for judicial appointments, the statutory underpinning of the independence of the judiciary are matters of the greatest moment. They are matters that should properly occupy debate in this Chamber and the other place and not in a Select Committee. The legislative process has started. It should follow its normal progress.
I accept and respect the sincerity of those who take a different view. However, I submit that it is a view which is unrepresentative and unnecessary to apply. It is almost undemocratic, if I understood correctly my noble friend Lord Carter, that a Select Committee could recommend after consideration that this Bill should not proceed. That would not be a bar to this House proceeding with it, but it would be a considerable constitutional obstacle for a small group of our members to put up to the face of the House.
Why do I say that it is unrepresentative and unnecessary to accept the amendment that the Bill should go to a Select Committee? First, the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission has been generally endorsed as a necessary and worthwhile recommendation. The only significant issue about it is whether the recommendations of the commission should themselves be effective by way of appointment or whether it should be the subject of government recommendation or some hybrid of the two. The value of a judicial ombudsman to safeguard the processes is obvious. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has just said that this is a scheme of appointment that is urgently necessary. What reason is there for delay in debating that question on the Floor of this Chamber? There is no democratic reason for delay.
1026
Secondly, a Supreme Court has been debated for a number of years under the rubric of two basic contentions, the first of which is that judges are not legislators. It is so trite it seems difficult to see why we should have to say it. The second is that the Supreme Court of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity as we presently know it should be separate from—different from—the legislature and the executive.
I said that the amendment to put this matter to a Select Committee was unrepresentative and I meant it. All the lawyers, through their Bar Councils or Law Societies in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have accepted the principle of a Supreme Court subject to the mechanics of its constitution being properly debated and subject, of course, to adequate resources being given to it. All the NGOs that are concerned with justice and constitutional issues support it.
Of the 12 current members of the judicial panel of the Judicial Committee, five have said they are in favour of a Supreme Court, five are against, one has abstained, and one is as yet undecided. In the debates of February and now, it may well be that the impression is given to the House that the judiciary at that level is against this reform. That would be totally misleading. The judges of the Judicial Committee, such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham, Lord Steyn and others who are in favour of it, choose by virtue of their belief in democratic principle not to attend and debate the question in this Chamber, not because they are diffident about their convictions that a Supreme Court is the right course for our constitution.
The critical question about the Supreme Court is surely one of principle: are you in favour of it or not? What reason does that give for delay? None. It is a matter for this House to decide, if necessary by vote in this Chamber.
I turn to the independence of the judiciary. The demise of the office of the Lord Chancellor is envisaged in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, has just expressed that which he has expressed before, the concern that by the course of events since last year it will be simply impractical to go back to the world of the Lord Chancellor's powers that many in this Chamber would want to see. It is simply impractical.
Furthermore, is it constitutionally appropriate that a Minister such as the Lord Chancellor, responsible for several billions of pounds of expenditure of public money should be in this Chamber and not accountable to the elected Chamber? That point was made forcefully by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris in the previous debate and it is a telling point. We cannot democratically suggest that in our constitution there must always be a Lord Chancellor whose job it is to protect the independence of the judiciary. As I said last time, it is simply not the realpolitik of modern political life.
What confidence can we have that if we keep the tradition of the Lord Chancellor's role those who hold that position in future will occupy it with the same

1027
independence and distinction as those in the past? Is it not better that the independence of the judiciary should be underpinned by statute?
In January of this year the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor agreed a concordat by which this Bill would meet the concerns of the judiciary about how their independence was to be guaranteed. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to do it. It may need to be revised and improved. But it makes it clear what the parliamentary intent is.
Nothing has been said in this debate so far of the much enhanced power of the Lord Chief Justice under the new scheme in the management and control of the judiciary, the courts system and their financing. Judicial discipline, previously at the behest of the Lord Chancellor alone, now must be exercised by the new Secretary only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. Is this a retreat from good standards or an advance towards better ones? Is legislative protection less important than an undefined, assumed confidence in particular individuals? Surely not.
So what is the reason for delay on this front—that we want to keep the role of the Lord Chancellor? Is that enough to frustrate a Bill of this constitutional importance? I suggest it is not. Thomas Paine, in the introduction to his book on Common Sense, said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial impression of being right and raises at debate a formidable outcry in defence of custom and that such outcry has to be resisted and rejected.
This Bill introduces a new, written chapter into our mostly unwritten constitution. It demands the fullest parliamentary attention, impartiality, wherever possible, and an apolitical approach. Above all, there should be concern for our national values of constitutional principle. If the House accepts the amendment it faces two consequences. First, will confidence in our ability to accept and undertake major and sometimes controversial legislation as the first Chamber remain as it is now? I wonder. Secondly, do we not run the risk of being seen unreasonably to be obstructing reasonable reform?
The Government are bent on major constitutional change. That involves two government obligations in conducting this Bill here and in another place. The first is that they should be receptive to constructive amendment. This is a constitution of the people, not of a Labour government. Secondly, they must be very astute to avoid unnecessary delay. If this is the way our constitution should be, we should brook no significant delay.
6.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for a speech that spoke to the heart of the matter. If I come to somewhat different conclusions it is not out of any disrespect for the importance of the issues on which he dwelt.
There are numerous things in this Bill about which we should be pleased: the reform of the judicial appointments and disciplinary system is excellent, and
1028
the laying on the Government of a duty to support the independence of the judiciary. I wonder what utterances that might have spared us if it had already been in place. It is an excellent thing that it should be.
However, I wish to voice my own sense of caution on the subject of the Supreme Court. It is a concern with the way in which the word independence has come to be used in a context in which I would personally have preferred the word integrity. What is important to us is that judges should not be interfered with by the exercise of undue pressure of any kind and that their rights and authority should be respected.
Where I differ from the direction of the Bill is that I am absolutely clear that integrity is no longer safeguarded by what is being called independence and certainly not by what is being called separation. I wonder if I might be allowed to trespass on your Lordships' attention for a moment by talking about a situation outside this House, namely, that of the Anglican world-wide communion where the tradition of independence of its several provinces has placed the whole notion of a communion under enormous strain. The reason is that in a world that is globalised and reducing in size, independence is an illusion. The pressure is intense and the means to exercise it are many and various.
I do not believe myself that it is a guarantee of the integrity of the judiciary that it should be sent up the road or perhaps it is down the river, to a building that is separate from this House. I do not believe that that guarantees any kind of independence. For the well-being of our society we require interaction with integrity. The presence of the Law Lords in this House, whether they speak or whether they are silent, is itself a statement about the integrity of our society at the highest level in the land. I believe that that is of the profoundest importance.
Each day the Bishop appointed to lead prayers from these Benches prays that, as a result of our deliberations, there may be the knitting together of all persons and estates within this realm. That is at the heart of our constitutional arrangements and speaks about a unitary concept of society, not one in which the separation of powers is the road we follow. There is much that I admire about life in the United States, but all the evidence is that if the organs of power are separated they will find other methods of exercising control and pressure and of violating the integrity which should be our primary concern. They will pack courts politically or they will use the power of money to influence the legislature.
It is an illusion to suppose that the way in which we safeguard integrity is by keeping people apart in their different roles. The reality is that there is no structure of society in which integrity can be safeguarded by separating different components and stopping them from talking to each other. The fact that the Law Lords have exercised a certain self-denying ordinance about how they discharge their role in this Chamber is to me not evidence that the present system can no longer work but precisely the opposite—it is evidence that there is an understanding on the part of those who inherit certain

1029
offices. "Inherit" is a proper word because they, like I dare say those of us who sit on these Benches, are very conscious of stepping into a tradition which has the possibility of changing you as a person and enabling you to put your own personal, political or even legal agendas to one side in the exercise of your office. That seems to me to be an indispensable model. I venture to suggest that it will continue to be indispensable long after—if this Bill goes through—we have sent the Law Lords on their way.
I urge the House to consider that there is in the constitution of this country—that is to make no judgment on the constitutions of other countries—a heart that searches for interaction with integrity rather than separation and independence. It is not for me to criticise the judges who have found that the phrase, "the independence of the judiciary", suits their purposes. However, from my particular vantage point—or, one might say, disadvantage point—it is not the best phrase to choose. I do not believe that the days of independence can be with us much longer in the creation of a just and peaceable world. I believe that the world of interaction with integrity in the search for justice, a world that relies and builds up the capacity of individuals and institutions while listening with great intensity and attention to the words of other institutions and other bodies, that enhances their ability nevertheless to stand in their own place and make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions, is the world we need if we are to live in peace and justice with each other.
I listen to this debate with a view to helping me make up my mind about the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd. The issue that will have to be debated hard in this place, in another place and in our society at large is what price we are prepared to pay, in terms of the discomfort of individuals regarding the roles they have to hold together, in allowing a society to evolve in which interaction with integrity—the harder route than the route of independence and separation—is allowed to be developed and nourished among us.
6.13 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I was not able to speak on 12 February but I shall none the less try to be brief. I make it plain that I extend a complete welcome to Part 3 of the Bill and that I have no objection in principle to the notion of a Supreme Court which is properly thought out, properly established and properly resourced. However, it appears to me that this Bill contains much that is unnecessary. It is not clear what good some of its provisions will do and I fear there are reasons for supposing that the Bill will wreak real harm.
I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for nearly 30 years—on the Front Bench for the government, on the Front Bench for the opposition, on the Back Bench for the opposition and on the Cross Benches for some time. Therefore, I can claim some experience of the work of the House and of the part played in that work by those Members who are also judges. In my time many noble and learned Lords,
1030
including a number of serving Lords of Appeal, have contributed enormously and valuably to the work of the House, especially in relation to constitutional affairs.
As some noble Lords will remember, in the 1970s I was heavily involved when, from the government Front Bench. I assisted the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to take the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill through this House. I remind your Lordships of the names of a few of those who contributed to that debate—Lord Wilberforce. Lord Wheatley—the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is present today, and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest: there are many others who today continue in that excellent tradition. In my opinion the revising and advising function of this House would be significantly impoverished if we were to deprive ourselves of the possibility of contributions from judges of the calibre of those I have mentioned. Not only that but serving judges act as the chairmen of, or members of, committees of the House that do extremely valuable work which makes the House of Lords worth while. It would be a shame to take them away from that precipitately.
It is now suddenly suggested that to have serving judges participate in the work of the upper House is an offence against the doctrine of the separation of powers. A good deal of nonsense is spoken about the separation of powers. We have never had a separation of powers of the kind that Montesquieu persuaded the American founders of the constitution to adopt in Philadelphia at the end of the 18th century. For example, our executive is embedded in the legislature in a way that must make Montesquieu turn in his grave. I have reminded your Lordships that for a very long time, certainly for 135 years or so, serving judges have always played an important part in the deliberations of this House. They seldom vote. If voting is seen as anomalous, I am sure that they would be ready to adopt a convention that they would never vote except on matters of conscience, just as the non-judicial Members of this House observe a convention that they do not vote in the proceedings of the Appellate Committee. There is nothing to stop us adopting a convention that enables us to separate our judicial function from our function as Members of this House.
I take some pride in the fact that, following the sterling example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when dealing with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in 1984, when he successfully moved two amendments against the then government in order to improve that Bill, I proposed and successfully argued in this Chamber an important amendment to the Scotland Bill in November 1998. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is present. He will remember how, much to his irritation, we defeated the government. What we did then was to remove from the Scotland Bill a provision that judges could be removed by a vote in a single Chamber of Parliament on the initiative of the Secretary of State or the First Minister. That was seen as totally obnoxious. I am happy to say that your Lordships' House—I had the

1031
great support of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—defeated that particular provision. I was able to do that with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is present, and my noble and learned friends Lord Clyde and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who is sitting beside me.
That enables me when I meet foreign judges and foreign lawyers, as I do, in the United States, Canada, throughout the Commonwealth, and in the former Soviet Union, to explain that we have independent judges, at least in Scotland, because they cannot be sacked except by a special procedure which has effectively to go through the Privy Council.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If judges were automatically to be Members of this House, why should that privilege not also be extended to members of other professions and other jobs?
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, having heard what the right reverend Prelate has just said, one could say that it already is. I do not know why that is the case. Traditionally, since 1870, there have been Members of the House of Lords who are judges and who are entitled to take part, and do take part, in the work of the House. On the occasion of which I speak in 1998 when we carried an amendment against the government, four serving judges voted in the Lobby in which I was a Teller. That is the tradition that we have.
I could multiply the ways in which judicial Members of this House have helped it to improve legislation, but I believe that if they are no longer allowed to speak that would be a loss. It might be a tolerable loss, but it is a real and palpable one. No doubt, a young academic, sitting down with a blank sheet of paper, would not frame a constitution where judges were allowed to speak in the upper Chamber. But he would never get around to creating an upper Chamber that resembled this one at all. Can one imagine the constitutional purists creating the House of Lords? I certainly cannot.
We are not starting from scratch. We are the inheritors of centuries of history, which have seen the constitutional institutions and conventions evolve. That history has fashioned a court, within this building, of unequalled reputation, both for quality and independence—a beacon of legal excellence, as it was called by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. No one could image that it is at all corrupted or influenced by politics.
By contrast, if we look at the United States of America, we see, or at least we think we see, a constitution that is built on the basis of the strictest separation of powers. American judges are not in Congress or the executive, but the Federal judiciary is by no means non-political. When I was privileged to give a Reith lecture in 1986, I quoted a statistic that showed that 98 per cent of judges appointed to the Federal bench by President Reagan were registered Republicans; and when President Carter appointed his Federal bench, 97 per cent of his appointees were
1032
registered Democrats. It is no wonder that many commentators argued that there is a political slant to the judiciary in the United States, despite their separation of powers, and that that political slant perhaps influenced the members of the Supreme Court to come to a narrow majority on the question of the voting in Florida in the year 2000.
I do not believe that constitutional purism or purity in relation to the separation of powers guarantees either the independence of the judiciary or even the appearance of independence. What is important for the independence of judges is the manner of appointment, so I support Part 3 of the Bill. Even more important is the manner of dismissal and I hope that the Government will look again at the provision that they put into the Scotland Bill to see whether something similar might be introduced in relation to English judges—if only for the sake of appearances, which seem to be important.
I will not take up your Lordships' time by talking about the costs of the court. However, it must be borne in mind that in 1999 the then Secretary of State for Scotland told us that the new Parliament would cost £40 million. That cost has now reached £440 million and is rising. By the way, it will also be five years late. Lessons are to be learned from that about predictions. I discovered that the estimate of the cost of the new Supreme Court is between £6 million and £32 million. That would be a fairly wide range if one were buying ice cream or anything else. Something is wrong with that estimate. It means that the Government have not decided on a place or a design for it, so that they do not know what they are predicting.
There is a widespread perception that the principles behind the Bill were not thoroughly considered before they were announced. It may be true that the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate of Scotland and the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates were not consulted. As far as I know, no one was consulted in Scotland. I wonder if even the Advocate General for Scotland, who is a member of the Government, was consulted. Has the matter suddenly become of such urgency that it cannot be subjected to scrutiny by a Select Committee? I would hate to be accused of sinking a flagship, but I certainly would not mind if it were put into dry dock and had its bottom examined by a few experts—just to see whether it was seaworthy.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I keep asking myself why, if there is to be an appointments commission, should it not be there to advise the Lord Chancellor, leaving that prestigious office in existence. That brings me straight to a fundamental objection to the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor said,
"we must ground our changes in history".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1212.]
But the Government have done precisely the reverse. Instead of adapting what we have now in order to meet what the Government believe to be new demands and changed circumstances, instead of keeping the office

1033
of Lord Chancellor but circumscribing his powers of appointment and building on the network of conventions that already exist to ensure that it remains acceptable for him to be both head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet, instead of keeping the Lords of Appeal on the understanding that they would not speak on the Floor of the House on politically controversial matters or a matter that might become subject of an appeal to the House sitting in a judicial capacity, the Government have gone in for mass destruction without even giving us 45 minutes' warning.
I do not believe that the wisdom of the ages should be abandoned readily in favour of political theory. When change is necessary it should not be brought about by the rooting out of well-tried institutions which command public respect and confidence, it should come as a result of the adaptation of those institutions to meet the new needs.
I fully appreciate that some people find the anomalies in the present system hard to stomach, find it offensive that the head of the judiciary sits in the Cabinet and that our most senior judges sit in this House. But although there are people of that persuasion—the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is one—who have wanted a change of this nature for years, up to last summer the Government showed few signs of being of that persuasion. Until last summer they were steadfastly defending the system that they now want to scrap.
That presents us with another difficulty. If proposals for constitutional change are made out of the blue, without a hint of what is to come, let alone any prior consultation, and if those proposals conflict with what has previously been the Government's declared policy, some people will doubt the Government's motives. Some are hound to think that the object of the exercise may not be to get the best judges but to get judges more to the liking of the Government. That is not good for any of us and is certainly not good for the judicial system.
For the life of me, I cannot see how matters are improved by removing the Lord Chancellor as the key figure in the appointments system and then putting responsibilities for appointments on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The office of Lord Chancellor had, in the words of the House ofCommons Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
"a special constitutional importance enjoyed by no other member of the Cabinet".
He was so senior that he could have no further political ambitions; and before his appointment he stood so high in his profession that no one could doubt his integrity, his standing or his ability to resist political pressure. On the other hand, the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will not be bound by the judicial oath, may well not be a lawyer and may be a very junior member of the Cabinet in the other place with a desire to climb higher up the political ladder.
Is it seriously being suggested that it is better that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should have his finger in the pie of judicial appointments rather than someone of the standing of the Lord Chancellor? One
1034
has only to pose that question to know perfectly well what the answer is. If the Government really believe that it is no longer proper, for reasons of separation of power, for the Lord Chancellor to be the key figure in judicial appointments, it is wholly illogical and equally offensive to any doctrine of separation of powers for the Secretary of State, who is a party politician and member of the Government, to be given the powers of appointment described in the Bill—the powers in Clause 69—and, regarding the Supreme Court, the power to pick from a list of between two and five names.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with all his prestige and dignity of office, might get away with that. But a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, perhaps even a non-lawyer Secretary of State, without even a scrap of knowledge about the rival candidates—I do not think has a cat in hell's chance of getting away with people thinking that his exercise of choice between various candidates is correct.
It is small wonder that the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State such powers, also imposes on him a solemn statutory duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary. But is it not a very serious matter that it is thought necessary—because of these so-called reforms—to include in the Bill a clause designed to secure a judicial independence which was never in doubt until the noble and learned Lord and the Prime Minister launched their proposals last summer?
I now revert for a moment to the office of Lord Chancellor. I am bound to say, and I know that I am not alone, that I feel a sense of outrage at the cavalier way in which the Government determined to do away with an office older than Parliament itself, and to do so without even informing the Queen of their intention. We are talking about an office the holder of which has precedence over the Prime Minister himself. We are talking about one of the most senior posts, one of the key posts, under our constitution, and a guarantee of the judicial independence about which the Government talk so much.
I may be old-fashioned, but I am afraid that I do not think that ancient offices of this kind should, any more than any other part of the constitution, be the playthings of politicians who are here today and gone tomorrow. Certainly no one with any sense of history at all could have imagined that a Prime Minister had the right to snap his fingers and say, "The Keepers of the Great Seal no longer exist." It is really quite outrageous and I am absolutely horrified to think that the Prime Minister of the day actually imagined that it was proper to do what he did in June last year.
Turning for one last moment to the proposals for a Supreme Court, no one has explained to me what practical benefit will accrue from this change. The present Law Lords will get a new name but they will not become more independent and they will remain, as described in the consultation paper,
"people of outstanding integrity and independence 'wisely and rightly admired both nationally and internationally'".
But we know what will be lost. The judges themselves will lose a forum in which to defend the independence of the judiciary and to fight measures which might

1035
damage the administration of justice, and we will lose people who add lustre to this place, who give wise counsel on criminal justice and legal matters and make a significant contribution to our other work, such as our committee work.
As to the matter of the building for a Supreme Court, that could turn out to be a very expensive business, as has already been said. It is also a venture which could well end in scandal, like the Scottish Parliament building. The risk is that it will bring public derision down, not just on the Government—which does not matter a jot and is only their desert—but on the judiciary. That is the risk that is involved in all this. The history of the Dome, after the noble and learned Lord got his hands on it, does not exactly inspire confidence. It is simply not in the judges' own interests to move from where they are now.
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, regrettably I was not present for the debate on 12 February. I have, however, read the whole debate, and also the shorter debates on the Statements made on 26 January and 9 February. There are a number of aspects on which I will try to expand if time allows.
This Bill is thoroughly ill thought out and requires further scrutiny before it comes before the full body of either House. I wrote those words this morning, and my view seems to have been pretty well confirmed by the fact that in opening the debate on the Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, shall be amending this and that but I cannot actually tell you now how".
To bring a constitutional Bill before this House and say, before we started the debate—not as a consequence of the debate—that a lot of it needs changing, seems to me, with respect, to demonstrate fairly conclusively that this Bill needs further scrutiny. I therefore wholeheartedly support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
I would like briefly to answer some of the objections formulated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the radio this morning, when he suggested that to pass this amendment would be to defy the Commons and impose excessive delay.
First, the noble and learned Lord resolutely ignored the fact that it is the Commons itself which called via its committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, although it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, thinks it was wrong to do so. But all that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, does, is to give the Commons what it wants, and which the Government have failed to give it. In saying that the amendment defies the will of the people, the Government are, yet again, confusing their own wishes with those of the Commons or of the people.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also utterly failed to answer Mr Humphrys' repeated questions about what on earth the hurry was. The noble and learned Lord has accepted that the Supreme Court should only come into existence when a building and its facilities have been created. A Select
1036
Committee will report a very long time before a building has been found or decisions have been made as to its appropriate designs or facilities. What on earth is the uncertainty of which he spoke, except perhaps his own personal concern as to what suit of clothing he will be wearing in 12 months' time? If it is said that delay will find out whether the concordat works, that is a very good thing.
If there really is—and I fail to quite see how—a pressing need for Part 3 in advance of the rest of the Bill, the Government could easily bring forward Part 3 as a short non-controversial Bill on its own.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that once this Bill went to a Select Committee it would never be enacted, because, he said, that had happened when this procedure was applied to a hare coursing Bill in the 1970s. But that is entirely up to the Government. If they found, after the hare coursing Bill had been to a Select Committee, that it was a lousy Bill and that they could not get it through, then of course they abandoned it. If they consider after this Bill has been to a Select Committee that perhaps with some of the amendments by the committee the Bill should still go through, it is entirely up to them to get it through. I do not understand the suggestion that this is a novel procedure. It is always up to this House to decide which of its committee procedures should be followed for a Bill. With respect, all that was revealed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was that the Companion may not be totally up to date with the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Let me deal with just one aspect of the Bill—
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, of course I will.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sorry. I do not understand the point at all. The noble Viscount referred to the Companion to Standing Orders. I believe that he was recently on the committee with me that redrafted the Companion.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong—he had pushed me off the committee by that time or I had been time expired by then.
Let me deal with just one aspect of this Bill which cries out for pre-legislative scrutiny as to what should replace the present role of the Lord Chancellor in protecting the rule of law. On that point there was an interesting divergence of words which emerged during the short debate on the Statement on 26 January. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke only of protecting "judicial independence", while much more accurately the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice spoke of protecting the "administration of justice" and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of preserving "the rule of law". The latter are the true objectives and the independence of the judiciary is only a small part of that.

1037
It may well be that the so-called concordat may do something for judicial independence. It will protect judges against a brutal suggestion that unless they decide in favour of the Government, they will be sent to some unattractive outpost of the country to try only dreary, second-rate cases. That is not the problem. The concordat cannot possibly be adequate to replace the role of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in preserving the rule of law.
In the debate on 12 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, eloquently and accurately explained why the Lord Chancellor is infinitely better suited to the role of protecting the rule of law than some transient Minister who is hopefully pursuing the upward course of his career.
There is another point. It is well recognised in life that it is infinitely easier and more effective to influence policy when it is a mere proposal than when it has been formulated, hardened and published. At present, a Lord Chancellor is well placed to give a warning in advance where some part of a proposed measure is unacceptable or dangerous to the rule of law. It can then be dropped or modified before it has seen the light of day.
We should contrast that with the position of the Lord Chief Justice on the present proposal. He may well have no advance knowledge of ministerial intent and thus no opportunity to intervene in advance. Even when the Bill is published, how on earth will he discover the danger lurking in some remote provision of an apparently innocuous Bill? And if he does discover it, how is he to do anything about it?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the Lord Chief Justice is well placed to speak on behalf of the judiciary. But speak where and when? It will not be in Parliament because he is about to be expelled from Parliament. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that the Lord Chief Justice can resort to the media. But surely we all agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, when he said that it was,
"preferable that the views of the judiciary be communicated directly to Parliament, rather than merely explained in … after-dinner speeches or the like".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1231.]
If this matter was considered in the calm of a Select Committee, one might be able to devise some more satisfactory procedure. One might be able to work out whether one could require the promoter of each Bill to decide whether the Bill had any implications for the administration of justice. If so, we should submit it to the Lord Chief Justice or, if it is considered to be one straw too many, we should put it on an already overloaded back of some constitutional committee. It should then be stated on the face of the Bill, as is now required under the Human Rights Act, whether that Bill has implications for the rule of law and, if so, whether he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice or the committee and what their response was.
I have many serious concerns which time does not permit me to expound, but I strongly submit that the right course is to vote in favour of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his points, not least because I am afraid that I did not hear the exchanges between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Mr Humphrys on the "Today" programme this morning.
I want to make a few broadly political points on the Bill, which I greatly welcome. I have not taken part in previous debates on the issue, largely because they seemed to be exclusive debates between lawyers in which the lay person would have trepidation in taking part. But today we have reached the Second Reading of the Bill, which has wide political implications, and it is relevant to make some broadly political points.
After all, many of us regard constitutional change as a means to renew our institutions in the general interests of our democracy and specifically to renew the parliamentary process. From that perspective—and it is the perspective of many political working Peers in this House—the Bill's provisions are most welcome. They take forward the Government's programme of parliamentary reform and, as has been argued cogently, give an enhanced independence to the judiciary. The result is the clear separation of the three arms of state authority: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each should be strengthened by the separation.
It will be a huge political achievement to make all our key institutions more fit for purpose in the 21st century through this one Bill. Those of us whose ambition is primarily overall to improve the governance of the country will do all we can to support it.
I want to look at the main provisions of the Bill—the creation of a Supreme Court; the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission; and the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor—and briefly explain why in that context I see each one to be politically significant.
The legal debate about setting up the Supreme Court has rightly dominated earlier discussions. But, personally, I have found no persuasive argument against the political judgment that the roles of the senior judiciary, Parliament and the executive should be clearly delineated in a modern constitution.
I am afraid that from my observation, as so often when we debate these types of questions in your Lordships' House, appeals were made to tradition and history as the final and absolute touchstone of defence for the status quo.
It is interesting that external commentators who have looked in some detail at the proposals have not been swayed by such appeals. For example, the authoritative constitutionalist, Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC, has noted that today candidate states for membership of the European Union would simply not be admitted if their judges sat in their legislatures. Other outsiders have seen the determination to continue the traditional conflation of roles as protection of special interest. I quote with some trepidation but with some enthusiasm the political columnist, Mr Peter Riddell, who is uncompromising and has described some of the actions of the lawyers as

1039
opposing change because it challenges familiar working practices. The headline of a recent piece of his in the Times said:
"The Law Lords are acting like members of the Fire Brigade Union".
I would not like to be so harsh, but I have been thinking about other learned professions in the way other noble Lords have described. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised the point earlier. I take the case of doctors. The medical profession is another ancient body and fierce defender of its rights and privileges, but how ludicrous it would seem if the president of the General Medical Council claimed either a scat in Parliament or in government.
Of course this does not mean that the views of doctors or lawyers are irrelevant to Parliament—we gain a great deal by hearing them in this House but—I understand that there are about 100 Peers with a legal background among your Lordships and therefore I do not think we are in danger of losing a legal perspective if the 12 judges of the new Supreme Court are excluded in the future.
I realise that some of the Law Lords have argued for a separate Supreme Court for several years and describe the anomalies in the present system most succinctly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, was particularly outspoken in pointing out the anomalies of the present position and in 2002 drawing attention to the potential conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998. His overall conclusion was political. He wrote:
"It is no longer acceptable that alone among constitutional democracies our country does not have a Supreme Court".
I must say that from the point of view of those of us who observe the political debate, the existence of a longstanding public discussion of that kind between the Law Lords—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that it had been going on for more than two decades—makes it surprising that parts of the legal establishment are now arguing that more time is needed for review and debate of the principles of the proposal. They seem to suggest that somehow they have been caught unprepared by the Government's proposals.
Another argument for delay, which we have heard about again today and which frankly does not convince me, concerns a suitable building to house the Supreme Court. Clearly, as many noble Lords have said—and I certainly agree—the Supreme Court must have an appropriate location and a suitably resourced judicial office. But perhaps I can gently suggest that, again, there is an element of special pleading. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has referred to the escalating costs of the Scottish Parliament building, but thankfully I do not remember there being similar arguments for legislative delay when the Acts on devolution went through this House in the late 1990s. We may now have queries about the costs or indeed the aesthetics of the Scottish Parliament building or indeed Mayor Livingstone's headquarters, but their nonexistence as the relevant Bills were passing through
1040
Parliament was not seen as a serious obstacle and I do not think that the non-existence of the Supreme Court should today.
Part 3 of the Bill, as we have heard, reinforces the new statutory independence of the judiciary by establishing the separate Judicial Appointments Commission. To me, that is very important. I am glad that it has more general support than some of the other proposals. I am particularly pleased that the commission will have six lay members and that the chair will come from that number. Those people will have a special responsibility to ensure that the judiciary becomes more reflective of society. This year, in this House, we have all greatly welcomed the appointment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, to the Appellate Committee as the first woman member. Let us hope that in the new Supreme Court she will be quickly joined by other female justices as well as by those from minority ethnic backgrounds. In the 21st century we must give priority to the goal of diversity in all our institutions. It is right that the new Judicial Appointments Commission will be specifically tasked to achieve that.
Part 1 of the Bill contains the headline controversy—the decision to try to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, thus, among other matters, creating a vacancy for the presiding officer in your Lordships' House. Again, from a political and parliamentary perspective, that seems to me to be a positive and an important opportunity. Again, I take as my benchmark the more efficient and effective working of this second House of Parliament.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that although I regard his delaying amendment as very unhelpful for the extremely cogent reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Carter, I found his report on the Speakership—
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness correctly? Did she say the more efficient and effective working of the second Chamber of Parliament, referring to the other House? The other House fails to scrutinise legislation properly, which is why we have this discussion today.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to forgive me. I must have been very inarticulate. In fact, I said, "to make more efficient and effective this second House of Parliament". I am sorry if the emphasis was misheard.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whose amendment I do not believe is at all helpful, that I found his report on the Speakership very helpful indeed and I agree with it almost entirely. I know that a decision on that report is not related to this Bill, but it is worth looking at the Select Committee's detailed suggestions in the context of this Bill in regard to what the committee described as an expanded role for the Lords' Speaker as "guardian of the Companion". All of that is significant. I see the abolition of the office of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker as a golden opportunity to improve procedures in this House—this House, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—but also as a very good opportunity to create an important senior position

1041
of Lords' Speaker and so, to quote my late noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in his evidence to the committee,
"heightening the profile in the interests of the House and the representative functions".
In conclusion, I welcome in principle the Bill's proposals to separate legal, government and parliamentary responsibilities in the interests of good governance and of transparency. In practice, I am sure that the clear delineation between judicial, executive and legislative functions will achieve the political reform that is appropriate and necessary for a mature democracy in the 21st century.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, in my 48 consecutive years in one or other of the Houses of Parliament I have never known such antagonism as there is at the moment between the judiciary and the executive. For all the sweet talk about the cheeky chappie on the Clapham omnibus, the very fact that one has to have a publicly made concordat between the executive and the judges demonstrates to me how unfortunate for the rule of law is the present relationship between the Government and the judiciary.
That coincides with the House discussing this ill prepared Bill—it is accepted that it is ill prepared—which was thrust upon the country and upon some of the leading players unheralded and unpromoted. The people and the organisation that will be happiest are those who inhabit the corridors of the Home Office. It is to the Home Office that noble Lords should look to see why and how such antagonism, which is so unfortunate for the body politic, has grown up.
I suppose the Government believed, by saying that the Lord Chancellor should no longer exist, that that would be that. It seems to me that they had no idea of the ramifications. They went hawking around various legal bodies to find out the Lord Chancellor's role in particular areas. They were so ill prepared. On 2 March we had a Written Statement about the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage. There used to be an official in the Lord Chancellor's Department who was known as Buns Cartwright and his job was to make the recommendations for the livings that came under the Lord Chancellor's patronage. Helpfully, he used to add notes such as, "Very good slow bowler", or "Good opening bat", which would go forward to the Lord Chancellor for appointment. Only on 2 March did we hear about the ecclesiastical patronage that had to be dealt with.
In the debate on the Address, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, agreeably accused me of romantically considering that all the Lord Chancellor did was to appoint the judges. In fact, in 1990, before he came to this House—14 years ago—I moved an amendment from the Benches over there to the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The amendment proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be stripped of his judicial powers and that there should be a statutory appointments committee. There was hostile opposition to it. Of course, it was the wrong vehicle for such proposals, but nevertheless Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Hailsham nearly had a fit of
1042
excitement and fury and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, leading for the Labour Benches, begged me to withdraw the amendment. Of course, I withdrew it. It was merely a vehicle for argument and discussion.
This definitive Bill not only strips the Lord Chancellor of his judicial powers, but also abolishes the office under the doctrine of the separation of powers. But the Bill makes it clear that one cannot avoid a substantial role for a Minister, both in the selection and appointment of judges. So there is a political role for someone. In the Bill there are constant references to what such a person has to do, what he can do, what he can reject, and what he can ask to be considered again. That is all for the Minister. As my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out, if this is a role for a Minister, why create a new Minister when we have a Lord Chancellor? His judicial powers could be taken away, which apparently is what everyone wants, but he could be left as the Minister who is referred to so continually in the Bill. Instead we have this new, very junior appointment, just scrabbling into the Cabinet, one above Mr Hilary Benn, who is the lowest form of life in the Cabinet. That will be the Constitutional Secretary. There is already a Lord Chancellor. Why not keep the Lord Chancellor as "the Minister"? The immediate advantage is that he is a senior officer, as a opposed to a junior officer, which is what the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be.
The person who is dangerous in all this is the Home Secretary. He does not really care very much for the rule of law. He does not understand the necessity of access to courts. He does not forgive if a judge disagrees with him. I remind noble Lords that when my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary and judges were overturning some of his provisions, there was applause for the courage of the judiciary in standing up to the executive. Of course, all that has disappeared now. The judges are entitled to bridle at the Home Secretary's attitude and his implicit criticism of the courts' decisions. He will gain most from the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor.
We could get exactly what we want from this Bill if "the Minister" remains the Lord Chancellor and we keep the Lord Chancellor in that role. Any hint of conflict between the judiciary and the executive is not good for the body politic. Any hint of a threat to the rule of law is very serious. Of course, the spin doctors—there still are some despite Mr. Campbell's retirement to the music hall stage—will say that this is all lawyers' talk and that what is being suggested is perfectly reasonable. But it is not. The rule of law is inherent in our constitution. It is difficult to avoid a Cassandra-like attitude as one witnesses all the institutions withering. The House of Commons is derided and often ignored. The House of Lords is neutered, the judiciary is slighted and life is never the same.
More patient, critical examination should have been given to the Bill before it was brought before this House. Delay is the price that the Government must pay for so mishandling such a substantial piece of legislation. I will support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
7 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the great charms of this House is that every now and again when one reads the Order Paper one finds that what is printed on it does not relate to the key issue that eventually comes to be discussed. I think that here we have a classic example of that. This debate is of major importance. Whether this House plays any significant role in the progress of this Bill or other subsequent legislation relating to it will depend very much on the amendment. That is the key issue. What happened in the past is history and we cannot do anything about it but there is a great deal more optimism than is justified.
If the amendment is passed, that will kill the Bill in its present form. The idea that it will drift gently down to the other place and that they will receive it, try to make it work and send it back to us fails to understand the deep bitterness on the issue of House of Lords reform in a very large section of the House of Commons and that bitterness is not confined to any one political party. To suggest that at this stage we need more time and a Select Committee because we do not understand the Bill quite yet and we need to get to know it demonstrates how phoney the case is for the amendment.
Last July, the Government circulated a 50-page document for consultation on this Bill. Several hundred people got copies of that document and some actually replied to it. Three weeks ago we had a very good five-hour debate, which had 23 speakers, who covered all of the key issues. Indeed, many of them have covered the issues again today. The next stage should have been a lengthy Committee stage in which those key issues could be debated and negotiated with the Government. With this particular Bill I believe that there would have been a lot of scope in a conventional Committee stage for the Government to accept amendments and for matters to be discussed. If this amendment is agreed, that will not happen. Let us be realistic about it.
Noble Lords delude themselves if they think that the Select Committee will be appointed and up and running and reporting in three months. That ignores the practicalities. In four weeks' time, the House rises for the Easter Recess until 19 April. On 27 May, the House rises until 7 June. On 22 July the House rises until 7 September.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, seems to have forgotten that Select Committees can sit when the House is not sitting.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I can imagine an entire Select Committee and its witnesses going home to their wives and saying, "Sorry about the holiday, darling—I have been appointed to go a House of Lords Select Committee". That lack of reality characterising such ideas means that the amendment has a distinct possibility of being passed.
But to continue my argument, the House rises on 16 September until 11 October. In early November, the Queen opens the new Session and it is all over. It
1044
has been said that we could have a carry-over. However, a carry-over assumes good relations with the other place. On this issue we would not have those.
How can anybody seriously believe that, even if the Select Committee were a serious proposition, which it is not, the logistics allow the committee to be assembled, have a series of meetings, summon experts, get staff and produce a report in 12 weeks? The reason is that the key people supporting the amendment do not want the Bill to go through. That is what this is all about. Of course it will not go through on the Select Committee basis. But what comes in its place will be a source of some misery to many of those who thought that it was a good idea to get rid of it at this stage.
The fact is—I do not say this offensively—that this is a blatant wrecking amendment, which can only make worse a situation that is already bad. When the Lord Chief Justice assumes that the public ridicule of the Lord Chancellor is acceptable, even if it amuses a group of undergraduates, it is time to bring the whole issue to a conclusion. No one questions the contributions made by the judiciary to this country. They, together with the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, constitute the three key institutions that support governments of whatever political complexion. Where a substantial number of judges differ from the Armed Forces and the Civil Service is in their conviction that they enjoy some divine right to defend and protect the nation's freedoms and the tolerance which it has enjoyed for so many years.
However, that is not the case. It is an understandable—albeit, rather romantic—concept but, throughout modern history, social justice in this very sophisticated country has quite properly come by way of politicians and not from judges. I refer to freedom for homosexuals to choose their lifestyle, freedom for pregnant women to seek abortion, freedom for working men and women to combine, and the right of women to vote. In every case, the judges put them in gaol and the politicians took them out. It is a romantic falsity to take any other view.
The key fact is that this country has a very stable society. That is not because of the judges or primarily because of the politicians; it is because we are a pluralist society. Uniquely, this country enjoys—"enjoys" is probably not a good word to use—three political parties, each of which carries people of every creed, colour and class. Whichever party is in power in this country, it will recognise when things have gone wrong and are running badly and if it does not recognise that, this country, with all its history, is sophisticated enough to get rid of it and from time to time does just that with no help whatever from the judges.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, that is a very hard act to follow, but I agree with practically everything that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. I was surprised that when we discussed the Sunday Trading Bill, I saw, for the first time, all the Bishops in your Lordships' House at one time. Today, I have seen more Law Lords than I have ever seen before in my life. There must be some connection between those two phenomena. Hanging does concentrate the mind.

1045
For a long time, I have been in favour of the removal of the post of Lord Chancellor. Together with the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Patten, I have taken part in three discussions in your Lordships' House about why the Lord Chancellor's position was anomalous and why something should be done about it. Just because the office is ancient, that does not mean that it is good. In the same way that we do not drive 12th century cars or have plumbing based on mediaeval times, we do not need law officers just because the offices are ancient. The point is that, with the European Convention on Human Rights on the statute book, it is an anomaly to have the head of the judiciary sitting in Cabinet and sitting in this House.
It may seem that the rest of the world is completely ignorant and stupid, that we are uniquely the best and that we alone understand what justice and the rule of law are about. Of course, it is easy to have that kind of delusion. However, if one looks at countries which have adopted the Westminster constitution, in the new and old Commonwealth not a single country has adopted the Lord Chancellor model. Every country rejected that model, created a Supreme Court and ensured that it did not go down that road. It is not a road that you go down with your eyes open; you go down that road because you do not want to think about matters clearly but to continue the path of tradition.
I believe that we should stop being complacent about the quality of justice and order in this country. One has only to go abroad to Boston and ask the people there what they think about the quality of British justice and an American-Irish person will tell you his view.
As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Jay, it is also quite anomalous that we have a remarkably homogeneous judiciary. It consists mainly of white males and its members come from perhaps one or two universities and three or four public schools. Over many years, we have failed to recruit widely for the judiciary. Somehow, because for a long time the elite was united—the elite in this country is very homogeneous and solid—it appeared that there was justice, independence and integrity. The same thing that happened at the BBC happened in the judiciary. What appear to be good, sound and independent institutions run by a homogeneous elite fall apart when the elite is fragmented. One side suddenly realises that it no longer has access to power in certain institutions.
We urgently need judicial reform and we urgently need to reform the way that we appoint judges. What has been happening until now will not do any longer. Injustice has been piling upon injustice and, time and again, we have lost cases before the European courts because, in a sense, what we consider to be justice is not viewed as such elsewhere. It is necessary to say these things because, otherwise, one might imagine that the Government were committing some outrage by modernising our constitution.
1046
Therefore, my bottom line is that what is now being done is long overdue. The fact that it happened accidentally in a botched job on 12 June, or whenever it was, is not relevant; nor, in my opinion, is it relevant whether the Supreme Court has a nice building. Presumably the judges are happy where they are now. Therefore, they can continue where they are until a building is provided. If we have to put a different sign on the doors of Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3 saying "Supreme Court", that is fine. It will not cost very much to put up a new sign and the Law Lords can continue there. As and when a better building is found, they will move there.
Just because we do not like the building which has not yet been proposed or built or which, if built, might cost too much, I do not see that that is a sufficient reason to reject Bills or kick them into the long grass. That is not how constitutional issues should be decided; they should be decided on the merit of the case. Is it true that we need a far more modern judiciary? Is it true that we need to get in line with the rest of the world in relation to the separation of powers? Whether Montesquieu got it right or wrong is neither here nor there.
As was pointed out, it is clear that if we were to apply to join the European Union now, we would not be admitted, given our current judicial system. That should tell us that what we have is not really perfection. What we have is a higgledy-piggledy system and any attempt to put it right should be welcomed, as should any attempt to put the independence of the judiciary in statute rather than leave it to the effervescent and mysterious workings of the Lord Chancellor's mind. I believe it would be preferable to have that written down. I am sure that until now all Lord Chancellors have been perfect but—who knows?—one of them may turn out to be imperfect. That is always a possibility.
I think that most Lord Chancellors are human. If they have not been so far, the next one may be, and what shall we do then? We cannot rely on the magic of individual personalities and the mysteries of the constitution to guarantee judicial independence; it must be put in statute form. If that is done, it can be argued about; if not, we shall risk grave injustice being done without anyone being able to check it. That will especially be the case as society becomes more fragmented and more pluralistic. If, however, society becomes so democratic that every member of the community feels that he can become a member of the judiciary and rise to the highest position in any part of society, that is when we shall have a fully modern constitution.
I believe that reforming the judiciary will open it out to elements of society which do not have access to it today. The political system needs to be reformed. Similarly, the House of Lords needs to be reformed, because people should have access to this House. When those things can happen, we shall have a good constitution. I welcome the Bill as a major step towards a modern constitution for the country.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, on 12 February the noble and leaned lord the Lord Chancellor told the House that the independence, probity and quality of our judiciary are unparalleled.
On the same day on the "Today" programme, he said that it was because the justice system works so well that now is the ideal moment to change it, arguing that strength is the best position from which to make reforms.
While sound reform may be easier to achieve when things are working well rather than badly, surely we ought to make sure that the new arrangements will work better and not worse than those that they replace.
Before seeing the Bill many people, including myself, believed that it should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny; we had that belief reinforced a hundredfold when we read it. It was with a sense of relief that I heard that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was tabling an amendment to the Motion to the effect that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee. That would not, of course, be as good as full pre-legislative scrutiny, but it would provide an opportunity for evidence to be taken on key issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, says that we will get a bloody nose. The Leader of the House of Commons says that no Bills will be introduced first in this Chamber. If you believe that, you will believe anything. The whole of the Government's legislative programme would then be in ruins. The reality is that compromises would have to be reached in Select Committee, just as they will if we have a prolonged Committee stage.
Clause by clause, the Bill prompts the questions: how will this work in practice, how will this be enforced and how will this be an improvement?
In his Cambridge lecture, the Lord Chief Justice asked a fundamental question:
"whether as part of the process of change we are paying sufficient attention to retaining or replacing the checks upon which, in the past, the delicate balance of our constitution has depended".
This House has no more important duty than to uphold the rule of law, which the Lord Chief Justice reminded us prevents the Government from abusing their powers and stops a democracy descending into an elected dictatorship.
We are not dealing with abstract theory or some remote and unlikely possibility. We are dealing with a threat that confronts us here and now. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has revealed that the judges were consulted about Clause 11 of the Immigration Bill and advised:
"that a clause of this nature now included in the Bill was fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law and should not be contemplated by any Government if it had respect for the rule of law".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, questioned whether the courts would now be helpless to prevent this challenge to the structure of our
1048
democracy, so that in the future Parliament could block the courts from checking executive abuse of power altogether.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who claim to speak for the supremacy of Parliament, for those whom they term "real people" represented by that Parliament, which should not be challenged by a Supreme Court, and human rights principles that ignore political realities. The arguments between the two sides are so fundamental that they demand thorough pre-legislative scrutiny.
We now know, as well, that despite the concordat, the Lord Chief Justice has concerns about the independence of the judiciary. Clause 1 of the Bill is supposed to remove our fears. It states:
"Minister of the Crown … must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary … The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs ('the Minister') must have regard to … the need to defend that independence".
What do those words mean in practice, and how can they be enforced?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern asked those questions on 12 February. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, observed that it is easy to impose a statutory duty, and that that sounds fine, but that is mere words unless it means something in practice.
The Lord Chancellor's reply to those questions was one of the most astonishingly inadequate responses that can ever have been delivered by any Lord Chancellor in the long history of that office. His response to the question about how the duty to protect the independence of the judiciary would be enforced was that that would be a matter for debate and development over a period of time.
If the first and most crucial Clause of the Bill can be defended only with a statement of such astonishing vacuity, then the whole basis on which the Government defend their proposals seems to have been blown apart; and if there is to be debate, it should be in advance, during an adequate process of scrutiny by a Select Committee.
The person who must,
"have regard to … the need to defend that independence",
of the judiciary, that is "the Minister", most unusually is not any Secretary of State but the Constitution Secretary and nobody else, yet it is not a role that is created and defined in the Bill, while the Lord Chancellor, with 800 years of legislative authority and history behind him, is summarily dismissed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out on 12 February—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, did earlier in this debate—that reform of the Lord Chancellor's role did not require the abolition of that institution of state. She spoke of her concern that we have reduced the role to just another Secretary of State, who may still have political ambitions. Worse, the Minister may, under the new dispensation, be given the role precisely because he is thought unlikely to be an obstacle to a politically powerful Home Secretary.

1049
The present Lord Chancellor—no, it must be the lesser individual, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, with whom he so uncomfortably cohabits—defends this Bill by suggesting that each of the areas of the state will work better when they are fully, clearly and transparently separated from one another.
When I examine the appointment arrangements proposed in the Bill it does not seem to me that the separation is as full and clear as the Government have pretended. Politicians and the Minister will still have a finger in the pie. But that is just the kind of important subject that a Select Committee could examine.
There is another issue that demands consultation and examination. Clause 1 states:
"Ministers of the Crown must not seek to influence particular judicial decision through any special access to the judiciary".
What does that mean exactly? Is it possible that influence might be attempted by more indirect means? Is the Lord Chief Justice right when he says that there are many ways in which, consciously or unconsciously, the Department for Constitutional Affairs could give directions to court service staff which would result in the courts becoming a tool of Government policy; and that the Home Office could end up dictating the agenda of the courts unless it was checked? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester pointed out that the means to exercise pressure are many and intense.
I began by quoting the Lord Chancellor's comments about the quality of the judiciary. On 12 February he appeared for judgment before a remarkable cross section of the senior Law Lords. Their verdict was clear and overwhelming. He should take note and, before it is too late, fulfil the historic role of the high office that he now still holds, and use all the authority that resides with the Lord Chancellor to insist that the Government think again.
7.28 pm
Lord Morgan: My Lords, as a non-lawyer I intervene with diffidence in this debate. It is a topic on which I have never previously pronounced. I intervene with less diffidence as a historian, in view of the extraordinarily bad history that we have heard at various times during the past few hours.
I take the criticism seriously, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Woolf, in his lecture, particularly his view on the Clause 11 of the Asylum Bill and the inability or refusal to include judicial review of decisions there, even if the law is mistaken. That should be changed, and I hope will be changed in Committee.
Eminent jurists from Blackstone to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, have endorsed the substance of these proposals, not to mention Montesquieu who was misrepresented earlier today. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, that we should reflect institutionally the reality in our arrangements. As he said, the Law Lords are judges, not legislators.
1050
The proposals have been endorsed by the legal profession, the Bar Council and by five of the 12 Law Lords. They reflect what happens in many other countries in the Commonwealth and Europe, and the Republic of Ireland. Those countries do not seem to have these terrible crises and problems with which we have had our blood curdled.
The proposals reinforce the Government's earlier constitutional changes. They continue some of the good things that the Government have done and may check some of the less good things they have done or threatened to do in respect of civil liberties. They remove an historic anomaly by which the independent court of appeal is a committee of the legislature. I believe that the Bill strengthens the rule of law. Indeed, I would not support it if it were otherwise.
The Government's constitutional reforms have sometimes been criticised, perhaps with some justice, for being incoherent or lacking an organised principle or grand design. I believe that the first wave of reforms had organising principles in terms of accountability and a focus on rights, and that the new proposals have organising principles in reinforcing the context of law and of independent judicial review.
These reforms follow on from earlier reforms passed by the Government. I refer to devolution, the Human Rights Act and European legislation. In connection with devolution, which I strongly support, there is a need for a different way of resolving disputes. I welcome the fact that devolution issues will be transferred from the Judicial Committee to the new Supreme Court. The Bar Council argued in favour of this and against having what it calls a "a dual apex" in dealing with legal questions of devolution compared with other areas of litigation.
The situation on human rights makes the present situation more and more anomalous. It is very difficult for our jurists to argue internationally against executive or legislative interference with the judiciary when our own judges are part of the legislature and can, if they want, vote and intervene at will, and when the head of our judiciary is a party politician. The independence of the judiciary should be and, I believe will be, reinforced.
I also believe that strengthening the independence of the judiciary will provide a check on all governments including this one, against the overwhelming feature of constitutional development in recent times: the overweening growth of the executive. This Government, like other governments, have shown a tendency to lake the law into their own hands as they did in parts of the Criminal Justice Bill, and perhaps in the lead up to the Iraq war, which is a very dubious story. In part, the Government's reforms are needed to restrain themselves and not to allow the legal agenda to be dictated by the Home Office. The present situation is not sustainable. The status quo is not an option.
The process of reform has, perhaps, not been handled well. We all remember what happened last summer. The words "coach" and "horses" were commonly in conjunction, and, perhaps, "organise" and "brewery". The process is one thing; the substance is another.

1051
I believe that the proposals are logical and wholly defensible. The role of the Lord Chancellor is an historic anomaly. In some senses he is still the refugee from "Iolanthe" that he has been for many decades:
"It has no kind of fault or flaw, and I, my Lords, embody the law".
He is a serving Minister rather than a judge. I do not believe that he is the safe haven for the judiciary or a buffer between the executive and the judiciary as is commonly imagined. That has been argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in an article in Law Quarterly Review. He pointed out the advantages that would accrue if the Lord Chancellor were to forego his privilege of serving on the Appellate Committee.
I agree with the former chairman of the Bar Council that it is extremely important that ministerial interference with the appointment of judges at all levels should be minimised. It seems reasonable to offer guidelines but some of the more direct forms of intervention in terms of choice should be considered carefully in Committee.
Certainly, I support the proposals for a supreme court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, observed that it was a second-class court instancing the fact that it was not based on the American model. I taught American history for many years and I am extremely glad that it is not like the Supreme Court in the United States. I believe it is stronger for that and certainly not second class.
In practice, the Law Lords operate as a separate court yet they are not commonly perceived as so doing. They are compromised by the ambiguity of their role in this House. If they sat separately, that would enhance their status, particularly in a culture shaped by that of human rights. They would not be seen as sitting in judgment on themselves.
With respect, the presence of the Law Lords in this House does not seem to be a decisive factor. It is said that they provide us with the benefit of their wisdom, and that all judges are wise, just as all scientists are brilliant, but they do so on very few issues. It reminds me of an old Roman tag, si tacuisses; that is, the more silent you are the more you are thought to be a philosopher. Rather like the independent nuclear deterrent: it is useful as long as you never use it. That is rather the way the judges are hailed in this House. Many other democratic countries which also respect the rule of law do not have this system and see many advantages in judges being shown to be truly independent, losing their voting rights and their position to speak in this House.
In general I welcome the changes. It seems to me that Committee stage will be active and constructive. It will be a Committee of the Whole House, which will improve the Bill. I note that a proposal has been made for a judicial committee of the two Houses or something of that nature which might monitor arrangements between the executive and the judiciary in the long term. However, the general thrust of the reforms is that they are radical and courageous. I
1052
believe that they strengthen the conceptual and institutional framework of the rule of law in this country and that they will make Britain a more liberal and more libertarian country.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, if it is possible to think back to 11 June last year, noble Lords will remember that at that time the judicial system headed by the Lord Chancellor was generally accepted as having worked very well. It was based upon conventions accepted by the Cabinet as to the pre-eminent position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to judicial matters. It was accepted by the Lord Chancellor that he had an enormous personal responsibility so that there might well be circumstances arising in which his colleagues were proposing matters concerning which he had to get them to change their minds or he had to resign.
That was the position then. It is true that various people—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was one of them—would have said that the whole thing was not exactly politically correct. I would not argue with that. However, if it was not politically correct, I do not see that it follows from that that there was any need for haste in correcting that defect.
After 12 June we were faced with a different position. So far as this House as a final Court of Appeal is concerned, I do not believe that there was any change, but there was a vast change in the position of the judicial system headed by the Lord Chancellor. I say that because it was made perfectly clear on and after 12 June that the Government as a whole no longer accepted the conventions which had applied theretofore.
It has also been made reasonably clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, does not accept it either. Indeed, as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, it would be very difficult for him to accept it as the nature of the offices are very different. Hence the need for the concordat and hence the need, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief' Justice said, to enshrine that in statute. That need not necessarily be tomorrow, he said, but within a relatively short time. On the other hand, there is no need for pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to that part, which is Part 3 of the Bill. That has been done and very carefully done. Of course at some stage there will be minor changes one way and another to improve it. Cherry picking cannot—and should not—be allowed.
That said, surely it would not be beyond the ingenuity of this House to take that part and enact it separately. An obvious way to do that would be to introduce a number two Bill—call it the temporary provisions Bill, if you like—which simply takes the whole of Part 3 and says, "Let's rush it through". I would have no problem with that. However, for the rest there is a clear need for some scrutiny in depth. It is for those with much greater experience of this House than I to say whether that is best done by a Select Committee or in the form of scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

1053
My own experience of Committees of the Whole House has not been fortunate. But that perhaps is because I have no big battalions behind me and therefore when I make a point it usually falls into the wilderness. However, I get the impression—and it is only an impression; I may be wrong—that in the circumstances of a Committee of the Whole House the Government feel that they are on the defensive. They have put forward a Bill, to which they have given a great deal of time and thought, and they have a highly skilled Bill team which has worked long and hard on the detail. Then some upstart—not necessarily me, but another upstart who leads better and bigger battalions—comes forward and says, "Well, that really is not a good idea". And you get them on the defensive.
So you really have to pin the Government in if you are going to get any concessions. I would much prefer to have some form of tribunal which would make concessions and which would, as it were, talk around a table, the objective of all being the same—to get a better Bill.
There is one other issue that I would like to mention. I appreciate that I have spoken on previous occasions. It is the importance which is now being attached to the self-denying ordinance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill. I mentioned to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice the possibility of legislating for the concordat separately. I asked him whether he would have any problem with that. He has authorised me to tell the House that he would have no problem with that whatever.
I return to what I was saying about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. The noble and learned Lord said that Law Lords—I think it would apply to retired Law Lords too—should not take part in political controversy. He has said that they should not deal on the Floor of the House with matters which they might subsequently have to construe in a judicial capacity. There is nothing new about that. That existed long before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, came to this House. It was true in my days as Master of the Rolls; it was true in the case of the then Lord Chief Justice. It is true that both of us came out from our corners fighting when—but only when—we thought that the judicial system was under attack. I would hope that nobody would think that that was a reason for sitting in our tents and saying nothing.
This is a very old system. There is nothing new about it. The only thing that is perhaps new is that it would appear that the noble and learned Lord thinks it applies only to utterances in this House. I am convinced that it applies equally to utterances outside the House as long, at any rate, as one is a serving judge.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, fought for the chancellorship of the University of Oxford on what struck me as being a distinctly political platform. The campaign did not last long, so perhaps no harm was done. But as a matter of principle I think that the same attitude has to be adopted outside the House as well as within it.
1054
I hope that one way or another the parts of the Bill other than the concordat will receive very careful scrutiny.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this Bill was bound to face tierce opposition, not only because of most of its contents, but also because a Bill of this constitutional importance was heralded by a curt announcement without previous trailing and without prior consultation. Indeed, in my view, the Bill itself is a piece of constitutional vandalism undermining judicial and political relationships and balances built up over centuries, which still work well and which have the confidence of the country.
Our unwritten constitution demands that before significant alterations are made to it there should be wide and, if necessary, long consultation between the parties in Parliament and others, especially in this case the judiciary and the practitioners of the law.
The failure of the Government to consult invites the charge that they are careless of our constitution and that they are guilty of the charge of authoritarianism and of imposing an elective dictatorship on Britain. They do not even have the fig leaf of a specific manifesto commitment to use in their defence As far as I can see, there was no commitment in the 2001 new Labour manifesto, or in that of 1997.
The Government may claim a majority of 163 in the House of Commons, but that is based on their gaining only 42 per cent of the vote on a 59 per cent turnout at the last election. That does not give them the right to ride roughshod over our constitution on one sunny afternoon in June by way of a throwaway line in a government reshuffle.
Under such circumstances it is surely quite legitimate for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to move an amendment to send the Bill to a Select Committee. The opportunity of a pre-legislative examination has been denied, so it must surely be right for him to be able to move this amendment to send the Bill to a Select Committee; and I hope that noble Lords will not be intimidated by the threats of reprisals from government Ministers.
The amendment seems sensible to me. After all, there really is no urgency to get this measure onto the statute book. The present system has worked well over some centuries and even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admits that it still works well and is full of praise for those who run and participate in it.
The Lord Chancellor is standing truth on its head when he suggests that the time to fix something is when it is working well. There seems to be some suggestion that our system of justice conflicts with Article 6 of the European convention. That convention has been around for over 50 years. So there seems to be no case for this unseemly haste in relation to the convention.
I have searched my mind to find a plausible reason for the Prime Minister's peremptory announcement on 12 June last year that the Lord Chancellor was to be abolished, Law Lords were to be expelled from the House of Lords and that a Supreme Court was to be set

1055
up. We do not even know where the court will be or its cost. We have heard some startling figures this afternoon that it may cost between £8 million and £12 million to set up. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, reminded us that in Scotland the original cost of the Parliament building was to be £40 million and that it has now reached £440 million, is five years behind schedule and is still not completed. It would have been wise if the Government had done their homework on where the Supreme Court would sit, and how much it would cost.
I find it hard to believe that even this Prime Minister could take arrogance to such lengths, or subvert the constitution—because that is what he is doing—to his own general election timetable. Could there be something else behind the rush to make that announcement? It occurred to me that perhaps the European Union constitution—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: You were waiting for that, weren't you? The European Union constitution would have just been put on the table by Giscard d'Estaing and was due for discussion at the Thessalonika summit on 20 June. That might have some bearing on the whole strange affair.
I raise this as a possibility because Part 3 of the constitution, in Articles 171 to 175, makes provision for wide-ranging harmonisation and co-operation in judicial and criminal matters and provides for a European public prosecutor. Perhaps that also throws some light on the proposal to change the name of the Crown Prosecution Service to the public prosecutor. It seems strange that these things are coincident—
I heard that remark by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. I would be very happy to be described as Chinese, because the Chinese are very clever people.
There is no time at present to go into the details, but perhaps in his winding-up speech the Lord Chancellor could say whether the impending European constitution had any bearing on the Government's decision to fundamentally alter our judicial system and abolish a post that has been around for over 1,000 years—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He brought Europe into the debate. Is he aware that the really relevant part of Europe is in the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Attlee government were first to ratify, that provides that courts must be independent, impartial and established by law? Is the noble Lord aware that a couple of judgments at the European Court of Human Rights—one against the United Kingdom and one against Luxembourg—have indicated that there cannot be someone like the Lord Chancellor wearing three hats and exercising judicial power. Is he aware of that?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that the convention is not applicable to this country in the same way as the
1056
European Court of Justice. In fact, we do not have to accept and implement Clause 6, I think it is, of the European Convention. That is open to us. If we sign and agree to the European constitution, we will be subject to the overall jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and that would be binding on this country and on the courts of this country.
As I was saying, this is an extremely bad and ill timed Bill. It is a constitutional outrage that ought not to proceed further without the most close and searching scrutiny as to the reasons for it, for the haste in preparing it and bringing it forward and for the unseemly rush to get it onto the statute books. There must be close scrutiny of whether it will improve judicial efficiency and fairness, will harm the legal and constitutional right of subjects, and how it will impinge on the overall constitution of Britain. I oppose the Bill, but if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, puts his amendment to the vote this evening, I shall almost certainly vote for it.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, although I have not spoken on this proposal before, I shall be brief, recognising the number of noble Lords who have already spoken and the number who have yet to speak. This debate has been more balanced than the previous debate in which the Government's proposals were considered. It is right to remind ourselves that a substantial number of the highest judges in the realm have openly supported the separation of powers as advanced in the Bill and by the Government as justification for the Bill.
This afternoon, we heard from the Lord Chief Justice that he would wish to see—speaking for the judges he made the point-—Part 3 of the Bill being given support since in detail it has been accepted by the concordat. I will not linger long on that either, beyond saying that although it is a concordat agreed by the Government and the judges as described, I hope that it is not intended to be pre-emptive of consideration of detail by this House and by the elected House. There are a number of matters—concerning, for example, the number of judicial nominations be put forward by the commission for selection—to which we shall wish to return. Those are definitely not issues of principle. They are matters that require to be given the kind of consideration that this House is well capable of giving to the detail of a Bill.
So far as the second aspect of the Bill is concerned—the proposed establishment of a Supreme Court—it seems right to remind ourselves, as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has just done, of the provision of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is not a remote or distant matter. As I understand it, it is currently being considered under the provisions of the Human Rights Act as a matter that could be applied directly following the 1998 Act in this country. I cannot think that there would be many people who would wish to denounce Article 6 of the European Convention.

1057
The case for the separation of judges from this legislature has been most eloquently made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, on more than one occasion. It seems both practically sensible, in that it avoids the embarrassment of judges having to rule themselves out of consideration of cases on matters that come up with which they may have had a legislative connection, and it makes it clear to the public precisely what their role is. That too was well canvassed earlier in the debate.
I wish to focus most on the issue that was most eloquently touched on in the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I refer to what she saw as the peculiar role of the Lord Chancellor in representing in the heart of government the voice of the judiciary and in a sense speaking for the rule of law to the Cabinet. This has always seemed to me to be a metaphysical concept, which was not practical in its outcome and was of little practical value. I have yet to hear any Lord Chancellor, either in this debate or any other, pointing to examples of that role being beneficently exercised within government.
Because we have reached that point in the debate which, if it is not the pause in the occupation that is known as the children's hour, is, in a sense, the low point before the dinner hour, it might be appropriate for me to tell a story illustrative of the point.
Back in February 1993, there was a debate in your Lordships' House about an extremely important issue—the changing of the rules of eligibility for legal aid. It aroused great passion inside and outside this House, and it was opened by the then shadow Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. He drew attention to the feared adverse consequences of reducing which would adversely affect no fewer than 37 per cent of the households in the land. You may think that access to justice is an important issue for consideration by the Lord Chancellor, and one which he would hold particularly close to his heart.
The case was formidably advanced by the Lord Chancellor as well as by two sitting Law Lords—the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, who cited the support of the Master of the Rolls for his point of view. Lord Taylor spoke of the damage that would be done to the judicial process if legal aid withdrawal resulted in the self-representation of litigants and how this would snarl up the whole process.
In a lengthy speech replying to this, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who graced this debate earlier this afternoon, made no reference to the views of the judiciary. He did not directly answer the points made either by Lord Taylor in the debate or, indeed, in the letter that Lord Taylor had told the House that he had written to the Government. Even more surprising was the denial, that very same afternoon, to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that such a letter had been received, or at least that Sir Thomas Legg, the then Accounting Officer and Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, had any recollection of such a letter.
1058
Two days later, Sir Thomas Legg wrote a letter of apology to the Public Accounts Committee saying that yes, indeed, such a letter had been written and the concerns expressed on the Floor of the House by Lord Taylor had been expressed to the Lord Chancellor.
I think the point is quite clear: the Lord Chancellor was not, on that occasion, acting as the voice of the rule of law. He was acting as the voice of the Treasury. That is what is essentially wrong with placing so much reliance upon the position of the Lord Chancellor as the defender of the rule of law in this country or as the voice of the judges. The actuality is that he has to, and does, behave like any other member of the Cabinet, carrying collective responsibility for the decisions. If the Lord Chancellor has to be put up to defend cuts in legal aid, the Lord Chancellor will do it.
It is time to recognise that we need tougher and stronger defences of the rule of law than that historic office, hedged, or garlanded, with ancient traditions, as it may be. In my judgment, the judiciary is quite capable of speaking out for itself; it neither requires a place in the Cabinet to do so nor a place in this House. The roles are distinct and different, and the constitutional law of this country should reflect that difference.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who has made a very pertinent point. I have a very high regard for the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, both of whom have employed the wisdom of being absent when I am speaking. Between them, they have done a great deal to settle the parameters of this debate. Having said that, I reserve the right to criticise the contributions which both of them have made.
I think it is regrettable that this debate has been tarnished by two matters. First, in my respectful submission, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is, behind all the camouflage, untenable and inconsistent with the traditions and procedures of this House. If lie were to succeed, it would, inevitably, delay reform and, indeed, as I think is his wont, destroy the Bill altogether.
It is a clear part of the noble and learned Lord's argument that everything in the garden is okay. Very little needs or ought to be changed. In that, I think he is profoundly mistaken. I submit that the onslaughts he has launched would have been better employed on the obvious deficiencies of the present situation which cry out to be remedied. For example, there is only one woman in the highest court in the land, and she has been appointed only recently. My noble friend Lady Jay made reference to that fact. It is also appalling that nobody from the ethnic communities is represented in the judicial affairs of this House. In my view, neither of those facts is acceptable, yet we have heard not a whimper from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, or any of his supporters, in that regard.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, understandably, one often hears the argument that there are fewer female justices than there are male justices in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and, indeed, in the House of Lords. But surely the noble Lord must remember that when he started in practice, and when I came to the Bar, there were no women coming into either profession. While his argument would stand good if in 10 or 20 years' time there were not proper representation, I do not believe that there is a smaller proportion of women on the High Court Bench compared to men if one considers the pool from which they can be drawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have heard that argument often before and I believe it to be somewhat misplaced. There are a number of women judges who could be promoted. It is also appalling, as I have said, that no members of the ethnic community are represented in the highest court of the land. That ought to be put right.
I was about to refer to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. Perhaps unintentionally, he somewhat clouded the issue. He argued that it was necessary—more or less conditions precedent—to find a location for the Supreme Court and to determine whether or not this place is to be wholly elected. Both those observations are, in my submission, crimson and ermine red herrings. If a new building is to be found—and I remain to be convinced on that score—it is possible that the Law Lords could occupy it. Perhaps a search should be made immediately. In any event, it is perfectly possible for the Law Lords to carry on their functions here for the time being.
The Lord Chief Justice also asserted that the Supreme Court would be less supreme than in other countries—that it would be bound to be inferior. Is that not an assertion without evidence? Why is that allegation made? It seems to me that the Supreme Court would enjoy precisely the same jurisdiction as the Law Lords in the House of Lords, but that there would be a separation from those who apply the law and those who make it. My own view is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, should have addressed some of the more obvious anomalies of the present court. They are all issues that ought to be confronted now, in this Bill. We need a more equitable system than we now have.
It is also desirable that the Law Lords, or members of the Supreme Court, should be consulted in some way about any proposed change of the law with which they had a direct concern. That, in my opinion, could best be done by the Lord Chief Justice, or another judge of the Supreme Court appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, consulting the judges collectively and reporting their views to the Government. They do not have to be members of the legislature to do that, despite the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
I spoke in the previous debate as well, so I can curtail my remarks. However, there is one matter on which there is likely to be little disagreement. Wherever the
1060
Supreme Court sits, it will in my view still provide an outstanding example to the rest of the world—an example based on the independence of the judiciary. That matter is clearly underlined in Clause 1 of the Bill, and it should be said again and again.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, whose contributions to our work I always greatly admire. He seems to me to exemplify what the playwright, Robert Bolt, once said, that it is very important to be passionate in defence of moderation.
I strongly support the concept of an independent judicial appointments commission, as does Justice, the all-party law reform and human rights group that I chair. But, since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned this in his opening, I shall point out that both our reports suggested that the appointments commission should advise a Lord Chancellor who would make the ultimate appointments. That was an important consideration.
I support the concept of a Supreme Court. I also believe that the functions of the Lord Chancellor cannot long continue in their present form, particularly if the incumbent is to play as powerful a role in politics as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. But I saw, and still see, considerable scope for reshaping the office rather than abolishing it, as does the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd. I am also strongly convinced that the most fundamental changes to our legal system for centuries should not be rushed through without full and mature consideration. I would like to spend my few minutes explaining why.
With others. I deplore the way, and the atmosphere, in which these changes have been proposed. In our society there will always be tensions between governments and the judiciary. After all, the essential underpinning of our democracy is the existence of the rule of law, which is there to keep the ambitions of ever-more intrusive government within legal bounds. Unfortunately the present Government respect the role of the judges less than any other in my lifetime. The Home Secretary has criticised the decisions of individual judges and has actually suggested that judges should be there to "help us". He does not apparently share the view of the great Lord Atkin that administrative convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms. We have a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who are prepared to suggest the heresy that the more serious the charge, the less strong should be the burden of proof. We have an asylum Bill that seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, which are there to supervise the legality of the actions of tribunals.
This proposal seems to be reminiscent of the long—and long abhorred 17th—century dispensing power. It is hardly surprising that the scepticism that should greet the proposals of any government to change the legal system radically have hardened, in the case of this Government, to deep cynicism.

1061
Since June last year, it is undoubtedly true that the Government have consulted on the detailed way in which to implement the wholesale changes that they propose. But, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said so clearly in debate last month, they regard the fundamental changes as issues of policy that are above the need for consultation. Many of us protest passionately at this approach. We believe that there should have been proper, widespread consultation before decisions on policies of such crucial constitutional significance.
It is not clear when the Government actually adopted this policy. There was no hint of it in the last election manifesto. There was no prior discussion with the judges, with the Attorney-General, with the Leader of our House, with any of those who use legal services or with human rights groups. Nor, as I understand it, did any Cabinet committee or the Cabinet itself discuss the issue before the Prime Minister, as part of a ministerial reshuffle, announced these changes. So ill considered was the new policy that the Government mistakenly thought that they had abolished the office of Lord Chancellor by a combination of prime ministerial fiat and press release. Henry VIII, at his most absolutist, might have given Mr Blair an approving pat on the back. Thomas Cromwell, his henchman, might well have understood the unenviable role into which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was thrust.
Since then, the Government have continued to be wholly impervious to the regularly repeated suggestion that the Bill should belatedly receive pre-legislative scrutiny. The only reason seems to be that they think that they have a window of opportunity to get the Bill through and that this somehow overrides the importance of taking into account anyone else's views of the wisdom of change.
There are many like me who are totally unsympathetic to the principle of a Supreme Court. But do not the views of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Lloyd, deserve a hearing on that issue? With such a divide, I think there should be a proper debate. There is time for a Select Committee to do its work and for the Bill to carry over to the next Session and to be completed then. The Lord Chancellor, when asked the question at the beginning of this debate ducked it completely. Although I share so many of his views, I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we should take account of the fact that the Government may want to go to the country next spring. So what? Is it not more important to get our constitution right?
My fundamental concerns are how we will make certain that the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor will not deprive the legal system of its important underpinnings. It is idle simply to pretend that this can be replicated by passing the responsibility to a Minister in the other place who will often not be a lawyer, lacking clout, and may have political ambitions which will not be furthered by standing up to his own senior Ministers. The Lord Chancellor has been described as a "hinge" between the judiciary and the executive. Lord Hailsham described himself as the
1062
"private representative" of the judges in Whitehall. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has suggested that the Lord Chancellor provides "a voice" for the judges while at the same time ensuring they are not placed in a direct and probably inappropriate relationship with the executive.
There are an immense number of issues where the Lord Chancellor has traditionally sought to be a bulwark for the legal system. Who, if he goes, will seek to ensure that there is sufficient public funding for litigants to secure access to justice? Who will seek to argue for the appropriate increase in the number of judges? Who can warn the Government about the likely concerns for the legal profession or potentially difficult ramifications of proposals put forward by individual Ministers? Who can seek to act as mediator if there is potential friction between the Government and the judiciary or the professions?
I believe that this needs to be thought through. The Bill does not go far enough to entrench and protect the judicial system and its independence. Those who ought to have been consulted before the so-called policy was announced should have the chance to express their views. It cannot be right for the Government to take the view that they are so confident in their own proposals that they are wholly uninterested in hearing the detailed views of others. These reforms are controversial, far reaching and unprecedented.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a really pressing need to get the arrangements for appointing judges in England and Wales on to the statute book and for strengthening the Bill in this House as soon as possible; and that the worst outcome would be if the Bill was lost and the present unsatisfactory position were to continue until after the next general election? Will he agree with me on those two points?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, the noble Lord anticipates my next point and perhaps gives me the opportunity of an extra minute. I was just coming to the view that I supported a Select Committee. I want to make it plain that I do not support a Select Committee with any view to killing this Bill. I believe that it is possible—I will be corrected if I am wrong—for the House to give instruction to a Select Committee to report within three months. If that is so, I believe that it should happen. I also believe that it is possible—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said—that we could take Part 3 separately by way of a separate Bill to ensure that those arrangements are put in place. I do not shirk that, and I do not believe that in his desire to have a Supreme Court, my noble and learned friend—as he is—should shirk that. Other people do have different views and those views were treated with contempt before this Bill was introduced. Surely now they should have a chance to express those views.
I also believe that when Mr Peter Hain says that for us to vote for a Select Committee would be anti-democratic—which is his favourite way of describing any opposition which is put forward by this House—

1063
he is actually ignoring the fact that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said when ending his speech, a civilised society demands consensus for constitutional reform.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tulliehettle: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, to whose honeyed words I listened and always enjoyed when he appeared before the Appellate Committee some years ago.
We are dealing at the moment with three items in the Bill. I propose to refer only to one; namely, the Supreme Court. The Appellate Committee has functioned, as is widely agreed, with great distinction and effectively since its constitution by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. On 10 June 2002, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, replied:
"The Government are of the view that a sufficient case has not been made for the abolition of the Appellate Committee".—[Official Report, 10/6/02; col. WA3.]
What happened between then and 12 June 2003? What is the alleged justification for the abolition of the Appellate Committee and its replacement by an institution which will perform almost identical functions at a huge capital and revenue cost?
A little clue is to be found in the consultation paper on the matter. It has been said that the Government have consulted. Consultation papers were handed out for consideration. But the consultation paper on the Supreme Court did not want responses as to whether there should be such a court. The decision had already been made. The paper wanted responses only on the details. So it was perhaps not surprising that not much was said about the reasons for setting it up.
Two matters were mentioned; that the Appellate Committee was no longer sustainable and that the establishment of a Supreme Court would preserve and increase—I emphasise the word increase—the judges' independence. That sounds absolutely splendid. But a bald assertion of unsustainability is absolutely meaningless in the absence of reasons.
The suggestion that a Supreme Court would increase and strengthen the judges' independence, a theme repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the debate on 12 February, presupposes that there is room for such increase in the first place and that if the Law Lords were removed from the Palace of Westminster they would enjoy greater independence than they do now. That is a wholly fallacious suggestion.
The implication that the Law Lords have not felt completely independent of the executive and the legislature in the past is simply laughable. If the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were here I would tell him that I am now judicially geriatric and therefore no longer concerned with the Appellate Committee. But during my service, the fact that I was working here, writing my judgments upstairs in a room, never had the slightest bearing on how I decided a case. I had many, many
1064
discussions with colleagues about appeals. I am absolutely certain that none of them was in the remotest way influenced by the fact that they were working in your Lordships' House.
I refer to two matters that seemed to run through the debate on 12 February and, indeed, through the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I refer to the separation of powers. One might ask why that doctrine has suddenly been invoked after well over 100 years as a ground for abolishing the Appellate Committee. What has happened? We do not know but I suggest that the views of Lord Wilberforce, who is widely acknowledged to have been one of the giants of the Appellate Committee during the latter half of the past century, are worthy of consideration. In his submission to the Wakeham Commission Lord Wilberforce expressed the opinion that the separation of powers had never been a governing principle in this country and concluded that,
"there is not the beginning of a case for separating off the Law Lords".
I submit that those words are entitled to very careful consideration.
As I have mentioned, it is also said that independence will be increased. I think I have explained why I consider that to be quite unfounded. A suggestion was made in the previous debate that the fact that the final Court of Appeal is in your Lordships' House causes confusion. The example given was of some senior Law Lord who had to excuse himself from sitting on a particular case that involved legislation upon which he had commented in this House. He might just as well have excused himself because he happened to be a shareholder in a company that was a party to the appeal or a member of the National Trust which the case involved.
I am bound to say that my impression is that the Government have so far failed to produce any reasonable justification for the abolition of the Appellate Committee and its replacement by a new and vastly more expensive organisation. It seems to me to be an exercise in presentation, dressing up the creation of an unnecessary institution to fulfil an imaginary need as a step forward in the modernisation of the constitution. In my view the matter should be looked at further. I support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd.
8.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, my predecessor when I was Bishop of Guildford was Michael Adie. He had at one time been chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher. The story is told that it fell to his lot as chaplain to go to the Archbishop and suggest that it was time he retired, which he did. When Geoffrey Fisher retired, so the story goes, Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister rang up Michael Ramsey the very next day and offered him the job.
Those stories led to the reforming of the process of appointing bishops in the Church of England. In the end, after work with Jim Callaghan when he was Prime

1065
Minister, the Crown Appointments Commission came into being and in the past two or three years that system has been further reflected on and has undergone yet further reforms. So it is possible for us to engage with change within the shape of our constitution.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made the point that others have made—that we are talking about the separation of powers. She asked, if the judges can sit in this House, why not senior people in the medical profession, and so on? Those comments misunderstand the constitution.
Paragraph 44 of the Explanatory Notes on the Bill also misunderstands the constitution. It says,
"the Bill seeks to make a distinct constitutional separation between the legislature and the judiciary".
Parliament is not just the legislature. Under the Crown, it is the institution, on behalf of the people, that calls government to account—the executive who all have to be Members of Parliament. Parliament is responsible for democratic and public debate, for ensuring good legislation on behalf of the people of the country and is, as the highest court of the land, called the high court of Parliament, ultimately responsible for the rule of law and the practice of judicial life in our country. That is our constitution. In Parliament we hold together those three bases of our life under the Crown. That is our history.
That does not necessarily mean that we carry on as we have always done and it does not necessarily mean that we have to leave the judicial functions of the House of Lords as they have always been. But it does mean that we have a duty to ensure that any changes and developments we make hold faith with our constitutional history. If we are to change that and move radically in a new direction to a system of separation of powers, that needs proper and independent reflection in its own right. From a variety of points of view we all recognise that we entered this issue in an unhappy way last June, and in a way that opened up constitutional issues that needed to be properly considered in their own right. None of that necessarily holds up reform of the system.
The second matter that I wish to raise arises from the events of 12 June last year. We have talked about whether they have irreversibly changed things. If the Government were able to act in that way in the middle of a reshuffle, what is to prevent governments from doing that again? Is that not the problem with the position of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the Government? What happens if, by some extraordinary change of political fortune, the Members opposite end up on this side of the Chamber, the Government of the day decide that they have no major programme of constitutional change in their agenda and do not need a senior Minister for such matters? Will we have a member of the Government called "Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs"? Will that properly deal with the necessary relationship that there must be between the judicial function of our constitution and government, and the judicial function of our constitution and Parliament?
1066
We are bound to ask, if we agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and agree that whoever takes on that role has to be highly qualified in law, what is wrong with the Lord Chancellor continuing to do that? That is at the heart of the debate. We seem to have a historical constitutional position which, properly and with genius, combines both the political side of government and a constitutional position that is seen to have the independence necessary to perform that role in relation to the judiciary. Why are we seeking to change that position? I do not think that we have had an adequate answer to that issue.
The last thing I want to say is this: do we not have a duty in Parliament as a whole to preserve jealously the powers of Parliament? Is it right that we should be considering hiving off functions and powers which historically and properly our constitution have vested in Parliament? Reform them? Yes. Evolve them? Yes. Change them? Yes. But have we not a responsibility jealously to guard those powers and to ensure that we hand on to the next generation a constitution which is intact? From my perspective in this debate, we have not sufficiently done the thinking nor the work on the principle underlying these issues to be sure that this legislation will achieve all the Government want of it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I was not able to be in the House on 12 February this year and therefore I did not take part in that debate. However, I can assure the House that nevertheless I will abide by the Chief Whip's request to be brief, not so much because I did not speak in that debate but for the very good reason that practically everything I wanted to be said has already been said and presumably will be said again by other speakers.
There is one thing on which this House can surely all agree: that the abolition of the position of' Lord Chancellor, particularly as head of the judiciary; the creation of a Supreme Court in place of the Judicial Committee of this House; and the Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of appointing the senior members of the judiciary, are all matters—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said—of vitally important constitutional change. Having listened to this debate, and in particular—although he is not in the Chamber at the moment—to the speech of my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, of course I accept that you can argue individually a case for any one of those changes.
You can argue, certainly, for a Judicial Appointments Commission. Indeed, like my noble friend Lord Alexander, I support the idea of a Judicial Appointments Commission. You can argue that we should have a Supreme Court, provided you are prepared to consider at the same time what the powers of that court should be. You can say—although the argument has been effectively demolished by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford who has just spoken—that the present situation breaches the separation of powers, with the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords being a part of this House. You can say that the office of Lord Chancellor has in itself

1067
become so substantial and so involved in the Cabinet and in politics that he cannot at the same time carry on the role of being head of the judiciary and appointing an independent judiciary. All those are perfectly good sound issues to be argued.
But surely, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in his speech, if you are setting down the road towards a constitutional change of that nature, it is important that you do everything you can to carry the consensus of the country with you. Instead of that, in an extraordinary act of apparent incompetence and arrogance, in June last year the present Government announced overnight the abolition, or the purported abolition, of the office of Lord Chancellor. They did so without consulting the judiciary or, what is worse, consulting Her Majesty on what was being done. Therefore, the failure to consult at that stage; the arguments about the powers and role of the Supreme Court; the failure to consider the role and relationship of the Lord Chief Justice with this House; and the failure to consider the role, position and rights of the Law Lords in this House as senior members of the judiciary all argue in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
I want to make three points on the merits of the Bill. The first relates to appointments. It is said that the purpose of changing the method of appointment is to ensure that the judiciary is seen to be wholly independent. Like my noble friend Lord Alexander, I have sympathy with the argument of a Judicial Appointments Commission. But let us be clear what will happen in this case. The Judicial Appointments Commission—I am talking about the level of the High Court and upwards—having made its decision, refers it not to the Lord Chancellor but to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
I was a member of a Cabinet in which the Secretary of State for Education was one from the bottom in the pecking order. That is usually his position. I understand that at present the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is one from the bottom in the Cabinet's pecking order. He may not be a lawyer and he may, unlike some of us, be an ambitious politician. He may be greatly subject to the views of the Home Secretary, who is about third in the Cabinet. But he will have the right to reject the decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission and to order it to reconsider its decision. He may have no legal background, but when considering an appointment to the highest court of all—the Supreme Court—he will have the right to chose from five names the one which goes to the Prime Minister for recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. That proposed scheme is far more open to political interference in the appointment of the judiciary than the present appointment by the Lord Chancellor.
My second and third points relate to the Supreme Court. We have heard important and moving speeches today about the importance in this House of the Law Lords. I do not attempt to add to what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and the
1068
noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on that matter. They made a most strong case. Equally, we heard today and in the previous debate about the strength which the Law Lords feel they gain from membership of this House. What is to be achieved by removing that membership? In particular, what is to be achieved before this House has yet had the chance to consider its future composition?
My third and final point—I promised that I would not speak for more than the recommended time—is to ask whether all this is necessary. What is the rush? Everyone says that the system works. If ain't broke why mend it? No one questions the independence of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor; no one questions the present independence of the judiciary.
What will the cost be? I happened to have the good fortune to bump into the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who is conducting an inquiry in Scotland, which noble Lords may know about—it is well known to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The Scottish Parliament set out with an estimate for its building of £40 million. It is now costing £430 million and that figure is rising. We are told that the cost of a new Supreme Court—although no one yet knows where it will be—could be £32 million which presumably may become £320 million.
Simply for reasons of perception, we are being asked to change a situation that works, by having the same 12 people called by a different name, sitting in a place we know not where and at a cost that is not known. For all those reasons I believe that this matter should go to a Select Committee as proposed by my noble and learned friend.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, we have had an excellent and interesting debate. I certainly feel that I have learnt a good deal from it. I shall not rehearse many arguments that your Lordships' House has already heard, but I want to refer to some speeches that appear to me to be the most interesting. I always listen with particular interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, partly for one particular reason: he and I are twins in this House. We were introduced on the same day. I have heard many of his speeches, all of which have been filled with a deep understanding of the law and a deep love for it and all of which have struck a note of moderation. He sits on the Opposition Benches and I sit on the Cross Benches, but he is a far more moderate man than I could ever claim to be.
I listened tonight with particular interest because he is a moderate man who is deeply concerned. He is particularly deeply concerned about the deterioration of the relationship between the judges and the Government. That must be a bad thing, whatever view we take of who is to blame. I take one view and the Government take another. Whoever is to blame, it must be bad to have conflict between the executive and the judiciary. The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, represents a concern felt throughout the debate and throughout the House.

1069
I was also interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whom I am sorry to see is not in his place. He is another noble, learned Peer. His speech was remarkably interesting, but in a way remarkably unsatisfactory. He is a man whom I have often followed in the House. When he has said that we should stand up for juries, I have stood up for juries; when he has said that we should stand up for judges, I have stood up for judges. On the whole, I have followed his line and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the Liberal Democrat line—on the need to defend the principle of law in this House. That is one of the central functions of the House and it is necessary to take a liberal view of the issues as they come along. I have been just about as loyal to those liberal issues as Liberal Democrat Members have been.
I thought that the gist of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester was that this is not a very good Bill and that it has a good deal wrong with it, but that we cannot do anything about it and it will be worse if we delay it. That seemed to me, to be frank, to be an attitude of appeasement. I regretted deeply that the Liberal Democrats, with whom I have so often voted in the past on these issues, should take such an attitude.
Lord Roper: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, reads the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lester, he will find that he said that he believed that changes could and should be made when we come to consider the Bill—not in a Grand Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg suggested in the Times this morning. but in a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I am more than happy to accept that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that changes ought to be made, but he was reluctant to accept the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I think that that was a mistake.
The next speech that struck my mind was that of the noble Lord. Lord Marsh. What a good speech it was, and how wrong-headed. He basically said that we ought to give in to the Government, however mistaken they might be—governments always are mistaken in my experience—because we were going to get something worse if we did not. That was rather like the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I do not believe in these arguments. I think that one needs to pin governments against the wall and when they are making mistakes one ought to make them responsible for their mistakes. That seemed to me not to be the view of the noble Lords, Lord Lester or Lord Marsh.
I have a bone to pick with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who found against me on a judicial review relating to the Maastricht treaty. That was his last action in the Court of Appeal. I am sure that he meant well at the time, but that was a little matter on which I did not wholly agree with his judgment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will not hold it against me this evening.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I would not dream of doing so. I admired the speech of the noble and learned Lord,
1070
Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I thought that he made an overwhelming case and I certainly intend to vote with him.
I cannot call the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an old friend because of the political divide, but I have known him for a long time. I thought he made a splendid point, with which I was in complete agreement. He said that these were vital constitutional changes that we cannot afford to get wrong. That is my view entirely. It is also the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and represents the strongest reason that has been given in this House for voting for his amendment.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I would like to start by saying that in my view this Government have a splendid record to be proud of on constitutional reform and modernisation. I shall briefly rehearse the record. First and foremost on the list of achievements is the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. All other legislation passed before and after it is subject to it and has to be interpreted so far as possible to comply with it and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Human Rights Act is a finely crafted measure, which on the whole has worked well and which is highly relevant to our debate. It struck a careful balance that duly respected parliamentary sovereignty. That balance should be preserved. Our final court, whatever it is called, should have broadly the same jurisdiction as at present. I do not agree that this role makes it second-class, or that it will not in fact be a Supreme Court. "Supreme" does not mean above the law. Every court, however high, is itself subject to the law. As has aptly been said, we want the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers. Some lawyers may have an agenda of seeking to take power to strike down Parliament's legislation. That must be resisted.
"Supreme Court" is a totally appropriate description for what will be created by the Bill. The public, here and overseas, will clearly understand its role. The descriptions "Appellate Committee", "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords", or whatever, make only for confusion. The title "Lord Appeal of Ordinary" is archaic. The legislative and judicial functions are separate. Most judges are not legislators; most legislators are not judges—certainly not at the same time. It makes sense to keep the two functions apart.
I support the principle of a Supreme Court. It will not be a poor relation; it will have a broad role. It should not be modelled on other Supreme Courts which have operated in federal or other ways. It is important that the new Supreme Court should have suitable premises and be adequately resourced. Those resources should not come from excessive fees imposed upon litigants or by way of transfer from the legal aid budget. The necessary time should be taken to get it right.
I mentioned that first and foremost of the Government's constitutional reforms has been the Human Rights Act. Of course, there are others.

1071
Prominent among those has been devolution. A new Supreme Court, which is, in part, a product of the Human Rights Act, must respect the balances within that Act and respect the devolution settlement and the particular position of Scotland.
There have been other notable constitutional reforms; for example, data protection, freedom of information and the phasing out of hereditary Peers and so on. Parliamentary reform is ongoing with the suggestion of a Speaker for this House—a proposal of which I am wholly in favour. There will be a new process for the creation of new Peers. The Law Lords are not immune from these changes. The Law Lords have been a first-class final court of appeal and they will ensure that there is a first-class Supreme Court. But giving up such limited legislative roles as they have will not impede them.
It is a well known maxim of the law, uttered by a Lord Chief Justice 80 years ago, that justice should not only be done but should manifestedly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Justice is done by the Law Lords. It will be better seen to be done by a Supreme Court separate from the Westminster/ Whitehall machine and estate and, as a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, separate from the courts of England and Wales as well.
Further, I support the principle of a Judicial Appointments Commission. Here, too, great care will have to be taken in relation to the detail. Again, adequate resources are important. Without them, a good idea can be a disaster in practice. The birth of the Crown Prosecution Service is only one example.
There is great good sense in the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. One of its recommendations, which I support, is that the Government must make it a clear objective of the new Judicial Appointments Commission to ensure that an effective effort of' the kind made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, as Lord Chancellor to promote diversity will be continued in future. That recommendation was based in part on the response to the Government's consultation paper from the Society of Black Lawyers. It said:
"There has been some improvement to the appointments system for the ethnic minority. This has largely come about as a result of the personal attention to appointments paid by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He took a pro-active approach to the appointment of judges. In particular he was happy, if a case warranted it, not to act on the recommendation given by his officials or by any advisory panel but instead to make appointments based on his personal assessment of an applicant. He actively encouraged ethnic minority applications, agreeing to look personally into the grievances of any applicant and the Society is aware of the number of occasions where Lord Irvine reversed a decision not to give an interview or to appoint".
Recent Lord Chancellors will be a hard act to follow. In establishing a new system we must build on the strengths of past practice. I believe that we will.
1072
I commend to the House that we give this Bill a Second Reading, following our normal practice. We should have no truck with what can only be called wrecking amendments, such as sending this Bill to a Select Committee.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment and it is not a wrecking amendment.
I accept, of course, that parliamentary reform is an ongoing affair, but not for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who has just spoken.
This amendment was accepted by the Table as in order, on the advice given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. In any event, the House is the master of its own procedures. There is no reason why we cannot go back to that bungled reshuffle as concerned the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, sought to be abolished by prime ministerial decree made in error.
I wholly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, respectfully, fundamentally disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on this issue. Yes, we must go hack to where we were.
The threat to withdraw the Bill that I read in the papers this morning to oppose this amendment, to invoke the Parliament Acts and to tighten the rope around our necks is yet another bungled exercise and another abuse of the constitution. If any precedent would be set by the tabling of this amendment, that is the total responsibility of the Government, first by declining to deal with a full scrutiny of a draft of the Bill, and secondly, to decline to heed the recommendations of the Select Committee totally within the remit of the Government.
The delay of three months for a report is wholly acceptable to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as the favoured means to preserve the independence or integrity of the judiciary. If I have got that wrong, I seek a correction.
What grievance of the nation is addressed by the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, or the exchange of the Appellate Committee of your Lordship's House for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, described as a second-class court of Supreme Courts in the world, subservient to Parliament and having limited jurisdiction?
Only the interests of this Government, who seek to govern without the Constitution and the rule of law, are to be served. That is the hidden agenda. I say nothing about the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary.
On 12 February it was wholly apparent that this concordat was made to avoid conflict between the judiciary and Parliament. That is why it was made. I talk not about pressure. I criticise no one, but that had to be made and was made. I attended on that day but did not speak. The closing speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made no attempt to engage with the merits of the argument as to the consequences of the abolition of the constitutional

1073
role in Cabinet, the parliamentary role as Speaker in your Lordships' House, as head of the judiciary and having control, if I may put it shortly, of judicial arrangements.
This amendment is supported as a viable means to escape from entrapment and to afford some acceptable resolution such as proposed by the Select Committee, no less, of another place. In the absence of any manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill, it would be in accordance with the acknowledged functions and duties of this House if your Lordships were to delay the passage of the Bill for, say, three months until the report of the Select Committee had been debated, if so advised.
As to the constitutional role, the Lord Chancellor advises the Cabinet as head of the judiciary to protect the rule of law, the integrity of the judicial system and of the judiciary. He represents the judges without ministerial power and, as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the combination of the office of Lord Chancellor with the office of Secretary of State is fundamentally inconsistent.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made reference to Clause 1. The objection to Clause 1 is that there are no effective means of enforcement of any of its provisions to safeguard the rule of law, the integrity of the judicial system and of the judiciary. Under our largely unwritten constitution, the Bill affords a very substantial written contribution. We have no constitutional court. There is no way in which the provisions of Clause 1 may be enforced unless, by statute, jurisdiction were to be conferred on the High Court, on judicial review, or a constitutional court were to be set up with limited competence to enforce Clause 1. The extant system under which the Lord Chancellor advises Cabinet on all such matters works and is wholly understood. Removal of' that office leaves a vacuum, which cannot be replaced and assuredly is not replaced by any provisions in the Bill. What is the justification for tinkering with Parliament?
I was going to say a word about the parliamentary role of the Lord Chancellor, his status and authority and symbolic presence as Speaker as affording the irreplaceable safeguard for self-regulation, but my time is up.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: My Lords, I would like to make some comments from a Scottish point of view on the implications of what is proposed as a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. As has often been remarked, the legal systems of England and Scotland are not only different, but they are separate from each other as if they related to two foreign countries. Thus, as the final court of appeal in civil cases the House of Lords functions at times as an English court and at times as a Scottish court.
There is a striking illustration of this in the words of Lord Eldon, who held office as Lord Chancellor in the 19th century. When addressing this House in a Scottish appeal he said that,
"there is no principle which I have held more sacred, ever since I had the honour of assisting your Lordships in judicial matters respecting the law of Scotland, than to recollect, and to act upon
1074
that recollection, that we are sitting here as the Court of Session in Scotland, to decide as that court ought to decide, and that we are bound not to apply our English principles, and our English doctrines, in judicial decisions upon the law of Scotland".
Now, one might have expected that, in line with the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State on 9 February, and indeed repeated here today, that the Bill would state that, leaving aside decisions on devolution issues, decisions of a United Kingdom Supreme Court would be of binding effect only within the particular jurisdiction from which the appeal arises, so that the decision on an English appeal would not overrule a Scottish decision. However, the Bill does not state that.
But the matter of concern to me goes deeper. It is well known that for centuries, despite what Lord Eldon referred to as the "sacred principle", there has been a tendency for judges in the House of Lords who had an English background to assume that what is right for English law must surely be right for Scots law. That has led from time to time, and especially in the 19th century, to innovations in Scots law which were not in harmony with its own principles.
Under the Bill the jurisdictions of the House of Lords in English and Scottish appeals would be put into a single package and transferred to a unitary court, a court serving two separate legal systems. The amount of law which is identical both north and south of the Border is fairly limited. In any event, its application may lead to different results, depending on the general law of the jurisdiction where the question arises.
My concern is that this proposal, as it is expressed, will mean a gradual erosion of the difference between Scots law and English law. The same point arises in regard to the Supreme Court's involvement with Scots criminal law in dealing with devolution issues. There is nothing in the Bill which states that, in exercising the transferred jurisdictions, the Supreme Court is to respect the continued separate existence and identity of the legal systems of England on the one hand and Scotland on the other. And yet the Bill is concerned with constitutional changes of a fundamental character, presumably intended to last for many a year, long after ministerial assurances have been forgotten.
I can think of no better illustration of what concerns me than to refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs in the other place on 2 December last year. He said:
"The problem is, I think, if you describe the court as a supreme court of the United Kingdom, it tends to suggest that there is a body of United Kingdom law. In a court which inevitably is filled with a majority of English judges there may be a temptation to say, 'Well, we see differences between Scots law and English law on issues relating to property or other matters, what's the point of having a difference when we're sitting as a United Kingdom court?' The Scots may well feel that would introduce a drift away from their system of law into an English system, and there are signs in case law, even now, that there is a temptation along that line".

1075
Finally, I add a few words on Clause 1, which would place on Ministers of the Crown a duty to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. No doubt, this clause refers to the English judiciary, as part of the proposed arrangements to replace the office of the Lord Chancellor. However, it has a rather curious result. A Scottish Minister, being a Minister of the Crown, would have a duty to uphold the independence of the English judges, if he were involved in English proceedings. I ask for equality of treatment. If this clause is worth something, why should Scottish Ministers not have a duty to uphold the independence of Scottish judges?
9.21 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, at the risk of being regarded as—and criticised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for being—a constitutional purist, I offer the Government my full support of the basic principles of this Bill, in particular for the establishment of a Supreme Court as a further step in a welcome separation of powers. The establishment of a Supreme Court, and the separation of powers that it will embody, is rather overdue, for reasons that I will seek to explain.
Over the past generation, we have seen the emergence of a more complex idea of political accountability compared with what previously obtained. The growth of judicial review, with its judgments on the legality, rationality, fairness, and proportionality of the exercise of powers by the executive and its various administrative arms and agencies has led to a dual form of executive accountability. The first is to Parliament, for the executive's general legislative and policy programme, and secondly to the courts, through judicial review, for the exercise of the powers conferred under such legislation and in pursuit of such policies. This process has been considerably enhanced by the passing of the Human Rights Act.
In the view of some judges, this process has led to a more complex and dynamic account of the nature of sovereignty. In 1991, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, argued that:
"In our society the rule of law rests upon twin foundations: the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying the law".
That is in the case of Morgan Grampian (Publishers) Ltd. The same point is to be found in Lord Justice Sedley's argument in his essay, "The Common Law and the Constitution". In that essay, Sedley argues that it is in Parliament and the courts that the sovereignties of the state reside—note the plural in respect of sovereignties. He repeated the argument in an article in Public Law, where he says that the pure idea of parliamentary sovereignty is giving way to a bipolar sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the Crown in the courts, to each of which the Crown's Ministers are answerable—politically to Parliament, and legally to the courts. Not dissimilar points have been made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, in cases
1076
involving the Home Secretary. The argument has been endorsed by many senior academic commentators on public and constitutional law.
It is certainly arguable now that judicial review and the Human Rights Act have led judges to believe that it is part of the remit of the courts to utilise and invoke ideas of constitutional rights as a constraint on the pure exercise of parliamentary sovereignty and a parliamentary majority, thus leading to the dual accountability, or dual sovereignty, view. I am sure that we shall see arguments that exactly mirror these points being deployed in the debate on the asylum Bill next Monday. If this is a fair picture of how the constitution is developing—I believe that it is—it has obvious implications for the separation of powers. I strongly welcome the development of judicial review and the processes by which, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, we are "edging towards a constitutional state". But if the judges have the opportunity to hold Government to account in judicial review for its exercise of powers, it seems to me to be entirely wrong that they should be part of the legislature. If judges were to remain in Parliament, this would be a form of double counting, giving judicial judgment a double place—in the legislature on the one hand and in the courts on the other. To coin a phrase much used in judicial review, such double counting would be procedurally unfair. By all means, let the judges be very active in judicial review—I welcome that. But they should not expect to stay in the legislature as well if we are moving to this bipolar form of sovereignty.
The Lord Chief Justice is something of a judicial icon to me since his report on the Strangeways riots, which I had to deal with in 1992 when I was a Home Affairs spokesman for my party. The Lord Chief Justice is a most distinguished alumnus of University College, London, whose presiding genius was Jeremy Bentham. He and his colleagues should recall Bentham's profoundly democratic principle that in a democracy, each one should count for one and not more than one. I do not think there is a case for judges having a double voice.
To retain judges in the legislature while they embark on what, to me, is an entirely legitimate form of vigorous judicial review, would be to give the judiciary a uniquely privileged position in the constitution, and I, for one, can see no reason at all for this. This will become even clearer if judges threaten to use ideas about basic constitutional rights such as access to the courts to challenge the asylum Bill, for example, both in Parliament and subsequently in the courts. That gives them a status that is denied to every other citizen, and I respectfully submit that this would be wrong. The fact that I rather agree with what the Lord Chief Justice has said about the asylum Bill does not alter the fact that judges should not have the power to challenge such a Bill both in Parliament and in the courts. I do not think that the judges can stand on secure ground in claiming to be defenders of basic constitutional and democratic rights while at the same time claiming two voices for themselves.

1077
Of course it might be said—and it has been said—that judges in the House of Lords should take a vow of silence and inaction in respect of the legislative function of the House of Lords, but then one has to ask the question of why they need to be here at all. The answer has been given that they will learn something about real life by being Members of the House of Lords. Devoted as I am to the ethos of the House of Lords and to its many great virtues, I am sure that if judges lead such cloistered lives, there are more direct ways of finding out about real life than being Members of the House of Lords.
Finally, I have to confess some sympathy for the idea that this proposal could have been made in a more considered way than it was. Indeed, this is true of a good deal of the Government's constitutional legislation, where we still have to see the overall picture. It seems that the position of the Government is akin to that taken by Cardinal Newman in "Lead, Kindly Light",
"I do ask to see
The distant scene,—one step enough for me".
Well, as an academic philosopher, I am rather attracted to the distant scene. But we are where we are, and for the reasons that I have given, so far as I am concerned, the step proposed in this Bill is good enough for me.
9.29 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I suppose that this must be one of the most important Bills which your Lordships have ever discussed. It is not just the alteration or even the reform of the constitution—it is the carving up of it.
Some of the details of the Bill are hugely complicated and will be mostly understood only by lawyers or bureaucrats or such other esoteric folk, not by simpletons like me. I am quite content with that. I am much more concerned about what is happening with the down-to-earth stuff. What is happening to our country, and what is happening to your Lordships' House? The present Government, in their charmingly friendly way, decreed in 1999 that they were going to get rid of all hereditary Peers—gone, finished, vaporised. I thought then, and I still do, that that was a tough and misguided action, despite the fact that those hereditary Peers who are left are the only Members of your Lordships' House who happen to have been elected.
The hereditary Peers have become an endangered species, but we are not alone. Now the Law Lords are to be thrown out. We look across and up to those noble and learned Lords, and say, "Et tu, Brute? Going too?" And it is not only the Law Lords but the Bishops as well. They do not appear in the Bill but, apparently, so rumour has it, they are going to be reduced from 26 to 15. What have those poor chaps done to deserve that?
The final coup de grâce is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, like some kamikaze Japanese pilot, decides to commit hara-kiri and destroy not only himself but the machine in which he sits. What on earth has come over the Government? What is so wrong with the House of Lords? What is so
1078
wrong with the lawyers and judges that they have to be upheaved in this manner? Why do we have to despise and destroy so much of what is good about this country?
We have always said that the British system of justice is the best in the world, and so it is. I have never experienced it at, first hand, but I am quite happy to believe that it is. The judges and Law Lords are deeply respected, always, but they are respected because of the manner in which they and their predecessors have conducted themselves. Like a wall, confidence is built up, brick by brick, but it can be knocked down in one blow. But now they are not going to be allowed to sit in your Lordships' House, or even to participate in our affairs. That is a tragedy; they are always listened to with respect and admiration, especially when they do not agree.
The Law Lords contribute hugely to the formative process by which raw Bills are turned into reasonable laws. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to the Scotland Bill of the mid-1970s, and listed all those noble and learned Lords who took part—and very impressive it was, too. I remember that I was supposed to be in charge of the team opposing the Bill, which I found a most scary business, particularly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, opposite, acting for the government. I am glad to say that the Bill failed, although not because of my efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that he was convinced that Law Lords should not speak in the House. I regarded that as pretty offensive. Who would he prefer to listen to—more pedestrian noble Lords, such as myself? I regard that as a compliment in vacuo, but I believe that the noble Lord was wrong.
When I had the privilege of being a Minister in the Home Office and we had some frantic piece of legislation to try to weave through your Lordships' House, we waited with bated breath to see what the Law Lords were going to say. If the Lord Chief Justice was on our side, there was a great feeling of hooray! If he was against us, one was terrified and thought. "My goodness, perhaps we've got it wrong". That applied to all the other Law Lords. It was not a matter of the Lord Chief Justice or the other Law Lords transposing themselves from being judges to becoming legislators or law-makers. They were merely giving their advice to Parliament on the proposals before it, with all those years of experience of legal life in the rough and tumble of the real world behind them. I do not see anything wrong with that. It was valuable advice; it always was and always is. That advice is now to be denied to Parliament. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really believe that Parliament will be the richer and the better for that? Why do we need to throw the Lords of Appeal out of Parliament and out of the physical premises of the House of Lords?
I was impressed by the remark of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who said that the cost of running the Appellate Committee in the House of Lords was £168,000. The cost of running the equivalent committee in its new premises is going to be not £168,000 but £6.5 million. The cost of moving

1079
premises is likely to be anything between £6 million and £32 million. Should this not be considered? Is this really desirable? I found it extraordinary that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that cost should not matter, that that is not the way in which one justifies constitutional matters. I consider regarding costs and the constitution in this manner as pretty flippant. It does matter. What is the advantage of finding new and hugely expensive premises, which will have to be of a manner and character suitable to reflect the solemnity and the importance of the court?
When one thinks of those who are made life Peers—and all life Peers are jolly fellows and very good ones—why should that preferment to nobility be denied to those who have arrived at the pinnacle of such a distinguished and respected profession? Why is it necessary to change the method of appointment of judges? I know that we hear all about the necessity to keep the judiciary separate from politics and all that jazz. The continued independence of the judiciary is the familiar theme. We have heard it stacks of times today. We are constantly told of the importance of ensuring that the system is pristine clear. Listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice last week, it did not seem to me to indicate that there was any particular inhibition or lack of independence there under the present system—I am bound to say that when I heard him today I began to wonder a little.
But is the present system not pristine clear now? Do those kinds of somewhat supercilious remarks imply that because this new system is not in place, those who have been appointed judges have been appointed by a less good and a more suspect system and that they are therefore somehow less good and more suspect? I have always had a deep admiration for the judges and I see no justification whatever, despite the niceties of the intellectual arguments, for imposing a new system in order to make them better.
I was appalled when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that we cannot go back to before June 12. Why not? If this is so, it means that the action that the Government then took was so precipitate that it cannot be reversed or revised. It is a devastating indictment of what the Government can do, or just say, and then get away with it. If that is so, it is the Government who have got us into this muddle. It ought to be appropriate for it to be considered.
One does wonder why the Government want your Lordships to be a check on government. They always say that the second Chamber must be a good check on the executive. But whenever we mention this in a whisper, howls come from the Government saying that it is absolutely disgraceful, we should not do it, it is absolutely wrong and we shall never have any new Bills in the House of Lords again. I agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. That is a lot of old nonsense. The Government could not manage if they did not produce new Bills in the House of Lords. I do not believe that these threats ought to be taken seriously.
1080
I wonder why we, so often called the "clever people", wring our hands and minds to pieces in order to try to improve what we have when other countries look at our system in wonder, admiration and envy of what we do and the way that we do it. Other countries, particularly new ones, wondering how to create their new country, look at the United Kingdom and marvel at its institutions, its history and its dignities and say, "this is our model". Yet we, who created it and have it, seem to be intent on destroying it.
I remember that, in 1959, there were problems with the Central African Federation and the Conservative government of the day set up the Devlin Commission to look into it. The commission consisted of some of the country's most brilliant people, such as Lord Devlin, Sir Walter Monckton and other what one might call brilliant "eggheads". It produced a report which the government did not like, the opposition despised and the Central African Federation could not stand. When the Devlin report was debated in your Lordships' House, the late Lord Coleraine—and here I paraphrase his words—said, "Why is it that only the most intelligent people can come to such stupid conclusions?" I wonder whether that does not ring a bell 40 years later.
What are the Government trying to do? They are getting rid of the hereditary Peers. They are getting rid of the Law Lords. They are getting rid of the bishops. They are getting rid of the Lord Chancellor-who is, after all, the Keeper of the Queen's Conscience and Keeper of the Great Seal. One gathers that the Queen was never consulted about this. The monarch has a right to be consulted, a right to encourage, and a right to warn. But how can Her Majesty exercise those last two rights if the first one was denied her? Why is all this being done? "Modernisation", we are told. This is not modernisation; it is destruction. It is, in effect, a virtual rape of the constitution.
The late Lord Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said that there is no unreasonable argument which cannot be proved reasonable by reason. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a very agreeable fellow with friends all the way around the House. It just saddens me that, despite all his many virtues, his name will be for ever linked with and sullied by this destruction. However, it is not over. There is still time for him to retrieve some of the position—provided that he is prepared to listen to others who are just as concerned about the future and the constitution as is he, even though their approaches and views may come from a different angle.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, although your Lordships will long have forgotten it, I am bound to confess that I did make some timid and deferential submissions on 12 February. I will therefore do my best to keep my observations short.
First, I submit that my noble and learned friend's amendment is not a wrecking amendment; it is consistent with the Government's desire for pre-legislative consideration. It is quite clear that the carryover

1081
procedure will apply and the Bill can still be passed in the Lords, appropriately amended as a result of the committee's intervention.
Before referring to the Bill, I have one preliminary observation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the February debate, was seeking an explanation for why not only was the Lord Chancellor sacked, but the office of Lord Chancellor was, it was thought, abolished at the same time. He said:
"One possible answer is that the Prime Minister decided that the then Lord Chancellor had to go, and for some reason his removal had to be dressed in the robes of high constitutional principle".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1259.]
I suggest that that overcomplicates the position. The short answer was that if a Lord Chancellor worth his salt—and that is not meant to be offensive to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because he is worth his salt as Secretary of State—was appointed to replace the Lord Chancellor who was so unceremoniously dismissed, then exactly the same would happen on the next occasion when a Home Secretary produced his Schedule 17 to the Criminal Justice Act, doubling sentences for murder because he was enraged at losing his power to decide how long one would stay in prison. There would be a row with that Lord Chancellor. There would be a row with the next Lord Chancellor over his insistence that jury trials should not take place in the circumstances of the domestic violence Bill. As regards the ouster provisions, one cannot envisage a Lord Chancellor who is worth his salt doing other than stand up against that situation.
As regards the Bill, I submit that Clause 1 only seeks to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Towards the end of the July debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that his function was to uphold not only the independence of the judiciary but the rule of law. Those two matters were vital. That is not in this Bill. If it were, out would go, if I am allowed the pun, the ouster clause. Further, in the Bill the Secretary of State "must have regard to". That phrase imposes only the obligation to consider; it does not impose the obligation actually to act.
My next point concerns the way in which the whole of Clause 1 should be set out. Up to date, the Lord Chancellor would have accepted the observation of Sir Thomas Fuller, the 17th century Attorney-General, who said,
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you".
That is something which Lord Denning accepted and used in the well known Gouriet case in 1977. It has been pointed out by Justice that the terms of the South African constitution are much more appropriate. It reads:
"Organs of state through legislative and other measures, must consist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts."
In the debate in February, the Lord Chancellor said that it was the Government's desire,
"to protect and indeed enhance judicial independence".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1213.]
In those circumstances the words used in South Africa would be much more appropriate.
1082
The next point I wish to make, which should be considered by the Select Committee is that statutory recognition should be given to the Judges' Council. It has no statutory support at all. If one gave that statutory recognition then there should be a parliamentary joint committee to consider and report on the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts. It should receive annual reports from the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice.
It is clearly wrong that the Secretary of State should have to agree to any disciplinary action which the Lord Chief Justice thought was appropriate. That is a function for the judiciary alone. Maybe it is necessary to inform the Secretary of State but nothing beyond that should be necessary.
With regard to the Supreme Court, the Select Committee should consider a number of points. First, who is to pay for its building and general maintenance? Surely not the litigant, since the function of the court is to develop the law and not to be concerned with the inter-parties dispute. Secondly, why has no provision been made in the Bill suspending the operation of the Supreme Court until appropriate accommodation has been found? Thirdly, why has no cost-benefit analysis been made? The likely denouement, which is deeply depressing, is that, as the Bill stands, the Supreme Court will be set up when there is no accommodation. There will be a period of wait during which one hopes that money may be spent on the Commercial Court since it is a disgrace in its present state. Then, the period having become embarrassing, the Government will say, "Well, as a purely interim and temporary measure, there is a pensions appeal tribunal that is no longer necessary. It has a floor in some office block. As an interim measure"—note the emphasis on "interim measure"—"we are sorry but you must go there" That interim measure will then last for decades and follow the situation of the prefabs. That would be an appalling situation but one which one can easily see happening.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, many erudite speakers have already made contributions today. If the House will forgive me, I point out that an awful lot of them seemed to be lawyers. As a person who is very definitely not a lawyer I wish to make clear that I stand with my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in claiming the right of non-lawyers to make a contribution.
As a result I very much disagree with the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who, when pointing out that Part 3 had had scrutiny from the Lord Chief Justice and the Law Lords, added, "and what better scrutiny could there be?" Indeed, the view that this section should now go forward is gaining ground—at least in speeches made here today—at least among lawyers. But surely it is for Parliament to scrutinise, and that means for this House to scrutinise all of this Bill in its normal way with its normal procedures. It is not acceptable that we should somehow subcontract scrutiny to lawyers to do so on our behalf.

1083
The scope of the constitutional changes that this Government have already made has been great—sustained reform, improvement and modernisation of the constitution—and this Bill takes that process further. But every time I hear talk of the many hundreds of years of our institutions' existence I ask whether they are fit for purpose in the 21st century. I am not talking about change for the sake of change, but necessary change, and that is very much what this Bill is about.
The Bill would establish a Supreme Court. It may not matter particularly to Members of this House but the fact remains that there is not a clear understanding of the role of the House of Lords Appellate Committee. I hesitate to say that the man on the Clapham omnibus does not understand the difference between "them"—the Appellate Committee—and "us"—the House of Lords. That is not helped by the fact that they—members of the Appellate Committee—are us as well, albeit in slightly narrow circumstances.
There has been much support from many quarters for a Supreme Court and I do not believe that the view expressed earlier holds much ground—that it is right to dismiss those in favour of it, in one of the nicest pieces of spin that I have heard in a long time, as constitutional purists, while those who oppose it are called realists. Good arguments are often explained away by a speaker's confident assertion that he is a realist.
One particular advantage of the appearance of the Supreme Court is that we will be able deal with any problems that arise over the devolution settlement without recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am sorry if one or two speakers—I am about to be added to the list—have told anecdotes about devolution. But one of the first appearances of which I was aware of the Judicial Committee was in the 1978 Act. Because it was there, and no one thought of anything better, it appeared in the latest settlement. The committee was described by one official, when we were seeking guidance on what it was, as a sort of constitutional long stop. Whether there is much advantage in officials using cricketing metaphors to a number of puzzled Scots is one matter, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is very much a committee of this House and, as such, it has always been inappropriate for it to have to sit in judgment between the UK Parliament and Government on one hand and the devolved institutions on the other. The Supreme Court will rightly put that right.
The setting up of the independent Judicial Appointments Commission has already been a matter of great controversy in this debate. As an outside observer, I shall limit myself to two points. First, openness and transparency in appointments ought to be at the heart of a system if it is to hold the full trust of the nation. It is no criticism of judges to say that the system of appointments so far has been lacking in that regard—and that is exactly what the Bill will provide. I cannot see a case against having openness and clarity in the process of appointment.
1084
Diversity is one of the great concerns that the Judicial Appointments Commission will have to address. I underestimate neither the importance nor the difficulty of that, but I trust that the Judicial Appointments Commission will show more imagination in that task than was shown in the issue of "peoples' Peers"—and let us not hear that candidates were excluded because they would not have fitted in comfortably. The task is likely to be formidable and I am pleased that someone as distinguished and capable as Dame Rennie Fritchie is taking it on.
The final matter upon which I wish to comment is the amendment before us. I can understand my noble friend the Government Chief Whip's sense of frustration at what might now occur. Any sensible management of our business needs major Bills to start their passage here. It is not just a matter of Bills starting here; they must also be major ones. That has always been opposed by another place precisely because the Parliament Act could not then be introduced. If this Bill had been introduced in another place the present position would not have arisen and the tabling of the amendment plays fast and loose with the arrangements between the two Houses. The consequences for this—not least for this House—seem profound and, frankly, ill considered.
Many expert opinions have been expressed today, but if we end up in the situation, described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, as an impasse and the worst of all possible worlds, because the Official Opposition are not prepared to admit that the world has moved on since July last year, we will have ourselves and this House to blame. Also, we will have put this House in the worst possible light as far as the other place is concerned. I much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who speaks with real authority when he describes what the other place and all parties in it think about this House.
Voting for the amendment in those circumstances would be a grave error. I do not believe, for all the great skills and knowledge that many have brought to the debate, that those who vote for the amendment could be accused of bringing to the debate anything very much in the way of good judgment.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I, too, am among those who spoke on 12 February and I am afraid that a more diffident and considerate Member of your Lordships' House would, at this stage of such an impressive debate, keep silent. However, I have been moved to detain your Lordships for a short time because of comments made by the Lord Chancellor this morning. I hope to confine myself almost entirely to that matter.
I heard him on the "Today" programme. As ever, I marvelled that he was so nimble at that early hour. But when he came to explain why he would be objecting to the amendment to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, he was not nimble enough. What he said—and he said it more than once—was that one had to remember what happened to the Hare Coursing Bill of 1975. He

1085
said that after Second Reading that Bill went to a Select Committee—and indeed it did, at the instigation of my noble friend Lord Denham, as it happens. He said that it never came back. He said that more than once in tones as nearly sepulchral as the noble and learned Lord can manage. One might have supposed that the Bill had somehow tumbled into some unfathomed crevasse—a victim of the inscrutable workings of Providence—from which it had proved impossible to extricate, no matter how diligent the efforts of the Ministers responsible. But it did not happen like that.
What happened was that the Select Committee, which was directed to report within four months, gave that Bill the careful examination that it was directed to give it. At the end it came back and reported to the House that in its view the Bill ought not to proceed. Why? Because it was:
"not a suitable instrument for the reduction of the suffering of hares".
It went on to say, as a result of its deliberations, that:
"Action should be taken by those concerned to examine further current coursing practice and legislation for the protection of wild animals".
I am indebted to the Library staff for this research, but I have looked at the Official Report and it is true.
Your Lordships would be sorry to think that the objection of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to committing this Bill lies in a fear that a Select Committee would report that this Bill too was an unsuitable instrument for sustaining the independence of the judges, or, for that matter, the effectiveness of our court of final appeal. Your Lordships might be driven to that conclusion unless tonight the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is able to suggest another reason why the Hare Coursing Bill is a precedent at all costs to be avoided. It is hard to see at present why what was appropriate for a manifesto Bill—to outlaw and make criminal the hunting of the humble hare—is not somehow appropriate for a Bill tonight, about which the manifesto was entirely silent, and yet which wrenches—
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is correct because the Bill, which was introduced by the Government in the Session 1974–75, failed to progress after Second Reading. In the next Session, on a proposition of the Conservative Opposition to a Labour Government Bill, it was sent to a Select Committee which recommended that the Bill should not proceed, and it did not. That is the only example of a government Bill in the last 30 or 40 years which has gone to a Select Committee. That is why the example was chosen.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, that is entirely consistent with what I somewhat more succinctly had endeavoured to say. It is very hard to see why what was appropriate then, albeit at the second Second Reading of that Bill—a Bill which was a manifesto Bill, possibly not a flagship one—is not appropriate for this Bill which wrenches our constitutional arrangements about in so violent and so controversial a manner.
1086
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, told us that under our rules, if the Bill went to a Select Committee and if it were to report that it should not proceed, it would have to stay on the list until the end of the Session. But with the greatest respect and diffidence, I suggest that the Government are the masters of their own intentions and the House the master of its own rules. If the Government wanted the Bill to be brought back and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, they could perfectly well do so. I do not believe that there is any procedural reason why this would be impossible and, in any event, if they ran out of time the new carry-over rules would permit the Bill to be saved.
I want only to advert to one final matter. It derives from the almost frivolous removal of the Lord Chancellor from the scene and, more particularly, from the Cabinet. Although all institutions are mortal and therefore liable to be inconsistent, Lord Chancellors stood up in Cabinet for the rule of law and for the independence and unfettered functioning of the judiciary when these were threatened by their more enthusiastic colleagues. Lord Chancellors were a formidable and effective influence and force. But now look at Clause 11 of the latest asylum Bill.
After the unprecedented thunderbolt hurled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on behalf of the judiciary, it would be idle for me to attempt to add to the denunciation that your Lordships have already heard. I find it impossible to believe that any "pre-6/12" Lord Chancellor—I might well have said any "proper" Lord Chancellor—would ever have stomached such a measure. And I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, did, although I have not discussed it with him.
This is not Cicero's Rome. Even amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent, as a great Law Lord once remarked to the discomfiture of the wartime government. Yet the silencing of the judges is what Clause 11 of the asylum Bill is about. I believe that the asylum Bill has served us with a warning of what we can expect. We have in the amendment our opportunity for wiser counsels to be developed and to take root. A safeguard, if not a remedy, is at hand tonight and we should seize it.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, an issue of principle is at stake tonight. It is of more importance than any particular provision in this 212-page Bill. It can be characterised as being, on the one side, a clash between normal parliamentary procedures—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke clearly on that—and the objections of the Government Benches to the notion of the Lloyd amendment being carried and, on the other side, a sense of rejection of the exceptional circumstances attending the bringing forward of the Bill.
By that I refer to the fact that it appeared out of thin air. Talk about a flagship Bill—it was more like a ghost ship Bill! It arrived one day in June without consultation or mention to the judges affected. It was followed by a consultation process which offered only two options: the status quo or what the Government

1087
had already decided. As everyone who has spoken agrees—and as even those who support the Bill accept—that is no way to legislate major constitutional change. The fact that we do not have a written constitution speaks ever more loudly in support of clinging on to whatever conventions we have in that regard.
One of the influences on me today—I cannot say that I came here with a closed or clear mind—is the political pressure being put upon this House from the other place. Perhaps I can read what was written in today's Times following an interview with Mr Peter Hain, who is reported as saying:
"What peers are proposing is completely undemocratic. We cannot allow it to happen. Peers are being incited by Michael Howard and his lieutenants to overturn the will of the elected chamber".
I wonder what he is talking about; what will of the elected Chamber? The elected Chamber has not considered any of these matters, neither in theory nor reality. What pressure? I do not know about the noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, but I do not see them quaking in their shoes at whatever pressure has been exerted by Michael Howard, if any. The truth of the matter is that Peter Hain appears to be spoiling for a fight. I do not believe that we should rise to the bait or withdraw from what appears to be our clear duty to deal with a profoundly important constitutional Bill in the manner that we believe is most appropriate and which will yield the best reform that our common wits can achieve.
I believe that everyone accepts that the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the rule of law are the key criteria by which this measure should be judged. We accept the absolutely invaluable pricelessness of an independent judiciary and of a rule of law that, by and large, in this country still maintains its integrity.
There is the notion that introducing a single clause into this long Bill, stating as a matter of law that there must be maintenance of the integrity of the judiciary, somehow does the trick, or that the means by which this country has proceeded hitherto, mainly on the grounds of custom, tradition and common values, should be jettisoned in favour of a single, simple statutory measure. If that were the yardstick of effective protection of judicial independence, one may wonder why many countries, awash with such constitutional and statutory protections, fail to acquire that priceless independence and integrity that we enjoy. Does anyone pretend that in Italy, for example, the massive amount of statutory and legislative protection for judges achieves its purpose? Germany in the 1930s had a constitution and a system of law that was all the things that ours apparently failed to provide, but I do not believe that there is any doubt about their ineffectiveness.
I shall say a word about the Lord Chancellor and why I believe that his presence in Cabinet is integral to the maintenance and continuance of that precious independence and integrity. In response to the point made several times by the noble and learned Lord,
1088
Lord Falconer, the burden that rested upon the Lord Chancellor immediately prior to the June announcement was largely of the Government's making. Since the Government came to power in 1997 there has been a rapid accretion of responsibilities and powers on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor. One way of resolving that matter would be to shed most of those added powers, as indeed has been anticipated by the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I am still not persuaded, as I believe many noble Lords are unpersuaded, that having created that department there is a need to abandon the Lord Chancellorship and all that goes therewith.
That is especially the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made very explicit during the debate that we had on 12 February. The circumstances giving rise to the cessation of the Lord Chancellorship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, were highly political and had nothing whatever to do with great constitutional issues. Tonight the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has made more oblique reference to that. There has been no attempt by anyone on the government Benches to deny what was said on 12 February. I believe that it is an open secret that the circumstances giving rise to this Bill do not bring credit on the Government.
I turn lastly to the question of evidence. If ever the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" was justified it is with regard to judicial integrity and independence. Those are elusive qualities. I rather favour, unlike my noble friend Lord Maclennan, the notion of the mysticism around those commodities. The absolute absence of any compelling evidence as to the insufficiency of independence or the lack of integrity makes the proposals in this Bill simply unacceptable. As the Lord Chief Justice said, if the need for a judicial appointments commission is pressing in the wake of what has already happened, then we can legislate for that quickly and effectively.
Of course there are aspects of the Bill that many of us would be willing to accept, with sensible amendments. However, the manner in which this reform has been brought forward and the absence of due process, which is often as important as the substance of reform, make the present position untenable. The sort of open-minded consensual consultation that would be involved in setting up a Select Committee in accordance with the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, would be sensible, constructive, in the best traditions of this House and would represent the best discharge of the duty that rests upon us.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I begin with an apology that I have already addressed to the Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately I had to be in court this afternoon and I missed the first six speeches. I hope nevertheless that your lordships will hear me.
I want to confine myself to one topic—the case or absence of a case for the creation of a new Supreme Court and the eviction of the Law Lords from the House of Lords. I believe that that case has not been

1089
made in the very slightest degree. Those who espouse the Supreme Court base their case on an article of faith; namely, a belief that judging, legislating and creating or implementing social policy are different activities. I do not believe that that is true any more. I believe that the role of the courts and of the judges has changed fundamentally during the past 50 years or so.
I shall deal briefly with the causes of that phenomenon. The most modern cause is the Human Rights Act 1998. In the mid-70s, there was the introduction of judicial review, which opened up a vast field of government and local authority decision making for review by the courts. Finally, there was a change in attitude by the judges themselves, beginning probably with the great career of Lord Denning. Judges are now every day involved in highly political issues—social issues, life and death issues. Fifty years ago, who would have thought of a case such as the one that reached the House of Lords concerning whether or not a life-support machine could or could not be turned off? Those are the types of issues that are reaching the highest courts. The House of Lords naturally gets the most difficult and toughest cases.
Another factor is involved, which I have not heard mentioned so far. That is that the Law Lords are no longer hound, and have not been since the mid-1960s, by their own decisions. The doctrine of precedent does not apply in the House of Lords. I can give numerous examples of occasions when they have exercised this power or wondered whether they should do so.
A recent example concerned a minor part of the law—whether exemplary damages can be awarded for particularly outrageous conduct by the defendant. In a recent case, the House of Lords indicated clearly that, not being hound by precedent, it was open to them to go in either of two directions. One Law Lord in particular wanted to strike down the whole doctrine, believing that damages are compensation and so cannot be exemplary or act as punishment. Others indicated a different view and wanted to free themselves from a 1964 precedent of the House of Lords, which incidentally has been widely ignored by the Commonwealth, which lays down restrictive rules for when exemplary damages are applicable. I take that as a random example. In some instances—I do not say in every case—the House of Lords exercises a power which is, in effect, legislative; that is, it departs from the law as it was recently laid down.
I move on from the general consideration that the whole argument in favour of a Supreme Court is based on fallacious thinking and turn to the more practical considerations, which are: what is the effect and what is lost? In eloquent speeches made in February and on occasion in this debate, the Law Lords have, for the most part, expressed the view that being Members of this House puts them in a unique and special position—to be au fait with current ideas and to meet people who are not professional lawyers. The virtue of this Chamber is that it is not dominated by lawyers. Although there are many lawyers here—I have heard complaints that there are too many—other kinds of life go on here. From that point of view, the idea of taking away the Law Lords and placing them in a
1090
Supreme Court or an ivory tower, if it is ever built, is very had. I believe that they have a very good time by being present in this House and by making use of the facilities. If the facilities are poor, let us improve them.
It seems to me that the loss to the House is perfectly obvious: we would lose their presence. They participate in key debates. As a recent example, I think of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice talking about the Criminal Justice Bill. It is a tremendous privilege for this House to hear directly from the head of the judiciary what is good. He considered most of it to be fairly good but there were some had parts and he exposed those in very clear terms. There is no way that the same effect could be achieved by having him appear as a witness in front of a committee of the House of Lords. Here, as a Member, he speaks and we listen and take note. His is a very important role.
Another role to which I attach importance is that of a Law Lord acting as chairman of a committee. The one on which I am privileged to serve is the scrutiny committee for European legislation, now chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. He comes to this House and presents the committee report in a manner which I consider to carry more conviction and be superior when compared with any of the more humble members of the committee. I know that that is not a universally shared opinion I do not refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, but speak in general terms. However, I believe that it is a great advantage for the Law Lords to chair important committees.
What about the public? It seems to me that the public will lose the benefit of the Law Lords being present in part of the legislature. What shall we gain? I believe that we shall only achieve a look-alike. Some agonised consciences will have a healing balm applied to them but, beyond that, we shall be able to say to ourselves only that we now look rather like several other countries in Europe. One thinks of the old historical argument: if you were starting from here, you would not take the House of Lords as your model.
I want to ask another more fundamental question. What do the Government conceive to be the role of the judges? Are they to be cut off from high political debate and issues? And what about the great rows which must be resolved by appointing a Law Lord as chairman? I go back to Lord Wilberforce, whose name has been mentioned. He decided two disputes which baffled everyone: the electricians' strike; and he solved the miners' strike in the space of, I believe, five days from being appointed to producing a report. That was an incredible feat. As he recorded in an autobiographical note, he suffered the severe punishment of being cut dead by a mandarin in the Athenaeum. But he was the only person in the country who was capable of solving that strike, and solve it he did.
If one believed in the separation of powers, the last thing one would do would be to appoint a Law Lord to head a highly political, sensitive public inquiry. What did this Government do? In July—noble Lords will already have guessed the answer—a mere six

1091
weeks after 12 June, they appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, to hold the inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly.
I think it is right that judges should be used—as they have been used in the past—for that sort of function. The Law Lords will be available in due course to discharge that role, and the best possible home for them—the best possible training ground for the difficult jobs that they have to do—is right here in this House.
I will not go on to the practical difficulties about the new building. There are two certainties and one probability. The certainties are that there will be an overrun on cash and an overrun on time—the building will be late. The probability is that it will be ugly.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships on 12 February, and therefore I will keep my remarks short, especially at this late hour.
Since 12 February we have all had the benefit of seeing the text of the Bill. I continue to think that considerable chunks of what the Government are proposing are undesirable in principle and bad in practice.
The Government have not made out a convincing practical, pragmatic case—as distinct from a theoretical one—for setting up a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and removing or tidying away the Law Lords from the legislature.
My noble and learned friend says that the presence of the Law Lords in this House causes confusion, which has led to the Law Lords themselves issuing a self-denying ordinance indicating circumstances when they may and may not speak in debate.
That speech, given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Corn hill, in 2000, helps make it unnecessary to remove the Law Lords from the legislature entirely, and thereby deprive the House of their occasional but invariably pertinent participation in our proceedings. As for confusion, surely once it is understood that the judicial work of this House is done exclusively by judicially qualified Members, and that no lay Peer has taken part in that work since some remote date in the 19th century, there can be no confusion.
Let us remember the plus points of the highest court in the land being the House of Lords. It is—if Members of the Judicial Bench do not mind me using a somewhat crude commercial phrase—a splendid brand name. It is a brand name that is appreciated and respected; it is the "bastion of legal excellence", to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; and, especially, it is of great value throughout the common law world where its decisions are persuasive precedents. There is no confusion throughout the common law world by what is meant by the House of Lords and its judicial decisions.
1092
I have not heard anybody here today say that the Law Lords are not now independent in the way in which they do their work and engage in their decision making. They are independent from the executive and the legislature. Everybody understands that.
The difficulty that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, pointed out on 12 February, is that a new court with a new name—Supreme Court—would have to build up its own reputation from scratch. As for abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, I say to my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Morgan that no one drafting a constitution would dream of creating a Lord Chancellor in a new country. But that is no reason for saying that there is not value, and continuing value, in having one in our country.
The Lord Chancellor's office has been headed by a senior lawyer who, until last year at any rate, enjoyed a very senior prominent position in Cabinet continuing the tradition of having a particular responsibility both in Cabinet and elsewhere for upholding the independence and integrity of the judges and the rule of law. That has not been denied in our debates either today or on 12 February.
The present Government envisage, and have openly said, that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should be of no particular seniority in Cabinet and need not be a lawyer. To my mind, both of those matters are retrograde steps in our constitutional arrangements.
I said that I would be short. I have concentrated on those parts of the Bill with which I have a strong disagreement. I like the parts dealing with judicial appointments, although there are matters of detailed criticism not appropriate for a Second Reading debate.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this debate has focused primarily on what happens to justice when the Law Lords arrive in the Supreme Court. That is important, but equally important, in my view, is what happens to Parliament when the Law Lords leave this House.
It is the function of Parliament to control the executive. As the power of the executive in the other place increases, so the function of this place becomes more important, regardless of how it is composed or changed in future.
The Bill will reduce the quality of the work in this House by cutting off a stream of experience, wisdom and authority that has flowed into it not only since 1876 but in one form or another for nearly 700 years. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked us to remember what happened on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, persuaded your Lordships twice to defeat the Government. I shall not forget that because I was the Minister in charge of the Bill and I had to explain to Lord Whitelaw what had happened. It was a significant example of the improvement of legislation against the Government in power at the behest of a Law Lord.

1093
The Bill also removes half our remaining voice in the Cabinet. That will reduce our direct influence on government policy by more than half. These are aspects which need profound consideration which they have not been given in this debate by more than three speakers. I have heard all but three speeches in this debate and I think I have heard only three that majored on that feature. That is one reason for doubting whether a Committee of the Whole House would be able to give it adequate consideration.
Every government of every party wish to free themselves from restraint. Secretly or openly, every Minister wants his hands free to carry out his policies without hindrance. I say that having been a Minister. By removing both the Cabinet voice of the Lord Chancellor and the wisdom and prestige which the Law Lords bring with them, the Bill makes a future reduction in the legislative power of this House a little easier, not just for this Government but for any future government to accomplish. It is also a lamentable fact that every government of every party think they will be in power for ever.
The noble and learned Lord opposite and his friends are digging the foxholes for us, the Liberal Democrats or some party undreamt of to fend them off in the next stage of the political life of this country. Those would be sufficient grounds on their own for treating the Bill with suspicious and meticulous care. If that were all, a rigorous Committee stage on the Floor of this House might yet suffice, but that is not all. We must look not only at the context but at the provenance of the Bill before us. Touching as it does the very centre of our constitution, it is brought to us by a Government who have not in the view of many of us properly thought through the consequence of any one of their major initiatives all the way from devolution to the war with Iraq. It is brought to us by a Minister who at 5.30 on a Wednesday night let it be known that he would not be sitting on the Woolsack the following day and at 3 o'clock the following afternoon—properly clad no doubt thanks to Ede and Ravenscroft—he was sitting on the Woolsack.
It is not to be expected that a Bill with that provenance will have been properly thought through by those who bring it to us either. We must do it for them. That requires—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think no one doubts the usefulness in their respective spheres of both the Lord Chancellor or Ede and Ravenscroft, but can the noble Lord explain why he believes that the existence of a Lord Chancellor is compatible with the Human Rights Act?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is precisely the sort of point that should be argued by those in the Select Committee. We need such a body to do work which touches the future of this country and its welfare at its most intimate and most important. We need the steady application of such a body and not the intermittent, cursory and confrontational proceedings of a Committee of the Whole House. By all means reserve Part 3 for the consideration of the whole House if that is your
1094
Lordships wish, but I have given the reasons why in my view this Bill should be subjected to a procedure actually asked for by a Select Committee of the other place.
It astonishes me that Mr Peter Hain should take it upon himself to say that this is flying in the face of democracy when the democratically elected House itself has asked for it to be done. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, does no more than ask your Lordships to agree with the House of Commons in dealing with this Bill in this way. I hope that the noble Earl and many other noble Lords will join me in the Lobby.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I intend to speak on one topic only; namely, the proposal to remove the appellate jurisdiction of this House and to set up a Supreme Court elsewhere. This proposal seems to me, as at present advised, to be totally unnecessary
I start by trying to get rid of one misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is based on the proposition, which for present purposes only I am willing to accept, that if Law Lords in office take part in the legislative work of this House, they may be compromised if at some future time they were called upon to deal judicially with the same subject matter. Therefore, it is said that it is necessary to take away the appellate jurisdiction of this House and house it elsewhere in order to prevent such a situation arising. That argument is a fallacy.
There is already a convention that Law Lords do not speak or vote on matters where there is a strong party political ingredient. All that is needed, therefore, is a convention that Law Lords in office do not speak or vote at all. That is a total answer to the problem which I have posed.
But, it may be asked, what about a Law Lord taking his seat in the House and being present at a debate? Will that compromise a Law Lord? Of course not, no more than listening to "Today in Parliament" on the radio. Surely, it will not matter at all if he takes his seat. If there is a convention that Law Lords in office do not speak or vote on Bills, how can it possibly be said that they at present enjoy the dual roles of judge and legislator?
It may be asked, how is such a convention to be established? That is no problem, because this House regulates its own proceedings. Before 1844, lay Peers as well as Law Lords were at liberty, if they wished, to vote, and sometimes did vote, on judicial cases. On 8 June 1844, the then Lord Privy Seal advised this House that this practice should cease. The House accepted that, and the convention was established. The convention was observed without any controversy for almost 40 years, when Lord Denman decided that he would try to cast his vote on a judicial case—he was not a Law Lord. That caused no problem, because his vote was simply disregarded. The convention survived. I hope that we shall hear no more of the fallacious argument that the House of Lords must lose its appellate jurisdiction simply in order to avoid the

1095
problem of a Law Lord acting both as judge and legislator. That position can be avoided so easily and at no cost.
I must consider whether there are any other reasons for removing the appellate jurisdiction from this House and setting up a Supreme Court elsewhere. I ask three questions, which in my opinion are fundamental. The first question is, in what way will appellants or respondents benefit from the change? Will appeals be heard more speedily or more cheaply? They certainly will not be heard more cheaply. Are there any other benefits to litigants? I can think of none.
My second question is, in what way will Parliament or the general public benefit from the change? I can see none.
This leads inevitably to my third question. If the danger of compromising Law Lords, of confusing the judicial role with the legislative role can be avoided so easily; and if there is no benefit to litigants, no benefit to Parliament and no benefit to the public in general, what precisely is the point of sending the Law Lords packing?
I have intentionally not posed a fourth question—whether the establishing of a Supreme Court elsewhere would be beneficial to Law Lords. The point was, I think, raised earlier. I have little doubt that it might perhaps improve the working conditions of Law Lords, but I can assure your Lordships that when I came to this House 22 years ago, I found the working conditions perfectly adequate. The only small deprivation was that I no longer had my own personal loo, which I had as a High Court judge. But I feel that that particular deprivation is not worth the expenditure of millions of pounds setting up a Supreme Court elsewhere.
The move to send the Law Lords away from your Lordships' House is, I believe, built on a total misunderstanding of how the system works. People do not realise how easily judging can be wholly separated from law-making without incurring the expense of setting up a Supreme Court somewhere else.
We have it in our own hands to avoid a useless expenditure of millions of pounds. Why can we not deal with it in the way which I have suggested?
I conclude by expressing the hope that someone will answer my three questions—what benefits will litigants, Parliament or the general public derive from setting up a Supreme Court elsewhere? If there are no benefits, why do it?
10.47 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as I am at No. 42 on the speakers' list, when we are nearing the wind-up speeches and the vote, your Lordships will be glad to know that I have scrapped much of my speech, notably those parts concerned with excessive haste—on which I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern; with the Government's inability to leave anything alone—even, now, the United Nations; and their strange priorities, involving us in small wars and making extraordinary changes to the constitution
1096
while failing to do anything effective about crucial domestic problems or our steady drift into an integrated Europe.
I have no problem with Part 3 of the Bill, and the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and others that it might be taken out and introduced on its own seems very sensible. Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I deplore Part I of the proposed summary abolition of the historic office of Lord Chancellor. His duties could easily be amended or, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, suggested, reshaped, to suit today's needs.
On Part 2, since the Supreme Court will apparently have much the same role as that played by the Law Lords in our House, why move them at prodigious expense? Translation from Westminster to, say, a huge new building in Ealing or, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, fears, a scruffy commercial floor, has nothing to commend it.
The removal of the Law Lords from this House seems to me a thoroughly bad idea. On this, I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Neill of Bladen. The present arrangements are, I think, probably good for the judges, who gain a close perspective of the matters that concern us. They are certainly good for us, as they add to our number a body of men of the highest intellectual calibre. This often makes our work on legislation more effective than it would otherwise be.
Of course, judges—active or retired—do not always do what one wishes. When I tried in January to secure a Select Committee to consider our relationship with Europe, my noble and learned friend and one or two other legal luminaries voted against my amendment, presumably judging that euthanasia was more important than Europe. Taking that view, they were fully entitled to vote as they did, although it seemed to me surprising. But I have no doubt that distinguished members of the legal profession in this House are valuable to us and it would be a mistake to expel the Law Lords and shut them up in a small bubble where they could speak only to each other.
One never knows when the help of notable men of the law may not be useful in our House. Some years ago, when I was grappling with a salmon Bill, I encountered legal problems that I did not know how to resolve. One day, I went into the Library and there saw Lord Denning writing at a desk. I did not know him personally but I knew his reputation as combining deep knowledge of the law with wholly exceptional common sense and great courtesy. Summoning up my courage, I approached him and asked him if he could give us a little help. He immediately agreed and thereafter gave us far more help than I had ever expected, drafting amendments and speaking to them in the House. What a wonderful man!
I have no hesitation in fully supporting my noble and learned friend's amendment to the Motion, which I hope will secure the approval of the House.
10.50 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I want to mention four fundamental principles. First, I refer to the independence of any Judicial Appointments Commission. The problem with any such body is that it is set up by statute but no Parliament can hind its successor. In addition, as we have discovered in debates on the composition of this Chamber, even an unambiguous Privy Council oath has no standing if it is felt that it should be reinterpreted to suit circumstances. Therefore, any statute can be changed and any safeguard is only temporary, so any assurances that we have today about the independent nature of an appointments commission can be changed by another place tomorrow.
Secondly, I refer to control by the executive. There used to be three pillars: the executive, with the Monarch as its titular head and the Prime Minister in actual control; the legislature, with the two Houses of Parliament, and Back Benchers wielding considerable power; and the judiciary, headed by the Lord Chancellor, responsible through the judges to Parliament. The Prime Minister tells the Monarch what to do. The Prime Minister controls the Commons now, and that control could easily be extended to the Lords, too, as any statute regarding this House can be changed, as I have just pointed out. It is now proposed that a junior Cabinet Minister, head of a department in the executive and appointed by the Prime Minister, should exercise co-decision processes with the chief judge and have a power of veto over the appointment of judges. Only in Orwellian doublespeak could that be called greater independence for the judiciary. The executive controls the purse strings. I seem to remember an old saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune". We will have swapped a senior Minister for a junior one.
My third point relates to the office of Lord Chancellor. I notice that the order of precedence in this country goes: Monarch and Royal Family, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of York, Prime Minister. If we removed the Lord Chancellor—and we notice that the Crown is being steadily removed from government branding, probably in preparation for a downgrading of the monarchy, and we know that certain elements would dearly like to get rid of the Royal Family—and then we also remember that the Prime Minister appoints the two archbishops, using much the same mechanism as he intends to use to appoint the judges, we have a Prime Minister who is truly an elected dictator.
The fourth point relates to the right of the Government to get their business through. I always understood that the Salisbury convention applied only to policies declared in the manifesto. I do not see why there is any duty on this House to put through anything that might subsequently be dreamt up by a government in power. The Government should go hack to the country if they want to exercise that prerogative.
In conclusion, if one wants a true separation of powers, the only logical answer is to have a totally separate Supreme Court with no executive Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is likely to accrue
1098
undue indirect influence. That Supreme Court could be the only body with powers to alter constitutional Bills, so the Bill that created it could not itself be amended by Parliament alone. That could also help to safeguard any constitutional changes that might be enacted by statute such as may affect this Chamber in future. On the other hand, with the ECHR in its early days, bringing in new interpretations of the balance between the rights of the individual to be protected from an overbearing government and the rights of society to protect itself from disruptive individuals, I am not sure that this is the moment to set up such an absolutely separate court.
With so many questions hanging in the air, I believe that the old saying, "Act in haste, repent at leisure", is very true. I therefore urge all noble Lords to back the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we now come to the wind-up speeches in what has been a long and, frankly. repetitive debate, lit only by a few flashes of the unexpected, such as the disclosure by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it was all a European plot.
I shall concentrate on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, because that is the issue that your Lordships have to decide today. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that that amendment should be firmly rejected. The reasons why that amendment should be rejected and why the Bill should proceed through the usual course were stated unanswerably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Since he made his speech, I have obtained a copy of his text and I would like to refer your Lordships to what I believe to be the central paragraph in it. It reads:
"While it is extremely important for the Bill to be properly scrutinised during its passage through this House, I would hope that this can occur in the conventional way because the present transitional position is wholly unsatisfactory for the administration of justice. The Lord Chancellor is already a Secretary of State. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to return to the position that existed before 12 June. A new method of appointing judges is also urgently necessary. The judiciary do not want the present situation to continue longer than is absolutely necessary. They want to see the protection for the justice system that the package provides enshrined in statute at the earliest practical date. They would be concerned it-the House took a course which delayed the concordat being implemented".
The effect of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would be to defer the enactment of the Bill for much more than the three months that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said might possibly be acceptable. More than that, it would very probably mean that we would not see it until the next Parliament and we could very well lose it altogether.
It has been suggested that Part 3, which appears to be relatively uncontroversial, could be taken out of the Bill and dealt with separately. You cannot just take bits of the Bill out and say that we shall pass that provision but not others. In particular here, Parts 1 and 3 are intimately connected. The transitional position, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, is deeply unsatisfactory.

1099
Part 3 has been closely scrutinised by the judiciary. That scrutiny has produced a concordat that has been widely welcomed on all sides. We on these Benches might, by choice, have produced something a bit different. We recognise that the concordat has been criticised by some, for example, by Sir Colin Campbell on behalf of the Commission for Judicial Appointments, who called for a lay majority on the new JAC. Other things being equal, we might well have supported Sir Colin but we believe that the concordat is of such critical importance that we are not prepared to start unravelling it. We hope that, in the light of the powerful and convincing speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will not divide this House on his amendment. If he does press his amendment, then I hope that your Lordships will not support it. If your Lordships do support it, we shall potentially be blocking the creation of an essential Judicial Appointments Commission.
The Conservatives do not oppose the Judicial Appointments Commission in principle. If they vote in favour of the amendment, they will be acting against the advice of the judiciary and of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that the Judicial Appointments Commission is urgently necessary.
Of course these reforms have been introduced clumsily. Everybody has said that and we have said it as loudly as anybody. But that is not a reason for blocking a constitutional change that we now know has the support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary.
We have Part 1 of the Bill on the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. We have Part 2 on the Supreme Court. Let me take Part 2 first. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, gave two examples of what the Select Committee might do in that respect. He said first, that the committee could look at the costs and secondly that the committee could take evidence on whether the new Supreme Court would be a benefit.
I agree that it would be a good idea to see the costings, but we do not need a Select Committee to do that. A much better way, which I believe we would support, would be to put into the Bill a sunrise clause that would prevent the Supreme Court from starting up until satisfactory arrangements for the venue had been drawn up, had perhaps been approved by Parliament and had been implemented. I agree that it would be impossible for the Supreme Court to function in the Palace of Westminster and should not function in inadequate temporary premises elsewhere.
As for whether there is benefit to the legal system from having the Law Lords in your Lordships' House, that matter seems to be almost entirely subjective—half the Law Lords think there is, the other half think there is not. A Select Committee could ask all of them for their views, but I doubt whether the committee would be very much wiser at the end of it.
We prefer the views of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn, and will support Part 2. However, we believe that that matter should be
1100
debated and voted on in your Lordships' House on a future day. Other issues, such as those rightly raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, can be covered and should be covered in a Committee of the whole House. We would certainly wish to table amendments in Committee ourselves on issues such as the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court and the system proposed for funding the Supreme Court.
I agree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—who I thought made an outstanding speech—that your Lordships should debate and decide these issues. It would be the whole House that does that, through a Committee of the Whole House and not just a small Select Committee which will reach conclusions that will no doubt then have to be considered again in a Committee of the Whole House.
I turn to the question of the role of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has traditionally acted as the presiding member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and head of the judiciary. He also appoints the judiciary in England and Wales below the Court of Appeal level and is the principal adviser to the Prime Minister on higher appointments. The Lord Chancellor runs what is now a major government department, spending something in the order of £3 billion a year. The Lord Chancellor has unofficially acted as a guardian of the rule of law and the integrity of the legal and judicial system in Cabinet; although as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said, it is not clear that in practice he has always done that.
The role of the Lord Chancellor is seen by many speakers in this debate as an essential bulwark of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. That is an illusion. The Lord Chancellor is, and has always been, a potentially fragile bulwark. That illusion has been encouraged by the integrity and forcefulness of three of the last four Lord Chancellors: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone. The fourth is, of course, the forgotten Lord Chancellor, Lord Havers, who served a brief and unhappy period in the office which was too short to say whether he, too, would have matched up to the others.
The value of the office of Lord Chancellor is based on two conditions which will not always, and are not now, satisfied. The first of those is that the Lord Chancellor must be prepared to stand up and defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary under pressure. The second is that, when it comes to the crunch, the Prime Minister must be prepared to back his Lord Chancellor. Within the past year both those conditions have been broken. I believe that the second condition, that the Prime Minister must stand up for the Lord Chancellor, was broken last June, when it seems clear the Prime Minister backed David Blunkett against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The first condition, that the Lord Chancellor must stand up for the rule of law, was broken when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, failed to object to the notorious Clause 11—or, as it now is, Clause 14—of the asylum and immigration Bill which ousts judicial review.

1101
The Conservatives say, "The answer to this is that we must get back to the old-style Lord Chancellor". But how can we do that? It is plain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, agreed, that we cannot have the same person exercising both the departmental functions of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the other functions that are attached to the office of Lord Chancellor. It has been plain at least since the Human Rights Act 1998 that we cannot have a Cabinet Minister now sitting as a judge. What that will mean is a kind of ghostly Lord Chancellor with no functions except to sit in on Cabinet meetings and occasionally say, "I am sorry, you must not do that". Such a figure would have no stature and no influence.
Furthermore, Lord Chancellors are of course appointed by the Prime Minister and can be removed by the Prime Minister. Let me suggest to your Lordships a little scenario. In a few months' time Gordon Brown becomes head of the IMF. Shortly after that, Tony Blair has a serious heart attack and David Blunkett becomes Prime Minister—not an impossible scenario. Who would Mr Blunkett appoint as Lord Chancellor? Not, I believe, someone with real independence of mind and commitment to the rule of law; not someone like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. Is that what we want? But it is what we are risking.
The idea that we can go back to the system as it was before 12 June is frankly wishful thinking. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, it would be difficult if not impossible to do so. I have heard far too often the old remark, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This time the system is not just broken but irredeemably shattered.
There are of course better ways of ensuring that the Government respect the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. First—a view which we on these Benches strongly hold—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should be converted into a proper Minister of Justice who would have responsibility for the criminal as well as the civil law. That would strengthen the position of the Secretary of State and it would remove the conflict which exists in the Home Office between the police and the courts system.
Secondly, there should be a statutory duty on the Minister not only to uphold the independence of the judiciary but to uphold the rule of law, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out.
Thirdly, there should be a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament for liaison between the judiciary and Parliament. At present judges are represented in your Lordships' House as they have no access to another place. There are no formal procedures for reporting their collective views to your Lordships' House.
These are all important issues, but they can be dealt with in the course of debate at Committee and Report stages which, I am quite sure, will be long if they go ahead. I see few if any advantages in a reference to a Select Committee. I see one critical disadvantage, which is the delay and perhaps the blockage of the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. I regard the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, as political mischief-making. I ask your Lordships with as much force as I can muster to reject it.
11.8 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, mindful of the strictures of the Government Chief Whip, I too will endeavour to keep my remarks short. I am also mindful that I spoke in the previous debate. I shall try not to repeat some of the comments I made on that occasion.
I should remind the House—and this is by way of congratulating the Government Chief Whip—that when I spoke on 12 February, and the debate was wound up by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, those who were present on that occasion will remember that he was a somewhat more lonely figure than he has been this afternoon. There was relatively little support from his own Benches on that occasion. We have to offer some praise to the Government Chief Whip for bringing in so many of what we could call "the trusties" to do a good job. My noble friends were here on that occasion.
On this occasion, bearing in mind the hour we have reached and the amount of time we have devoted to the Bill, I do not intend to cover all the points which have been put before the House.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I want to concentrate on the amendment that will be before us when we have given the Bill a Second Reading. I should stress that we shall, in the usual way, give the Bill a Second Reading; it is a question of what we do with it after that. So I do not intend to deal in any detail with the whole question of the legality of the post of the Lord Chancellor after the passing of the Human Rights Act, the whole question of separation of powers raised by a number of noble and learned Lords, the question of the independence or integrity of the judiciary, the costs of the new court or, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, put it, who exactly will benefit from the changes that will be proposed. Nor do I intend to follow, much as I would like to, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on the whole question of the European constitution. I suspect that that is somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill.
As I said, I want to discuss the amendment before us and why we on this side feel it is important that this Bill receives appropriate scrutiny, and scrutiny that is greater than the normal scrutiny that a Bill has when it conies before this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, reminded us of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks when he talked about this being—I hope that I have his words right—a vitally important piece of constitutional change that we cannot afford to get wrong. I think that everyone in this House would agree with those sentiments, or rather I would hope that everyone in this House would agree with those sentiments. But sometimes, particularly listening to the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, one suspects that they are so desperate to encourage the Government to push these measures through, they seem to be rather half-hearted in their desire to comply with the second half of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
For those reasons we believe—I remind the Leader of another place of this—as does the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee under

1103
the chairmanship of a Liberal MP, Mr Beith, and with a Labour majority, that these changes require proper scrutiny; scrutiny that is greater than the scrutiny that would normally be offered by the usual procedures. That is, in brief, why we support sending this Bill to a Select Committee to give it some degree—I have to say that it is only some degree—of the pre-legislative scrutiny that we have offered to so many other Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, one of those "trusties" who spoke in this debate, is, I believe, involved as chairman of, I believe, the committee looking at the disability reform Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a draft Bill. That is the whole point. You cannot give pre-legislative scrutiny to a substantive Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to offer us a draft Bill as has been recommended, the best procedure to follow is to find a means whereby we can give it a degree of pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why we shall support the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
It has been put to us by a number of noble Lords that the amendment is a wrecking amendment. I think the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, used was that it would scupper the Bill. I see absolutely no reason why this Bill could not still be enacted before the Prime Minister wishes to go to the country, which we are informed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I do not know how he knows—will be some time next year in the spring or summer if this amendment is agreed to. If it is agreed to, this Bill will go to a Select Committee. That would amount to a considerable degree of the pre-legislative scrutiny for which we have asked. That being the case, I can say to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who made this point—again stressing that it depends on the Bill going to a Select Committee—that we on these Benches would not oppose the Government making use of the carry over procedures for this Bill. As I understand it, those mechanisms were brought in to allow the Government to carry over government Bills from one Session to another where there had been pre-legislative scrutiny, and Bills which failed to complete their course in one Session, as is generally the rule—that is, government Bills.
Indeed, I must again express some surprise at the attitude of the Liberal Benches, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in opposing the Motion, when, only last Friday, he moved another important constitutional Bill from the Back Benches—the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill—and had a degree of support from all parts of the House. The noble Lord proposed that exactly the same procedure should be followed—it should be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that he is aware that the
1104
discussion on Friday was about a Private Member's Bill, a draft Bill from a House of Commons committee and a draft Bill still to be published by the Government and the idea of having a joint Select Committee on those Bills? Does the noble Lord not understand that that is an entirely different situation from where we are now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not different at all and, if the noble Lord wishes, I will quote the very words that he used on that occasion. There was a Bill in front of us—it might have been a Private Member's Bill, but it was of great constitutional importance. The noble Lord suggested that it should go to a Select Committee after Second Reading. Today we are considering a Bill that only saw the light of day relatively recently because, as the noble Lord knows, of a botched reshuffle last year. He knows that the Bill that he was talking about had been discussed on and off for some six or seven years. The noble Lord said on that occasion that it had waited a long time. He said with regard to that Bill, and the same would apply to this Bill, that,
"the consultation would begin under proper joint parliamentary auspices: evidence could be given; the Government would be helped by listening to that evidence; they could produce their Bill in July. September or October".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 934.]
If it is good enough for that Bill, I cannot see why it is not good enough for this Bill, which covers equally important constitutional affairs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, did my noble kinsman hear the quotation from the Lord Chief Justice, that was offered by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, to the effect that the urgency arises from the need for an adequate and safe system of judicial appointments? That will be upon us a little sooner than the next election.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not seeking a major delay-that is the point I am trying to make in relation to the Motion. It has been suggested that the Bill could go to a Select Committee that could report in three months. The Bill could then start its proper process through this House and we have given a commitment from these Benches that we would assist, if there was that proper scrutiny, by agreeing, or not opposing, a carry-over, if necessary.
I shall now turn to some of the remarks made by the Leader of another place, Peter Hain. We believe it is unacceptable to ask that this House should not scrutinise a Bill that is so far reaching. We hope that the threat that the right honourable gentleman seemed to make will be ignored and overborne by this House. I do not believe that the House should be cowed by such a threat. The House is entitled to ask what it is about the Bill that the Government cannot brook any change or any questioning before forcing it through.
Finally, I repeat that this Bill is not a manifesto commitment. This Bill was brought forward to deal with a botched ministerial reshuffle. Comments were made by the Commons Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which has a clear Government majority, that this

1105
Bill deserved proper pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill makes major changes to our constitution—changes which should belong to all parties and not just one. As even the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, admitted when he proposed some six different amendments in his opening speech—which I have not often come across, this Bill needs proper detailed scrutiny of a sort that can only be provided by detailed examination resulting from the acceptance of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I recommend that all noble Lords on these Benches support that amendment.
11.19 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, everybody in this House agrees on the importance of this Bill. It affects great constitutional principles; it is entitled to the best of this House in everybody's view. The points that we will be debating and have debated today, and will debate as the Bill goes through this House, will have an effect for a long time to come. It is in those circumstances, I believe, very important to address the Bill on its merits.
The Bill needs to be scrutinised by the House with all the intelligence and experience that it can command. The Bill needs to be addressed, not on the basis of political points made of what happened 12 months ago, but looking forward for generations to come as to what effect the Bill may have.
This debate has from time to time identified what the major principles engaged are. I will deal with each of the three main points of principle identified in relation to the Bill.
First, the Supreme Court: there are those led by the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who say that our constitutional arrangements should reflect the reality. The noble and learned Lord said, and we support him, that people who are appointed to the final court of appeal should be appointed as judges not as legislators. Some in this House dismissed that as constitutional purism. They say that they have their feet on the ground; they understand the practicalities; they dismiss that argument.
We do not dismiss that argument; we think that argument is right. We accept that giving effect to that argument will cost some money; we have identified how much money that will cost. We believe it will bring benefit to litigants because there will be an identifiable Supreme Court in this country, visible to all, visitable by all, which will become a beacon of legal excellence. These are major points of principle.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that a Select Committee should be set up consisting of between 12 and 16 Members of this House. He cited two examples of what that Select Committee might consider: first, the cost of setting up the Supreme Court, and secondly, what the benefits might be in relation to it. Those were the only two examples he gave of what the Select Committee might consider. I suggest, respectfully, to your Lordships' House that it is far better that the whole House in the
1106
course of a normal Committee stage addresses those particular issues. I suggest with respect to this House that the House would be far better off in addressing those issues in a direct way without there being any suspicion whatever that some sort of ploy or stratagem was being used in order to kick the Bill into the long grass.
In relation to the point about the Supreme Court, it was decided to start the Bill in this House because this House had so much to offer in relation to the Bill. We would have the benefit of the wisdom of the whole of the House in relation to an issue like the Supreme Court. That is the first point of principle. That is the first basis on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that we should submit it to a Select Committee.
The second point of principle raised by the Bill is the Judicial Appointments Commission. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that does not need pre-legislative scrutiny, because it has already been considered by the judges. Nobody suggests that that part of the Bill would benefit from a Select Committee or pre-legislative scrutiny. So the second point of principle suggests that it should stay on the Floor of the House.
The third issue is the abolition of the role of the Lord Chancellor. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, knows, the concordat reached between myself on behalf of the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on behalf of the judiciary, involved not just Part 3 of the Bill; it involved Part 1 of the Bill as well. Part 1 includes vital protections to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is embedded. What is more, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made clear on 26 January when we both reported to this House about the concordat we had reached, it was a package. All of it was inextricably linked. You could not separate one part from another. Therefore, Parts 1 and 3 go together. Parts 4 and 5 are provisions ancillary to other parts.
So what do we have? We have a proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to deal with Part 2. The two particular points it should deal with are cost and the benefit of setting up a Supreme Court—points I would have thought, fairly, this House would be better off dealing with on the Floor of the House.
But it goes much further than that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, says that it can all be dealt with by the Summer Recess. As he knows, there would need to be a second Motion after this one to set out the membership, representation and terms of reference of the Select Committee. I do not believe that the terms of reference would be at all difficult. They would be to report on the whole Bill, but the membership, representation and reference would take some time. A reasonable estimate would be at least a month to agree names and members.
There would then have to be four to six weeks for evidence to come in. There would then need to be consideration by the Select Committee. The idea that

1107
that could be done before 22 July seems, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, fanciful.
Then as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, identified in his researches during the course of the afternoon, in the light of his misfortune of having heard me on the "Today" programme this morning, the last time that this was done, 30 years ago, the Select Committee proposed that the Bill be, in effect, rejected by the House.
So what is being proposed in relation to the amendment is that because of the two points on Part 2, the matter should be referred to a Select Committee of between 12 and 16 Members of this House to last for an indefinite period which could result in the Bill never coming out of the Select Committee. That does not seem a sensible way to proceed in relation to a Bill of this importance.
In my respectful submission, the right thing for this House to do is to move on from the process and start addressing the important issues that the Bill raises. I believe that this Bill represents a real opportunity for improvement in our constitutional arrangements. It allows a Supreme Court to stand clear, with judges in it—not people who are also legislators. It allows a proper and sensible method of judicial appointment; it allows a Minister to get on with the difficult but vital task of running a £3 billion budget; and it allows the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales to become acknowledged as the head of the judiciary.
I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I strongly urge the House not to be drawn into what is political mischief-making by the party opposite, which sees an opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, of rejecting the advice of the Lord Chief Justice. I suggest that we move as quickly as reasonably possible to consider these provisions and make them law. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out "Committee of the Whole House" and insert "Select Committee".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out "Committee of the Whole House" and insert "Select Committee".—(Lord Lloyd of Berwick.)
11.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 216; Not-Contents, 183.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fowler, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Freeman, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Freyberg, L.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor, V.

Garel-Jones, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Geddes, L.

Attlee, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bell, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Biffen, L.

Goschen, V.

Blackwell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blaker, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hanham, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Bowness, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Boyce, L.

Henley, L.

Bramall, L.

Heseltine, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Higgins, L.

Bridges, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Brightman, L.

Hogg, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Home, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hooper, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe of ldlicote, B.

Buscombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Byford, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Caithness, E.

Inge, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Inglewood, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chadlington, L.

Jopling, L.

Chalfont, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kingsdown, L.

Chester, Bp.

Kingsland, L.

Chorley, L.

Kirkham, L.

Coe, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Colwyn, L.

Laird, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Levene of Portsoken, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Liverpool, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lloyd of Berwick. L. [Teller]

Deedes, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Luke, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lyell, L.

Dundee, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Enroll, E.

Mar, C.

Feldman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Flather, B.

May of Oxford, L.

Fookes, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

1109

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Montrose, D.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Moran, L.

Selborne, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Moynihan, L.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Naseby, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Slim, V.

Nickson, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Noakes, B.

Southwell, Bp.

Northbourne, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stern, B.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Palmer, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Palumbo, L

Swinfen, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Patten, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tebbit, L.

Peel, E.

Thatcher, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Plumb, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Quinton, L.

Vinson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Waddington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Reay, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rees, L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Warnock, B.

Renton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rogan, L,

Wilcox, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Saatchi, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Addington, L.

Chan, L.

Ahmed, L.

Chandos, V.

Allen by of Megiddo, V.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Alli, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Avebury, L.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barker, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Berkeley, L.

Dealing, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dholakia, L.

Birt, L.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bragg, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brookman, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Burns, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Falkland, V.

1110

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Fearn, L.

Morgan, L.

Fellowes, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Filkin, L.

Newby, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Parekh, L.

Gilbert, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goodhart, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Razzall, L.

Grantchester, L,

Rea, L.

Greengross, B.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Rennard, L,

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Robertson of Port Ellen, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rooker, L.

Harrison, L.

Roper, L.

Hayman, B.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollick, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hooson, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Jones, L.

Taverne, L.

Jordan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Kirkhill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Layard, L.

Thornton, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tope, L.

Levy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lipsey, L.

Triesman, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Walmsley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Warner, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Weatherill, L.

Maddock, B.

Whitaker, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Whitty, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wilkins, B.

Marsh, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended agreed to.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this House has taken a very serious step.

1111
By this vote, this House—the unelected House—has made it impossible for the democratically elected House of Commons to receive this Bill promised in the Queen's Speech in November in time to consider it this Session.
That is very serious indeed, and the Government will consider what the consequences may be.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House having made that short statement.
I am sorry that she has not been able to tell us what the consequences might be this evening. Surely one of the consequences must be that this Bill should be carried over into the next Session.
Carryover was not a proposal put forward by the Conservative Party; it is part of the programme of modernisation introduced by the Labour
1112
Government. Why do they not now use their own tools to get this Bill on the statute book, if that is what Parliament wishes?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, add that I believe that this is a very serious moment for this House.
As Members of the other side will know, the Liberal Democrats supported what they regarded as a serious attempt to try to move towards a reformed situation with regard to the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor.
I cannot entirely exonerate the Government from some responsibility which flows directly from the consequences of 12 June. Having said that, we will consider very carefully on these Benches any way that we can rescue the Bill and the essential amendments that should be made to it. We feel that that has been made more difficult, not more easy, by the vote of this House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Patents Bill [H.L.]
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, may I remind your Lordships of two points of procedure? Members of the Committee will speak standing; and the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it 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.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2[Amendment of. patents after grant]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Earl said: The amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lyell. It is customary for Amendment No. 1 in a Committee of your Lordships' House to take a very long time indeed, but I do not think that that will be the case today.
  I am worried about the phrase "any relevant principles" in the proposed new subsection. It broadens the scope of amending patents after being granted quite considerably. Concerns have been expressed to me that the phrase is particularly woolly and might impart meanings that are not intended.
  As I understand it, UK courts will not allow an amendment to a patent if the owner appears to have acted improperly. A common example of a case in which an amendment can be refused is when the patentee has asserted the unamended claims against an infringer, knowing the claim to be invalid and in need of amendment. My understanding is that the European Patent Office does not work on that principle. Following the enactment of the Patents Act 1977, it was possible for a patentee to obtain post-grant amendments in a third jurisdiction; namely, the EPO. That would occur in post-grant opposition proceedings, which might continue for many years after the grant of the patent.
  In such cases, a patentee can in practice obtain almost any amendment, provided that it meets certain legal requirements. In other words, there is either no discretionary element or it is exercised very liberally. In the light of that practice, our reports began to hold that the discretion to refuse amendments had, in effect,
  GC 346
  been abolished. However, the Court of Appeal in Kimberly Clark decided that that was wrong, and that discretion to refuse amendments still survived.
  Proposed new Section 27(6) of the 1977 Act, requiring the court and comptroller to take account of the practice of the EPO, is plainly intended to have some liberalising effect on the discretion without removing it altogether. However, it is a rather vague requirement in an area where what is required is rather more precision.
  If we agree to the change proposed, how bad will a patentee's conduct have to be before he will be refused an amendment? Is it bad faith or something less and, if so, what? I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Clause 2 is concerned with ensuring that consistent standards are applied to the amendment of patents which are in force in the UK. It ensures that the same standards are applied to all amendments made in the UK. It also ensures consistency between the standards that apply to amendments made in the UK, and those made at the European Patent Office.
  In order to achieve that, Clause 2(1) ensures that regard will be had to the principles under the revised European Patent Convention when voluntary amendments are applied for in the UK. Voluntary amendments are those which are made at the patent-holder's instigation and outside of any legal proceedings. Subsection (5), on the other hand. ensures that regard will be had to those same principles when amendments are made during legal proceedings in the UK—for example, during proceedings concerning the validity of the patent.
  If we were to delete subsection (1), it would mean treating those voluntary amendments differently from amendments made during legal proceedings. It would mean that the court or comptroller could have regard to the principles under the EPC for only those amendments made during legal proceedings. For other amendments, the UK would continue to operate its own standards.
  We consulted on that point and users of the patents system were clearly opposed to such an arrangement. They desired a common standard for all amendments. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lyell: I thank my noble friend for presenting his amendment so succinctly. The Minister has suggested—indeed, the suggestion is in the Bill—that we might consult the Patents Act 1977. I am very interested in Section 27. Has that been amended? Have I missed something? Is there subsequent legislation? I do not see any necessity for relevance in Section 27, which gives a general power to amend the specification. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord assisting him might be able to advise me; suddenly, the happy word "relevant" sends a shiver down my spine.
  The Minister has satisfied me partially, but I wish for clarity. In particular, when inventors or possible patentees are presenting their case there should be

  GC 347
  absolute clarity. I understand that there could be some difficulty or doubt in that case. I can see that the Minister has a look of not smugness but satisfaction on his face. Perhaps he can alleviate my fears at this stage.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That was an expression of deep thought as to how best to put the case. The point arises because of the need to bring things in line with the European Patent Office and the patent convention. The question of "relevant principles" is that, under the revised European Patent Convention, they will be equivalent to those already considered by the courts and the comptroller in the UK.
  For example, the amendment will be liable only if the claims of a patent, as amended, meet the substantive legal requirements, and the amendment must result in a valid patent. It will not be allowed if it extends the scope of the patent protection or adds new matter that was not present in the patent application as filed. Already, there is a congruence between the principles involved.
  Earl Attlee: I entirely agree with the Minister's point that we want to have consistency with the EPO. In addition, I can accept his point that we want to operate the same standard for all amendments, whether they are being litigated or not. Even Amendment No. 1 challenges my understanding of these matters. Therefore, I shall study very carefully what the Minister said and take advice. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Relief for partially valid patent]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 32, leave out "to its or his satisfaction"
  The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both are probing amendments and question what the term "satisfactory" means in the context of Clause 3. It is not a controversial part of the Bill, but one where woolly wording comes into play again. Can the Minister explain what criteria will be used to decide whether things are satisfactory? If there is a criterion to be used, should it he set out in a schedule to the Bill? Who will decide the criteria?
  I have tabled those amendments to ask whose standards will be satisfactory for the UK Patent Office or the European Patent Office. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: In the Bill there are, quite rightly, continual references to what I call "the bible"—that is, the 1977 Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain today—or perhaps at a later stage, because it might be unfair to expect him to do so today—a difficulty that I have with the word "satisfaction". Starting at Section 60 of the 1977 Act and ending at Section 75, I read through every provision dealing with infringements—an issue which forms an important part of the measures being introduced by the Bill—and
  GC 348
  only in Section 63(3) does the word "satisfaction" appear. It appears only once in that whole part of the 1977 Act.
  I wonder why the words "to its or his satisfaction" and "to its satisfaction" occur in the proposed new subsections to Section 63 of the 1977 Act, which deals with relief for infringement of partially valid patent. Does the word "satisfaction" have something to do with the scale or size of the enterprise that might be protesting about an infringement of its patent—in other words, the small man against the giant corporation? Why does the word "satisfaction" appear in Section 63(3)? It is incorporated in the proposed new subsections, but what is the reason for it?
  Have I been remiss? I probably have been, in that, as the Minister said, I have probably missed out something that is in the European Patent Convention 2000. It is 27 years ago since the 1977 Act was introduced, but I am curious why the word "satisfaction" appears only once.
  It may also appear in Section 58 of that Act, but I had better not go back. I have probably said enough. Perhaps the Minister will assist me.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This situation arises where the court or the comptroller finds that a patent is infringed but is partially invalid at present. In those circumstances, damages for infringement may be awarded on the condition that the patent is amended to cure the partial invalidity. In the case of a European patent, Clause 3 gives the patent holder the option of curing the partial invalidity by amending the patent using the new central limitation procedure at the EPO.
  Clause 3 is designed to recognise the new procedure available at the European Patent Office for limiting the scope of a patent. This new procedure will be an optional way for the holder of a European patent to overcome a finding during an infringement or Crown use proceedings in the UK that his patent is partially invalid. It is important that the comptroller or the court here in the UK can consider the effect of that limitation on those proceedings.
  However, the proposed amendments to Clause 3 would seem to undermine the ability of the court or comptroller to be sure that the central limitation of the patent has cured the defect identified during the proceedings in the UK. After all, central limitation may have taken place for any number of different reasons not connected with the UK proceedings. It seems wrong if the court or comptroller is not able to be satisfied that the partial invalidity identified in UK proceedings has been cured by the central limitation. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would introduce an inconsistency with existing Sections 58(9) and 63(3) of the 1977 Act, in which the courts or the comptroller are able to satisfy themselves that an amendment done in the UK cures the partial invalidity.
  So I hope that it is clear that when we refer to "satisfaction" we mean the satisfaction that the comptroller may have that the use of the European

  GC 349
  Patent Office limitation cures the invalidity. In that sense, I do not believe there is any confusion as to what "satisfaction" means. In the light of that explanation I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendments to Clause 3.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: The Minister has been extremely kind. He mentioned the new concept of central limitation—did I hear it right? Under Sections 58(9) and 63(3) of the 1977 Act, which have existed for a good number of years, why, in the case of partially valid patents, is it taken for granted or understood—as we used to do our Latin 50 years ago or more—that the Patent Office will be satisfied in all cases? I was mildly suspicious—in the nicest possible way—about why satisfaction occurred in the case of partial validity and not elsewhere in the other sections. Is it something to do with central limitation?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That arises because of the ability now to make certain that a change in a patent operates across Europe using this mechanism. If that mechanism is used, it is important that in the UK the comptroller can satisfy himself that that limitation, which may have been done for other reasons, remedies an invalidity of the UK position. The issue arises because of that ability to make a change apply across Europe. It is necessary in those circumstances for the comptroller here to make certain that that correction applies to the situation that he is considering.
  Lord Lyell: I am very grateful and shall read with care and devotion what the Minister has said.
  Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell, who has the advantage of knowing the 1977 Act intimately because he was in my position all those years ago. Fortunately for me, we are giving the legislation a 27-year service rather than starting from scratch. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, which I shall read carefully. Subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 4:
  After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
  "RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICATIONS ABROAD BY UNITED KINGDOM RESIDENTS
  (1) In section 23 of the 1977 Act (restrictions on applications abroad by United Kingdom residents), in subsection (1), after "an invention" there is inserted "if subsection (1A) below applies to that application,".
  (2) After that subsection there is inserted—
  "(1A) This subsection applies to an application if—

  (a) the application contains information which relates to military technology or for any other reason publication of the information might be prejudicial to national security; or

  GC 350

  (b) the application contains information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the safety of the public."

  (3) After subsection (3) of that section there is inserted—
  "(3A) A person is liable under subsection (3) above only if—

  (a) he knows that filing the application, or causing it to be filed, would contravene this section, or

  (b) he is reckless as to whether filing the application, or causing it to be filed, would contravene this section.""

  The noble Lord said: Initially, this group of' amendments may look complicated, but the idea behind them is, I hope, very simple. Essentially, the amendments bring about some helpful deregulation of the provisions of the 1977 Act relating to patent applications involving sensitive matters.
  The 1977 Act places certain restrictions on patent applications that contain information that may be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or to the safety of the public. However, the restrictions place an unnecessary burden on many people who may wish to file an application in another country. Of the 25,000 or more applications made to the Patent Office each year, only 100 or so relate to such sensitive information. In brief, it is not a high proportion, but none the less it is an extremely important group. Moreover, experience shows that that small number of applications originates from a small number of highly specialised applicants who fully understand the sensitivities of the information with which they are dealing. Indeed, those applications are invariably dealt with by a select group of professional agents who also understand the need for restrictions on disclosure of information in the applications.
  Section 23 of the 1977 Act requires a UK resident who would like to file an application for a patent abroad to first file an application in the UK and then wait for six weeks or obtain the permission of the comptroller to file overseas. That causes the greatest burden on professional agents or representatives who are based in the UK but who have foreign clients. For example, highly respected UK patent agents must have regard to that restriction when acting for United States or Japanese clients wishing to file a patent application at the European Patent Office.
  Given the small number of patent applications that might contain sensitive matter, it is only right that the present restriction is limited to where it is really necessary and a sensible precaution. The new clause would amend Section 23 to ensure that the need to file first at the UK Patent Office or get the comptroller's permission applied only to applications that contain sensitive subject matter. In all other cases, no restrictions will be placed on UK residents filing applications in other countries.
  We understand that there may be concern about how to identify applications that contain sensitive subject matter. However, anyone in doubt can continue first to file at the UK Patent Office or to seek the comptroller's permission. Moreover, further protection is provided by limiting the application of the criminal offence presently found in Section 23(3). The offence would apply only to those people who have filed abroad knowing that they are contravening the section as amended or who do so recklessly.
  I move the amendment in that light. It is linked to the other amendments grouped in the Marshalled List. It deals with what industry in general—the industries most affected in particular—has found to be unreasonable and over-burdensome restriction. It is a way of ensuring that sensitive material is protected without extending the restriction unnecessarily. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who has spelled everything out clearly. I entirely agree that patents or ideas may relate to military technology. I think that he said that the content of such patents may be scrutinised only by a select band of people; we understand that. I suspect that there have been only a handful of such cases—if that—even since 1977. What about Japanese and United States inventors who may for some reason want to file a patent at the European Patent Office? No doubt they would be represented by an excellent British patent agent, who would advise the client on whether the patent or idea might contain military technology. Biotechnology could be put to a bad use—anthrax, or something similar.
  Can the Minister reassure me that there is a method by which the foreign would-be patentee would receive the same protection as a British patentee, assuming that they are both using a British patent agent, in passing through those hoops? I presume that the patent would be presented to the Patent Office here and the European Patent Office. Would the same protection be afforded a foreign patentee as a British one, given the provision of new Section 23(3) about knowingly or recklessly filing? If someone knows that he is on slippery ground but for some reason wants to file a European patent, can he be warned off?
  However, I should not want foreign inventors or businesses who for good reason wanted to file a patent and used British agents to be in any way disadvantaged. I doubt that they would be; even in my fertile imagination I do not suspect that there would be more than one or two such cases. Indeed, I wonder whether Section 23 has in fact been used; or is that confidential and not to be disclosed? I suspect that it is very much a long stop, but I want to ensure that it will not be unduly restrictive and help British agents, above all.
  Lord Triesman: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has given a cogent description of the circumstances in which we are trying to assist all those seeking patents in sensitive areas to operate. Foreign patentees using British agents are subject to the restrictions, and that is why we want to make sure they are regulated in appropriate areas and that they are deregulated where appropriate.
  I should add to the point I made just a few moments ago about those wishing to test the sensitivity question being perfectly free to submit it for the judgment of the comptroller in the sense that has already been covered. However, it is also true to say that these areas, which often involve defence contractors, are in any case covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989. In that sense,
  GC 352
  therefore, there is a further fallback position into the realm of security. I think that I can confirm the point about which I have been asked.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for fully explaining the purpose of these amendments. We have no problem with their substance. Practically any deregulation is welcome. However, can the Minister illustrate the difference between the words "prejudicial to national security" and,
  "prejudicial to the safety of the public"?
  Those phrases are very similar and further clarification would be helpful.
  The Minister's explanation was so comprehensive that half of my speech is now redundant.
  Lord Triesman: I believe that the intention of using these two phrases, ones commonly employed in legislation of this kind, is to cover every possible eventuality and to make sure that it is a comprehensive description. National security issues are obviously those areas where—to use the expression I used in my first submission to this Grand Committee today—the interests of the realm are at stake. The security of the public is a closely associated concept, but addresses abnormal danger to members of the public from the use of dangerous materials and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, posed one of his questions in those terms. However, I confirm that the two expressions most certainly are closely related.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Did the words "safety of the public" already appear in the legislation or is this an addition? While I am grateful for the deregulatory aspects of the amendments, is this a new provision or was it set out in the 1977 Act?
  Lord Triesman: The words were chosen to ensure complete parity with Section 22.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friends decide what to do with this amendment, I want to raise a point. Government Amendment No. 23, the amendment to Schedule 2, is grouped with it, and makes a change in the heading of Section 22 of the 1977 Act from "defence of the realm" to "national security". Of course, to an extent the expressions mean the same thing, but over recent weeks we have been reading in the press about the Government's desire, in certain areas of the law, to remove any reference to Her Majesty the Queen, to royalty and the like. I wonder whether this alteration is part of the progression of that aspect of government thinking.
  Lord Triesman: No, that is not the case. I recall this issue arising in various forms during debates in your Lordships' House. I think that I can say with complete confidence that we are trying to use phraseology that has been used both in past legislation and, in the contemporary sense, in current legislation to refer to the kinds of security of the realm with which we are all familiar.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 6, insert the following new clause
  "INVENTOR CONFIDENTIALITY
  In section 13 of the 1977 Act (mention of inventor), after subsection (1) there is inserted-—
  "(1A) When the applicant for a patent is not the inventor or joint inventor of the invention, the inventor or joint inventor shall have a right not to have their names and addresses mentioned on any patent granted for the invention and shall also have a right not to be so mentioned if possible in any published application for a patent for the invention and, if not so mentioned, a right not to be so mentioned in accordance with rules in a prescribed document.""
  The noble Lord said: The discussion so far has been pretty technical, relating to amendments moved by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches and by the Government. This is the first amendment that, although, in theory, rather dry, touches on matters that go outside the scope of the Patents Act 1977.
  When the UK Patent Office implemented its extensive consultation process, it asked whether an amendment along the lines of the one that I have tabled should be made to the Bill, to bring the UK into line with the provisions of the European Patent Convention. From the Patent Office's report, it seems that there was a mixed response to the consultation. Quite a number of respondents thought that it was a good idea, and I shall come to the reasons why. The arguments against related to the loss by IP professionals of a useful tool for searching patent applications, and it was thought that that would cause severe problems with investigating entitlement matters.
  The Minister will be as aware as I am that, in certain areas of science, there are organisations that wish to behave in a vindictive and possibly violent manner towards inventors. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response, for I am not certain why individuals should be put at risk simply to make searching patent applications or investigating entitlement matters more convenient, if they do not wish to be put at risk.
  I think that Her Majesty's Government will suggest that regulations can be made so that an individual's address can be deleted, leaving only the name on the application. With a name such as mine, I must say that it would not take Sherlock Holmes to discover who I or, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, were and where we lived, should either of us make an invention in this area. For Sainsbury, there would be a lot of outlets to search.
  I am not sure that the Government should, for such reasons, deny inventors—even if it is a limited number—the protection that I seek. It would be possible to deal with overriding confidentiality in an inventorship entitlement or employee compensation dispute. I am sure that regulations could be made to deal with that. The fundamental point is that, given the climate in which we operate and the particularly violent way in which some organizations—in a
  GC 354
  restricted but none the less important field—operate, an inventor should have the protection of anonymity, if he so chooses. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: I have put my name to the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has moved far better than I could. My contribution on the amendment may be short, but the Minister should not underestimate my support for it. The Government should address the issue.
  Lord Lyell: I shall follow in an inquisitorial role. At Second Reading, the Minister's reply was extraordinarily good. However, I would like him to clear up his last sentence. I think he said:
  "Moreover, we intend to change the patent rules to prevent an inventor who is not the patent applicant keeping his address confidential. Thus it is not necessary or appropriate to include anything in the Bill".—[Official Report, 26/1/04; col. 45.]
  Would the patent applicant be the firm or the individual? The Minister, who obviously thinks that the inventor who is not the patent applicant should be able to keep his address confidential, chose his words carefully. Would I be right in thinking that the inventor would be the firm and the patent applicant may be an individual or team of individuals? Perhaps the Minister would clarify that small point when he replies to the excellent proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I fully understand the intention behind the amendment and welcome the opportunity to set the record straight, because my comments at Second Reading may have been misleading. The Official Report states that we will amend the patent rules "to prevent" an inventor keeping his address confidential. That was not at all the sense of what I said. What I hope that I said was that we of course intend to make amendments to the rules to permit this. So I take this opportunity to correct that mistake—which may have been mine when I said it; but the official record certainly got it wrong.
  That is a point that we have considered in detail ourselves, as part of the development of the Bill. Under the European Patent Convention, an inventor may, if he is not also the patent applicant, request that his details are kept confidential. As part of our consultation on implementing the revised EPC, we sought to assess users' enthusiasm for such a provision in our law.
  The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said at Second Reading and again today that a number of those who responded to the consultation were in favour of our proposal. That is true, but the more salient point is that the majority of respondents were not in favour of the possibility that an inventor's name might be kept confidential. They were less concerned about other details being kept confidential—notably, the address.
  Respondents argued that for a variety of reasons it would not be appropriate to keep the inventor's name a secret. The noble Lord mentioned some of those reasons. For example, those who search patent databases or provide patent-watching services would

  GC 355
  lose a key piece of data. Others who evaluate inventions for commercial reasons would lose useful information that helps them to place inventions in context and relate patent applications to other published research. A lack of an inventor's name would also create substantial difficulties in the event of a dispute over the ownership of an invention or a patent.
  Respondents also pointed out the rather insignificant advantage of the UK pressing ahead alone with such provision when other countries still require that information to be published. Indeed, under United States law, the patent application must be filed by the inventor himself.
  I shall make one final point. As I mentioned at Second Reading, we understand that there are concerns among scientists and others who are involved in the development of controversial technologies. As the Minister with responsibility for science, I am extremely aware of that and of the activities of animal rights extremists. However, I must say that that concern focuses not on patents but on the whole question of animal experiments. I am unaware of any great focus by such groups on patents, although that may arise later.
  On patent applications, inventors have always had—and will retain—the ability to give their employer's address instead of their home address. Furthermore, as I said a few moments ago, we intend to make changes to the patent rules, so that an inventor who is not a patent applicant can keep his address confidential. I believe that that is the appropriate response in the light of the consultation responses.
  The general public has a fundamental right to know. That is part of the deal when the state bestows a right in the form of a patent. That process should be as open as possible hut, again, as with animal experiments, we want to protect people. On the other hand, it is right that a certain amount of information is made available.
  Lord Razzall: I shall obviously think about what the Minister has said. At the moment, I am unpersuaded. On the consultation argument, of course the overwhelming majority of those consulted would have given the answer that the Minister said. Very few people think that they will make the sort of invention that we are concerned about today. So far as I am aware, there was no major consultation exercise with animal scientists, nor was there a major consultation with other limited technological groups. The overwhelming majority of people who have been patent agents or professionals working in the industry would not have wanted this to go in, for all the reasons that they have given. This would limit their ability to search, and so forth.
  Finally, the Minister is being a little disingenuous on his point about other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, in the consultation exercise. According to the papers, that point was made by one person; no
  GC 356
  one else made it. According to the UK Patent Office document, one person made the point about other jurisdictions.
  I think that this is a straight trade-off between protecting the rights of a limited number of individuals against the benefit to a wider group of people who are patent agents and those operating in the industry. To follow on from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I am not suggesting that applicants must keep their details secret. The applicant might be GlaxoSmithKline or whoever. It is only the actual inventors who should have the right to remain anonymous, if they so desire. I am not certain why, if GlaxoSmithKline should make an application, it seriously matters to those trying to search the area. That is probably a bad example—it is probably not in the sort of area with which I am concerned. I am just using it as a multi-national example. I am not entirely certain why it matters to professionals who the actual inventor was. Surely, they need to know who the applicant was.
  Obviously, I shall withdraw the amendment: in any event, I have no choice in the Moses Room. But I should like to think further on it.
  Earl Attlee: The Minister raised the difficulty of patent professionals researching. Perhaps that could be addressed by having an alias or reference number for the inventor so that the ability to search databases would still exist; for example, a particular inventor would continue to come up under GlaxoSmith Kline. There would be no loss of searching ability, except that it would not be possible to identify an individual, because it is very easy to work out someone's home address.
  Lord Razzall: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Compensation of employees for certain intentions]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 4, line 45, after "circumstances" insert "and following consultation with employee representatives with a view to reaching agreement"
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 7 is a rather less drastic tool than a clause stand part amendment, but my noble friend Lord Lyell will speak on the Question whether Clause 9 shall stand part.
  While Section 40 and the Bill's intention of rewarding employees is laudable, this is a more complex area than might at first appear. Serious concerns and even outright opposition have been expressed by employers, trade unions and patent practitioners. Section 40 is not often mitigated, but that does not mean that it is of no use. It is always there

  GC 357
  in the background, but the new provisions in the Bill will create uncertainty while not actually changing the outcome for many inventors.
  Amendment No. 6 would bring employee representatives into the equation. If I suggested that all employers and trade unions must have agreements in place to cover inventions of outstanding benefit to the employer, I would rightly be accused of seeking to introduce more unnecessary bureaucracy. Only certain types of organisations are likely to become involved with Section 40. If my amendment is agreed to, those employers would be wise to have in place suitable detailed agreements in advance of these problems. Not only should the agreements cover inventions and patents, but other ideas and suggestions as well. It is not only the inventor who should be rewarded, but the whole team when a successful project is of "outstanding benefit" to the employer.
  The effects of the proposals in Clause 9 are unpredictable. I think that Amendment No. 7 is a new type of opposition amendment, but I fear that it is not patentable. It allows the clause to have effect, but only for six years after the Act comes into force. After five years, the Minister can make an order under the affirmative procedure to extend the provision indefinitely. However, if it is discovered that the provision is undesirable, such as, for instance, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, it could be quietly dropped without any action being taken by the Minister of the day. I beg to move.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: I follow and support to some degree my noble friend Lord Attlee. The Minister suggested that there might be some difficulty with what he either said or was purported to have said at Second Reading. Perhaps the Minister and other noble Lords are aware that I also said something along these lines, although an entire paragraph of my speech was missed out. It may have been relevant to what we are discussing and what I may come to discuss when we consider whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. I may have one or two passing comments to make on that.
  The Minister was kind enough to confirm what I hoisted as a hopeful lob to him. In the particular cases arising under Section 40 or Clause 9, there tends to be a team of people present. The Minister and my noble friend who has presented these two amendments are conscious that in almost all cases there will be watertight and solid agreements, if not necessarily legal agreements, for employees coming to work in a particular industry. The two types of industry referred to by the Minister at the conclusion of his speech at Second Reading were the pharmaceutical and aerospace industries. Those industries are highly specialised, scientific operations. Where a major breakthrough is made, in almost all cases there will be some form of meaningful and helpful agreement so that the employee or group of employees dealing with a particular patentable device will be rewarded or, at the least, will feel that they have been rewarded. I pointed out that, among the pharmaceutical firms I
  GC 358
  have heard of, if a firm did not reward its employees adequately, the wicked word so beloved of the noble Lord, "competition", would come into play, and the entire team might go elsewhere with their ideas—and not necessarily elsewhere in this country.
  We are probably cantering along the same course, but if the Minister could reassure both my noble friend, who has presented his case so persuasively, and me we would much look forward to that.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Perhaps I may say first that the purpose of Clause 9 is simply to expand in a limited way what an employee can propose as evidence of outstanding benefit. The employee bears the onus to prove that his invention, which is being successfully exploited by his employer, has been of outstanding benefit and that he is entitled to fair compensation. The slight adjustment proposed would allow the employee to include benefits flowing from the invention as well as those flowing from the patent. The benefits of the invention must accrue when the pa tent for the invention is in force, and it does not alter in any way the requirement to show that the benefit in question was outstanding. We have no intention of changing that threshold. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised the question of teams of people. That important consideration exists now and nothing in the Bill changes the difficulty of being clear who was involved in an invention.
  Section 40 of the 1977 Act describes the circumstances under which an employee can make a claim for compensation from his employer who has gained outstanding benefit from the exploitation of the invention made by the employee. Section 41 lays down how to calculate the level of compensation for such a claim. It states that all the circumstances must be taken into account so that, for example, the contribution of others, such as those responsible for marketing and sales or product development, can be taken into account before deciding the contribution made by, and appropriate compensation for, the employee. For example, where the success of a product in the marketplace that incorporates the invention is due to skilful marketing, that would have to be discounted when assessing the benefit from the invention.
  Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would add a further requirement to Section 41 by insisting that the assessment of the benefit from the invention, taking into account all the circumstances, can begin only after there has been consultation with employee representatives with a view to reaching agreement. I cannot imagine any circumstances where that would make sense. If consultations between the employer and/or the employee and employee representatives are likely to resolve what would be appropriate compensation, a claim under Section 40 would be surprising. I would expect that discussions between employee and employer over the employee's claim for compensation would have already taken place internally within the company and that there is a claim under Section 40 because these have broken down. It

  GC 359
  makes no sense to make a further such discussion a requirement if disagreement is the inevitable outcome—which, in such circumstances, I think it would be.
  The provision in the 1977 Act is about dealing with situations when such negotiations cannot happen. I am pleased that the very few cases that have emerged since the coming into force of the 1977 provision seem to indicate the success of voluntary agreements regarding compensation. Indeed, I understand that those are already likely to cover outstanding benefit from the patented invention as well as the patent itself. In other words, companies have already taken on board that point and have got their own compensation arrangements. They probably cover the new point that is in the Bill. The Government are unable to support the amendment. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to withdraw it.
  The new clause proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in Amendment No. 7 is intended to require a review of the effectiveness of our changes to Clause 9 after five years. We would revert to the present regime if the changes that we are considering today were not confirmed within six years. Such a provision could, of course, be applied to any legislation but I doubt that any of us would wish to start legislating routinely in this way. It is simply unfair to apply it only to a provision that might favour slightly one interest group.
  In the Bill, we propose a small adjustment based on 26 years' experience of how the system is operated. Parliament should now decide whether that change should go ahead without any uncertainty about the future. Such uncertainty helps neither employees nor employers. Nobody would know whether the goalposts would change or not in a few years. Employees would not be able to decide whether or not to update their own corporate arrangements for rewarding staff who contribute to the success of the company. That will thus work against the principal advantage of the current provisions: that their existence has encouraged corporations to put in place their own internal schemes for rewarding employees who contribute to the success of the company.
  I trust that the reassurance that I have given about the limited scope of our amendments to the employee compensation provisions is helpful. We should leave no doubt that the changes are the right ones to make. I therefore ask the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I believe that Section 40 is useful only as a backstop. The evidence for that, of course, is that we do not frequently litigate on it.
  Knowledgeable outsiders are opposed to the proposed amendment of Section 40. The purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to make advance agreements more usual; to encourage employers to seek advance agreements. The Minister pointed out that in many cases this already occurs. He almost seemed to argue
  GC 360
  that Section 40 already works fairly well, as evidenced by the lack of litigation. That makes me think "Well, why change it?"
  The Minister opposed Amendment No. 7, not surprisingly, but his arguments could be applied also to oppose secondary legislation. Secondary legislation can be changed, so obviously it is not appropriate to use the amendment on this clause. However, it is a useful opposition tool to express displeasure at an amendment when one does not want to oppose the amendment outright. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveat.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Lyell: I understand that this is the only device I can use to ask for clarification of Clause 9, which is based on Section 40 of the 1977 Act. We had quite a good canter around the course on Second Reading and in the debate on my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. However, I am curious about one particular aspect of an inventor—one must be careful—a patentee, an employee working for a company. I am interested in the definition in Clause 9 of "inventions" as opposed to "patents".
  One or two mild fears have been expressed to me about the slight broadening of the word "inventions" as opposed to "patents'', which has worked fairly well since 1977 and even before that. I have one query—and there is no reason for the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to answer today—and that is: what happens if an employee or a team in the course of their scientific experiments find, completely by chance, a different application for their patent from the one they set out to achieve?
  I recall in 1977 the case of the non-stick frying pan. I believe that the surface for a non-stick frying pan was discovered totally by accident. However, I am not sure whether it was discovered as a result of people experimenting with cookware—the brown or white goods that go into stores—or because of another aspect, which unfortunately has left visible signs on me: that is, the winter sports ski industry. I should point out to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that the fabrics, skills and technology used in a non-stick frying pan which ensure that food does not burn and eggs do not stick is exactly the same as that used by alpine and nordic ski manufacturers. I am told that the substance goes by the name of polytetrafluorethylene. I remember that we used to chant it at great length in 1977 and I have managed to get it out today.
  The patent was filed completely by accident. The team was looking for one particular product and found another. Indeed, this second product was totally apart from the one intended by the company which was manufacturing the frying pans and it had no intention of heading off with it to the Alps and the ski industry. Indeed, there were translation problems, apart from with the Americans, and it was necessary to speak French, German and Italian. The invention has been of inestimable value and exists to this day.

  GC 361
  Can the noble Lord advise me on the position of the team or the patentee when they come across an invention totally by accident? Will their employers be able to say, "You cannot take this invention and sell it to another firm"? Would the original employer be able to have some control over them and say, "You will be able to use it only in connection with all the facilities that we have given you"?
  Perhaps this is a rather naughty speech. The Minister might be able to reply or give me some advice today, or perhaps at a later stage. He indicated that Section 40 is a backstop, as my noble friend said, and has not been used that often.
  Lord Razzall: Ever.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is a proper student of the legal documents; I am afraid that I do not spend all my mornings with the Times law report or the other law reports. Research that has been presented to me no doubt would have included such cases.
  As the Minister said at Second Reading, he is convinced—as am I—that in almost all sections of British industry, with its excellent science backing, arrangements are in place for employers and employees to have a reasonable, decent and biting agreement. It is for that reason that I ask, politely, that Clause 9 not stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall deal first with the main point of the noble Lord's speech. The number of inventions made by serendipity—when people who are looking for one thing discover another—is a very large part of what is behind most patents. The technical answer to his question is that the invention is that defined by the patent. The claims of the patent say what it is. If the new use for the frying pan falls within the scope of the claims, it is covered, otherwise it is not. That is true under current provisions and will be under the new ones. If people find a totally new use, presumably a new patent will cover that, and it can be put in by the company and the employees who discovered it.
  I shall explain a bit more about Clause 9, as it should stand part of the Bill. The Patents Act 1977 recognised for the first time in statute that an employee should have a right to compensation in relation to inventions made by him but exploited by his employer. The working of the employee compensation provisions were reviewed as part of the consultation exercise conducted by my department in preparation for the Bill. The results of the consultation process showed that there was little support for significant changes to the provisions, despite the fact that since they came into force there has not yet been a successful claim for compensation.
  That apparent lack of success in the courts does not mean that the provisions have not been helpful in improving the situation for employees. On the contrary, it is clear from the responses that we received to the consultation that the mere existence of the
  GC 362
  provisions has encouraged employers to make their own corporate arrangements for rewarding employees, where they make a significant contribution to the success of the company.
  There was more support, however, for the least radical of the five options for change presented in the consultation. Thus, Clause 9 will allow a modest increase in the scope of what an employee can put forward to meet the high threshold of "outstanding benefit". He will be able to put forward evidence of benefits flowing from the invention itself, as well as those flowing from the patent for the invention. However, in doing so, the employee will have to be aware that the contribution of others to the benefit derived from the invention will also have to be taken into account when deciding the issue.
  For example, if the invention has required significant development work to produce a commercially viable product, any resulting benefits cannot be regarded as flowing solely from the invention itself. Similarly, if the invention is successful because the company has a very skilful sales and marketing team, that contribution will also have to be taken into account before assessing the benefits which are attributable to the original inventor.
  The effect of the changes to the employee compensation provisions is limited in other ways, too. Subsection (7) makes it clear that only those benefits from the invention or the patent which arise while the patent is still in force can be taken into account. That is not, therefore, an open-ended commitment that employers might have to meet. Also, subsection (8) outlines the transitional arrangements for the coming into effect of the amendments. The new provision does not apply to existing patents, or even existing patent applications. It will apply only to patent applications made after this part of the Bill has come into force. That will give employers time to update any voluntary agreements covering compensation, where that is appropriate, although we believe that many of the agreements already cover the substance of what would be provided by the Bill.
  Given that the onus is on the employee to prove outstanding benefit, we believe that that modest change is appropriate. It should not upset the careful balance that must be struck between the right of the employee to "just compensation" on the one hand, and the right of the employer to carry out business without facing an unjust financial burden on the other.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's patient explanation of Clause 9, but how will be measure the effect of the clause?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We hope that the matter will be taken account of in the compensation arrangements by the relevant companies. If it is not, we will expect to see some cases come forward that use he Bill to get fair compensation for employees. We would make a judgment on that basis.
  Lord Lyell: I hope that I shall not weary the Committee, but can the Minister put to bed my worry?

  GC 363
  Did he cover totally the subject of the patent and invention being widened slightly? Also, I am still curious about serendipity, a word he used. Let us take the example of the frying pan. Did I hear him right in saying that the employer of the team that comes with the polytetrafluorethylene could use preventive measures on them? If it had any sense, it might well go to the ski manufacturers and say, "Will this be of use to you?".
  Is there a method whereby the team that has patented polytetrafluorethylene could benefit from their product in a totally different area? Is there a break from the original employer? That might be covered anyway in an agreement on Clause 9 or Section 40. I was a little curious about that. Other than that, the Minister has been very kind and has answered pretty well all my queries on Clause 9. I apologise, and after this I shall certainly not delay the Committee.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There is a rather technical point here about what is covered by a patent. If I may say so, the point that we are debating is on where the benefits flow from, and the answer is simply that the benefits that flow from the invention as well as the patent should be considered. The question of what is covered in a patent is a more technical one that is not relevant to this discussion.
  Lord Lyell: The Minister raised the subject of salesmen. Every sales section of large firms in, for instance, the pharmaceutical or aerospace industry will have carefully noted what he said. I am a little worried, if not suspicious, that the salesmen would say, "Section 40 or Clause 9 is going to help us". That was probably not the intention of Clause 9, let alone Section 40. I had visions of people in laboratories or working in a particular line of scientific patent, but the Minister broadened the matter to sales. My slightly suspicious mind began to think that salesmen would say, "Here is the gravy train", and leave on it.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I would not want any salesman to be misled. Salesmen have whatever compensation arrangements they have. I was simply making the point that, in determining what is the outstanding benefit, one must take account of the fact that if a product sells extremely well due to a clever marketing campaign, that outstanding benefit does not return to the inventor. The inventor receives the benefit coming from his invention; if there is a brilliant sales campaign, that is not relevant to the outstanding benefit to be determined.
  Earl Attlee: I was very impressed at the speed with which the Minister answered my question about measuring the success of Clause 9. I hope that he was not suggesting that the measure of success would be the amount of litigation under Section 40.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, I was careful to make the point that it is about the incorporation of that into the arrangements of particular companies. If that takes place and there is no litigation, we shall be
  GC 364
  quite happy. If it is not incorporated and there is some litigation, that will show that the legislation is working.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that there is an incorrect printing in subsection (1) of Amendment No. 8. It should read, "In section 61", not "16".
  Lord Razzall: I thank the noble Baroness; I was about to make the same point. I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in particular, to think that I did not know the difference between Sections 16 and 61 of the 1977 Act.
  Again, this is a small amendment raising a big point. It addresses the question of whether, especially to benefit small and medium enterprises, the jurisdiction of the comptroller should be widened so that proceedings can be brought before him by one party, whether or not the other party agrees.
  I understand that when the Patent Office undertook the consultation exercise, the proposal was that Section 61 should be amended to remove that requirement. Although the wording of my amendment is undoubtedly inadequate, it reflects the original intention of the Patent Office and the Government, which they later abandoned when they received the results of consultation. It is a probing amendment to see how far the Minister is prepared to go.
  I do not really expect the Government to change their mind on the substance of the issue; the principle that I am trying to explore is what undertaking the Minister may be prepared to give to keep that area under review—especially in the light of concerns expressed on behalf of SMEs that the current procedures are expensive.
  The Minister will expand on this, but from reading the summary of the consultation exercise, there were two main areas where the proposals did not meet a favourable response. First, there was the argument that were we to give the comptroller power to hear proceedings where both parties had not consented, it would then be necessary to give him wider injunction powers than he has under current legislation. I understand that point.
  Secondly, there was an objection that that might add an unnecessary further tier of litigation, because if the comptroller found against one of the parties, there would be nothing to stop that party going through the appeal mechanism, judicial review and so on. Again, I take that point, but the most fundamental point was that SMEs were intended to be helped by the establishment of the Patents County Court. It is perhaps early days to suggest that the Patents County Court is not providing SMEs with the necessary, cheap protection that they seek.
  When I say that the amendment is probing, I wonder how far the Minister is prepared to go. Is he prepared to say that the operation of the Patents County Court in that area will be kept under review? If, in a year or

  GC 365
  two, SMEs make the same objection, will the Government consider further legislation to deal with that point? I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: I have one or two grounds for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. He put the case admirably, and I have nothing to add. We are concerned that legitimate constraints should not inhibit proper and bona fide attempts to negotiate a settlement to disputes, especially with regard to Section 70. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made the case beautifully, and I support it.
  Earl Attlee: I have an amendment in the group, Amendment No. 20. It is slightly different. It would replace Section 61(3) in such a way that the comptroller could either arbitrate or award claims under the whole of subsection (1) and/or the Secretary of State could by order under new subsection (3A) set up a panel of independent arbitrators. That would enable real experts in the art to be brought in and allow for the panel to be independent of the Patent Office, thus avoiding a situation in which it grants the patent and then judges infringement of it. That is possibly a more effective solution than the non-binding opinions of the Patent Office.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The main difference between hearing infringement cases before the courts and before the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office is that, in order to have a case heard before the Patent Office, the patent holder must secure the agreement of the other party. Although infringement proceedings before the comptroller have been possible since the 1977 Act came into force in 1978, no parties have ever agreed to such proceedings. For that reason, we consulted on making exactly the same change as that proposed in Amendment No. 8—to remove the consent requirement—so that, as for other proceedings, the claimant alone may choose to bring proceedings before the comptroller. However, the proposal did not meet with approval from those who responded. That case is a good example of a government listening to consultation and changing strategy in the light of it. For that reason, it should be cherished.
  There was more than one reason for the response. One reason seems to have been the lack of awareness that infringement proceedings could be brought before the comptroller. We intend to address that lack of awareness and highlight the advantages of that low-cost forum for settling disputes in a binding way. Indeed, we need to draw people's attention to the success of binding arbitration entered into with the agreement of both parties in settling commercial disputes in some other areas. Section 61(3) is in effect similar to the provision of voluntary binding arbitration.
  Another important reason for not adopting the idea on which we consulted is the desire not to undermine the extremely useful procedures provided by the Patents County Court, the point that the noble Lord,
  GC 366
  Lord Razzall, raised. Prompted by similar concerns about the difficulty that some patent proprietors experience when seeking to enforce their patents, the Patents County Court was set up in 1988 to provide a lower-cost, more user-friendly and more streamlined forum for the resolution of patent disputes. After a slow start, progress is being made towards meeting those objectives. Any proposal to provide another forum, essentially offering the same possibilities, to handle patent infringements disputes was seen as likely to cause confusion and undermine the good process that has been made.
  A final point was that any decision of the comptroller under Section 61 can be appealed to the patents court. Appeals may be considerably more likely if a party has not consented to proceedings before the comptroller. Thus, any saving in time and cost that might be gained by using the Patent Office procedure could be lost in the cost and time required for dealing with such an appeal. Adding the cost of appeal is likely to create a higher overall cost than that for a case heard in the Patents County Court. It may be better to avoid what many would consider to be an extra layer of litigation and require parties to go straight to the courts with their better range of remedies, if parties have not agreed to use the Patent Office procedures.
  Like that proposal, the amendment to Section 61 of the Patents Act 1977 proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—Amendment No. 20—also proposes to change current Section 61(3) to move the requirement for the consent of both parties. It would, moreover, extend the range of remedies available to the comptroller to include all those mentioned in Section 61(1). Although the amendment would address one of the concerns about Section 61(3) raised by some respondents to the consultation, it does nothing to address the issues of increased confusion and direct competition with the Patents County Court, or adding an extra layer to litigation in this area. Indeed, it would make the Patent Office proceedings even closer to those available in the Patents County Court.
  Amendment No. 20 then goes on to propose the insertion of two new subsections (3A) and (3B) into Section 61, which would provide a general power under the affirmative resolution procedure to set up the necessary procedures in the Patent Office to handle such infringement cases. The setting up of a panel of independent arbitrators is specifically mentioned as a possibility.
  This provision appears entirely unnecessary. The Patent Office is staffed with public officials who are independent of the parties and capable of hearing such disputes. In addition, under Section 123(2)(g) of the Patents Act 1977, the comptroller already has the power to appoint any adviser that he requires to assist him in any such proceeding.
  The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, appears to be intended to create a procedure for binding arbitration of infringement disputes before the comptroller.

  GC 367
  Arbitration of a dispute between two parties is usually carried out either with the agreement of both parties to be bound by the decision, or by order of a higher authority, such as a court, that applies to both parties.
  The proposed change to Section 61 will allow one party only, the claimant, to launch infringement proceedings before the comptroller. The comptroller will then decide the issue and order suitable relief. I doubt whether such a procedure, which does not place the same requirement on both parties to be involved either by agreement or compulsion, can be considered as arbitration. Indeed, as I have mentioned, one might consider that the existing Section 61(3) already provides for a procedure that is a form of binding arbitration, as it requires the consent of both parties.
  We are hopeful that recent and ongoing changes at the Patents County Court will be successful in providing a lower cost forum. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that we will keep this under review and could revisit this area if the changes do not have the desired effect.
  Thus, in the light of the difficulties identified with the proposed amendment to Section 61 by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and given my assurance that we will keep the question of the Patents County Court under review, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
  Lord Razzall: So far as concerns Amendment No. 8, I agree with the Minister's comments in regard to consultation. After all, consultation is there to find out what people want, and one then adjusts one's policy accordingly. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, will confirm that that is what will happen with the Big Conversation. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Enforcement of damages]:
  Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 5, line 36, leave out "a recorded decree arbitral" and insert "an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 10 provides an improved mechanism by which a patent holder can enforce an award of damages made by the comptroller of the Patent Office in infringement proceedings. However, we have recently discovered that the wording of proposed new Section 61(7)(b), as set out in Clause 10, is not consistent with changes made by the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. That was drawn to our attention relatively recently by the solicitors for the Advocate General for Scotland, and obviously we have had to take note of that advice. Amendment No. 9 therefore brings the wording of Clause 10 into alignment with the changes made by that Act to the wording of Sections 93 and 107 of the Patents Act.
  Amendment No. 24 makes an equivalent correction to the wording in existing Section 41(10). That provision concerns the enforcement in Scotland of an
  GC 368
  award of compensation for an employee-inventor and also erroneously contains the pre-1987 wording. We are trying to ensure consistency across all of these pieces of legislation. In that light, I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: Before we accept the government amendment, did I hear the noble Lord right in saying 1987? I must go and check. I looked at Section 93 of the 1977 Act, which is about a "recorded decree arbitral". Did I hear that there was a Scottish Act in 1987? If he confirms that, I will of course agree with the amendment.
  Lord Triesman: I would be the first to confess that I had not been an assiduous student of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, but I am able to confirm that that is the right year.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Threats of infringement proceedings]:
  Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 6, line 7, at end insert ", or
  (c) communications which a person intended as an effort in good faith to negotiate a settlement and which contain notice of detail of facts which support a reasonable apprehension of infringement occurring."
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, which goes to similar points. I am grateful for the help that I have had from the Law Society of Scotland on Amendment No. 10, which makes a very simple point. The law as it is, and as it will be in future, should not inhibit the opportunity of negotiated settlements in such disputes. I am not sure what the Minister will say on the amendment. He may well say that it is unnecessary; if so, it does not mean that it cannot go in the Bill. It is simply an intention to add to the Bill a statement that efforts to negotiate a settlement shall not be regarded as a groundless threat to institute proceedings.
  The threat issue is difficult and brings me to Amendment No. 12. I am told by those who practise in the area that, quite often, an attempt is made in potential disputes to drive a wedge between the client and his, her or its adviser by suggesting that there is an infringement by the adviser. Amendment No. 12 attempts to bring English law into line with what I think is Section 132 of the relevant Australian patents legislation. The Government carried out consultation on the matter, and might even have been minded to take such a route. However, they declined to do so.
  I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. Some of the justification in the Patent Office's response—in particular that no similar protection is given to professions in libel actions, so it should not be given to professions in the area about which we are talking—was a little specious. Everyone is aware that the whole structure of the patent industry—science and protection of inventions—is very different from litigation over whether the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is X, Y or Z. I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: I have tabled Amendment No. 11 in this group. The new threats provisions are generally welcome, although I confess that when I started with the Bill I did not understand the need for the Section 70 threats provisions. Clause 11 provides for new subsections to Section 70 that provide a defence in threats proceedings when a person must resort to pursuing secondary infringers. The defence is that he has used his "best endeavours" to determine who was the primary infringer or importer.
  Originally, when I read the clause, I thought that I knew the meaning of the term "best endeavours", and the drafting made sense to me. I now understand that the term means practically to leave no stone unturned. I do not believe that that is what the Minister intends, because it would be a very high hurdle to clear in order to avoid the risk of threats proceedings. In addition, it would hit SMEs hardest.
  On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I am not worried about Amendment No. 10, but Amendment No. 12 worries me. Legal practitioners have the hide of a rhinoceros, and they can charge at anything. I do not think that a patentee or proprietor would be as uncouth or as unprofessional to make threats; he would use a professional. That would be fine for an SME quite properly to protect his IP rights. My fear is that Amendment No. 12 could be used as a loophole by an aggressive multinational.
  Lord Lyell: I wish to give the reason that I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has tabled the amendment. It very much finds favour with the Minister; indeed, he mentioned the case of Goliath versus David at Second Reading. The amendment seems to support small teams of inventors—those about whom I always think—such as biotech companies with four or five employees, against giant corporations. It is not that I always quote the Old Testament, but in this case my noble friend's amendment is more than practical. I wonder why the wording we have suggested in Amendment No.11 would not find favour with the Minister. What loopholes will it present regarding the effectiveness of the Bill? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, particularly in the light of what he said at Second Reading.
  Lord Triesman: I am afraid that it will have to be me rather than my noble friend from whom the Committee hears today. I shall start with a quick comment to situate what I want to say. We are trying to balance a sensible, prudent approach to the question of who the infringer is with the interests of those who, for financial reasons, do not want to get into a David and Goliath contest. Such concerns must be balanced; I hope that I will be able to express that. The best way of doing that is to try to set out how the Government see the provision, and why we believe that it, rather than the amendments, will work in this context.
  The Government believe that patent-holders should, where possible, focus their attempts to resolve a dispute over infringement on the alleged primary
  GC 370
  infringers of their patent. That will generally mean approaching the person manufacturing or importing the products under dispute or using the process under dispute. That must surely be the first port of call. Where the dispute is over a product or process, the primary infringer is the source of the dispute, so it is right that reasonable attempts should be made to negotiate a settlement and direct those attempts at that primary source, where possible.
  As I believe that that is generally the right approach, the Bill contains two important changes to the threats provisions that are consistent with the approach I have outlined. First, in subsection (2) of Clause 11 we attempt to ensure that, once the patent-holder has found the source of the dispute, there will be no barriers to his raising with that person any alleged infringing behaviour. The current situation is that the alleged acts of secondary infringement, such as selling the product, cannot be raised with the alleged primary infringer, thus making it more difficult for the patent-holder to approach that person. Our proposed change has been strongly welcomed by users, perhaps for self-evident reasons.
  Secondly, Clause 11(4) is designed to enable a patent holder to approach a retailer or other secondary infringer only in rather limited circumstances. These limited circumstances are defined to be those where the patent holder has unsuccessfully used his best endeavours to locate the alleged primary infringer.
  In the light of that background, which I hope expresses our approach to the matter, I turn first to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Amendment No. 10 would have the effect that an action for threats could not be brought in respect of a communication which is intended to be an effort in good faith to negotiate the settlement of an infringement dispute and which contains sufficient detail to support a "reasonable apprehension" of infringement. This would seem to allow the patent holder to approach a retailer or other alleged secondary infringer saying, "You are infringing my patent", even when the identity of the primary infringer is well known. It strikes me that it could not possibly be right that the retailer should generally be expected to deal with an infringement dispute over a product that they stock when the manufacturer or importer of that product is easily identifiable and contactable. That is the case whether or not there is some evidence that the patent has been infringed.
  One question raised by the amendment is whether an approach to an alleged secondary infringer could be considered to be in good faith if no prior attempt had been made to approach the alleged primary infringer. Arguably it could not be, given that serious negotiations in good faith might be expected to begin with the manufacturer and not with the retailer. But that result is achieved in a much clearer and more direct way by the existing text of Clause 11, which has the effect of requiring the patent holder to focus his efforts on the alleged primary infringer, thus starting the process at source. It is a matter of good principle to try to resolve the matter as close to the source of the issue as can be achieved.

  GC 371
  It may be that the noble Lord who moved the amendment and I are aiming for a similar outcome, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him that the current provisions in Clause 11 should achieve that outcome. That is certainly what they are intended to do. In the light of my remarks, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 11 proposes to lower the "best endeavours" threshold to,
  ""reasonable endeavours in all circumstances"
  as an alternative threshold. However, in a case which concerned the duty under contract of a purchaser to obtain planning permission, the Court of Appeal stated that "best endeavours" was interpreted as meaning that of the purchasers, who are,
  "bound to take all those steps in their power which are capable of producing the desired results … being steps which a prudent. determined and reasonable owner, acting in his own interests and desiring to achieve that result, would take".
  That is the test that is involved here. Thus "best endeavours" is not an unattainable threshold, nor is it one that is achievable only by those with deep pockets. It rightly maintains a high standard, but it also preserves the aspect of "reasonableness", since the definition given by the court requires that the determined and reasonable patent holder will take all steps within his power—not beyond that point—to find the alleged primary infringer. It does not ask the impossible of anyone.
  On the other hand, I think there is a risk that,
  "reasonable endeavours in all circumstances,
  the alternative wording, may mean that the patent holder has only to make less determined efforts to find the alleged primary infringer before being allowed to chase the retailers. Furthermore, as a standard of duty, it seems less clear than the arguably more precise requirement to make "best endeavours", one that the courts have defined as I have said.
  It is important to maintain the correct balance between the rights of a patent holder to chase infringers and the need to provide alleged secondary infringers with protection from unjustified threats. Lowering the threshold from "best endeavours" may mean that retailers are too exposed to unjustified approaches from patent holders. I hope that I have been able to convince noble Lords that the amendment should be withdrawn on that point.
  Finally, Amendment No. 12 proposes exempting a legal practitioner or a registered patent attorney from the threats provisions if they are acting on behalf of a client. Making an unjustified threat of patent infringement is a tortious act. Generally, when an agent commits a tort on behalf of a client, both the agent and the client are liable. That does not seem an unreasonable principle as applied in general terms. I am not convinced that it is right to create a statutory exemption to this general principle when it comes to unjustified threats over patent infringement.
  I should add that the changes we are making to the threats provisions will bring greater certainty to the legal adviser who makes an approach to an alleged
  GC 372
  infringer on behalf of the client. The changes to subsection (4) of Section 70 will clarify what can be said to an alleged primary infringer. Changes to subsection (5) clarify what communications cannot be regarded as threats at all. The new subsection (6) would provide a defence where the primary infringer cannot be identified. Those changes, therefore, make it possible for a legal adviser to get involved in sensible pre-litigation discussions without fear of a threats action being launched against him or his client and so reduce the need for advisers to have special protection from threats actions.
  We are aware that the Australians have made a provision exempting professional advisers from being sued for making unjustifiable threats. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked, "Why not us as well"? We are aware of the provision in Australian law. The amendments that we have proposed to the provision on threats does, as I hope that I have explained, give professional advisers, as well as their clients, greater scope for dealing with alleged infringements without the risk of having a threats action launched against them. An unqualified exemption for professional advisers, as proposed by the amendment, is therefore hard to justify. It goes beyond what could be justified.
  However, in the light of the argument, we are certainly prepared to consider whether we might be able to make a more limited amendment regarding professional advisers. We will look at that. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to withdraw his amendment.
  I apologise for the length of the response, but this is a complex set of matters. In conclusion, the changes made by Clause 11 address concerns about the inability of patent holders to make genuine attempts to settle disputes while maintaining reasonable protection for retailers and others who should normally not be exposed to unjustified threats. The changes are strongly supported by business. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that they are able to do the same on this occasion.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response to Amendment No. 11. We did not have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. However, we do have our noble friend Lord Kingsland. I shall consult my noble friend very carefully about "best endeavours". Despite the example quoted by the Minister, I am not convinced. We shall look at this matter very carefully and, possibly, will come back at a later stage.
  Lord Razzall: I am grateful for the Minister's comment with regard to Amendment No. 12. I look forward to seeing the limited amendment that he proposes to bring forward. I am not persuaded by his arguments regarding Amendment No. 10. If I understand him correctly, in substance he said that basic conduct and contact with a retailer is extremely limited and, therefore, the purpose of my amendment goes wider than any contact contemplated with the retailer. Under Clause 11(3) there would be three new circumstances under which it is contemplated there will be direct contact by someone who alleges that

  GC 373
  there has been an infringement. Under Clause 11(4), there would be three defences that could be used where contact has been made in those circumstances. Therefore, under Clause 11, six new contact provisions are proposed to amend Section 70 of the Act.
  I am perfectly happy to accept that the wording may be imprecise and limited but, in the context of those six types of contact, are we really suggesting that no discussions will take place to avoid potential litigation? My amendment seeks to ensure that if someone engages in that sort of communication to negotiate a settlement, they are not subject to the threats provisions.
  I take the Minister's general point but not his specific point in regard to this suggestion. I shall of course withdraw the amendment.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Lyell: Before the noble Lord does so, I was very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said. Indeed, he offered considerably more than a scratch; he offered a reasonable concession that he would look to see whether he could meet halfway the concerns of my noble friend Lord Attlee and myself.
  The noble Lord spoke about the retailer—I am thinking about the small corner shop—obtaining a small invention. I believe that in some of the literature we have read an American lady had a cup that could not be upset. He may be thinking about something like that. However, I recall that her invention was not stolen but removed and used by manufacturers in, I think, Taiwan.
  What would happen if an inventor or someone who produced a particular product finds that a retailer—a small corner shop—has a supply of infringing articles? Is the first stop for a fairly small inventor, who has registered his patent or is registering his patent, with the retailer or the wholesaler, who I presume would be the importer into the United Kingdom? What are the reasonable steps and who would take them? If the case was beautifully presented, my small corner shop would use the wise words of the judgment on planning permission in the Court of Appeal, but I am sure that that is over the head of every small retailer of the kind where we go every morning to buy our newspapers.
  Can the noble Lord explain the practicalities of the patentee going first of all to the retailer or the wholesaler to obtain some satisfaction? Is there something in Clause 11 that I have missed?
  Earl Attlee: Perversely, I have more sympathy for Amendment No. 10 than I do for Amendment No. 12.
  Lord Razzall: I am obviously happy to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Opinions by Patent Office as to validity or infringement]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 6, line 37, leave out "or infringement"
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 18 and 19. The amendments seek to take out anything relating to infringement in Clause 12. We understand why Clause 12 has been introduced but we do not believe that it is the best way of dealing with the problem.
  Various organisations have expressed the view that they do not believe that the Patent Office has the competence to decide on infringements, especially in complex areas such as biotechnology. Many have also expressed the view that the inventive step does not get enough analysis at the Patent Office at the time of grant, which further compromises its ability to decide on infringement. The fact that subsection (4) of proposed new Section 74A states,
  "An opinion under this section shall not be binding for any purposes",
  means that big businesses and infringers will not be deterred. Moreover, if the parties adhere to a nonbinding opinion, they ought to be able to resolve their difficulties themselves without needing to go to the Patent Office. The only possible use of the Patent Office opinion is to tell a patentee that his case is hopeless. An honest patent professional should be able to do that. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: I support my noble friend's plea. I am a trifle worried about biotechnology and science moving ahead quickly. I wonder whether the provision as drafted will be adequate in the circumstances. My noble friend presented a good case; I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  Lord Razzall: I support the amendments, for which we are again grateful for the assistance we have received from the Law Society of Scotland. Let us not delude ourselves that an opinion given by the office—which is not binding but is merely an expression of view—would not be extremely material in a dispute. The concern is that a well funded and well informed company will make a pre-emptive strike when it sees trouble ahead and will initiate an uncontested proceeding in order to obtain an authoritative opinion from an organ of the state. In most cases, that would undoubtedly have the purpose of disadvantaging a prospective adversary.
  I should be letting down the Law Society of Scotland if I were not to use the Latin proposition and ask whether this means that audi alteram parte need not apply in the first instance?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 13 to 19. The purpose of Clause 12 is to provide an interested party with a reliable and realistic assessment of the validity and/or infringement issues that could arise in a possible dispute. We hope that access to an opinion may prove useful in settling disputes.

  GC 375
  An opinion may provide an independent view of certain facts that will help inform a negotiated settlement. Sometimes an opinion may be useful even where there is no current dispute. For example, an opinion might provide a person with an assessment of certain facts relevant to the risks of undertaking an activity that might infringe a patent. That could be useful before the person decides whether to invest in that activity. However, opinions are not binding: no one has to seek one; and no one will be prevented from seeking to have his dispute settled under existing procedures provided by the 1977 Act, either before the courts or before the Patent Office.
  We will not be forcing people to settle their patent disputes by that new procedure. However, that additional procedure could play a useful role in helping business to assess matters relating to patent rights. It must be viewed in that context: it will be an option that people will have to get an opinion. I do not see that getting an opinion would give one an enormously strong position. It would depend on the circumstances and what was the opinion. That is why we see no need for everyone to agree for it to occur.
  In many cases, validity and infringement issues arise in the same dispute. One party could request an opinion on whether a particular patent owned by a second party was valid. The second party might then want to know whether the activity proposed or being carried out by the first party was an infringement of his patent. Permitting opinions to be sought on both issues is not only fair but more likely to enable both parties to make a decision about what to do based on an assessment of all the relevant facts.
  Removing the ability of the Patent Office to issue opinions on infringement issues would significantly weaken the value of the opinion procedure. Its effectiveness will depend on its ability to offer a rapid and reliable assessment of all the possible issues that might arise in the dispute so that the parties can make a realistic assessment of their chances of success and whether a negotiated settlement might be the best option.
  I believe that the reason behind Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 is a concern that the Patent Office does not have the expertise to consider issues of infringement. However, let me reassure noble Lords that the Patent Office has experience in dealing with issues of infringement. In this context, I do not see why biotech should be treated any differently, as it is as much part of what the Patent Office does as other technologies. Patent Office staff deal with such issues when considering applications under Section 71 of the 1977 Act for a declaration of non-infringement. Such declarations are legally binding and indicate that the activity they relate to does not infringe a particular patent. Furthermore, the commercial services provided by the Patent Office, through its search and advisory service, include infringement searching. In 2003, for example, 21 such searches were carried out for commercial customers. Demand for that service continues to grow.
  GC 376
  Moreover, we envisage that the opinion procedure will be essentially paper-based, with the activity that might infringe a patent presented either in a description and/or drawings. Assessing whether what is disclosed in such written evidence is within the scope of the patent claims, which would be necessary in order to provide an opinion on infringement, is in many respects analogous to assessments that patent examiners make during the pre-grant search and examination process.
  As I have already explained, the purpose of Clause 12 is to provide an interested party with an early assessment of the validity and/or infringement issues that could arise in a possible dispute. That is what the opinion procedure adds to the existing remedies available for settling patent disputes, where the outcome is binding. The procedure is totally new for people to use if they want, and we believe that it is possible to make the procedure attractive, because the outcome is not binding.
  If the outcome were binding, as would be the case with Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, it is hard to see what it would add to the range of existing remedies. For example, a person who wants to obtain a binding decision about the validity of another person's patent can essentially seek that through the existing revocation procedures. I cannot envisage that a binding procedure would be particularly attractive for patent proprietors to use in respect of their own patents. Moreover, if the outcome is to be binding, parties will want to use the best representation that they can afford, put all their evidence on the table and seek cross-examination and discovery, just as they do in full-blown proceedings. I cannot, therefore, see how the amendments would help to provide a procedure that is a genuinely new departure.
  Amendment No. 17 would also result in a procedure that does not give a rapid assessment of facts relevant to validity or infringement. If all parties can seek a hearing on whether the procedure should take place, there may be little chance of an opinion on the issues being produced in a timely fashion.
  Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would remove paragraphs (c) and (d) from Section 74B(2). Those paragraphs provide some essential flexibility in how a review process might work. In some cases, a review might involve a detailed assessment of all the relevant facts, where both the patent proprietor and the person who originally requested an opinion present detailed evidence and arguments. In such cases, being able to treat the review as proceedings which could, for example, lead to revocation of the patent, makes sense, as all the relevant issues will have been considered fully. The alternative, with paragraph (c) deleted—as proposed by Amendment No. 18—would be that all the arguments might have to be heard again in separate proceedings.
  Removing paragraph (d), as proposed in Amendment No. 19, would ensure that the outcome of a review can always be appealed to the patents court. However, that will not be appropriate or necessary in all cases. For example, if a patent holder is successful

  GC 377
  at the review stage in overturning an adverse opinion with regard to the validity of his patent, he will have no need to appeal. If a third party who became involved in the review disagrees with the outcome, he can seek revocation of the patent under existing procedures. It is entirely appropriate that the circumstances in which such an appeal can be made may be prescribed, so as to rule out appeals that would serve no useful purpose.
  In the light of those explanations, I strongly urge noble Lords opposite to withdraw all their amendments.
  5.30 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: The Minister came up with some very convincing arguments on previous amendments, but on this group I have to say that I am not as persuaded.
  Under the proposals in Clause 12, a patentee can obtain an opinion from the Patent Office, but the office hears no liability if it gets it wrong. However, if a patentee obtains an opinion from counsel, there is some professional liability, although I admit that it can be difficult to exercise. However, good counsel ought to play the devil's advocate and look at both sides of the matter.
  The noble Lord spoke of the experience of the Patent Office in determining infringement cases. On a previous amendment, the Minister pointed out that the Patent Office can bring in outside experts in the art, but what of the costs involved? How much would those opinions cost to obtain? Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of how much a patentee might expect to have to pay for an opinion from the Patent Office. I shall resume my place if the Minister wants to respond.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I hope I made it clear that the general view is that this can be done using the resources within the Patent Office. Moreover, if it were carried out on the basis of the simplified procedure that I suggested, the cost of that would be significantly less, which would be most advantageous. However, the amendment seeks to explore the basic question of whether people should have the opportunity to go to the Patent Office and obtain a simple view on whether their patent is valid, and whether that view is helpful to them in taking the matter forward.
  At Second Reading I suggested that opinions would cost a few hundred pounds, but we shall consult before details of the procedure are set out. It would not be an expensive procedure on that basis and it would enable people, before they went any further, to see what was the likelihood of progress on the basis of that decision.
  Earl Attlee: I remain unconvinced because I am of the view that the only use would be as a sanity check. However, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Earl Attlee: Following on the arguments to leave out "infringement" from Clause 12, we come to the issue
  GC 378
  that there is already a procedure for assessment on validity. Why do we need to set it out again in another new clause? Is this just excessive legislation?
  Once again, I highlight the fact that subsection (4) of the proposed new section 74A states that an opinion under this section,
  "shall not be binding for any purposes".
  That means that big businesses and infringers will not be deterred. There is also a concern that the Patent Office could end up granting a patent on which it later gives an opinion that it is not valid. Can the Minister say how the Patent Office will be resourced to carry out these opinions—although to an extent he has done so in response to a previous amendment—and who will end up paying for them?
  I agree with the sentiment behind the clause, but I would like to highlight the fact that the Patents County Court was developed to do exactly what this proposed section would do.
  Groups such as the IPI have argued for a more radical approach to thinking in terms of enabling affordable litigation. Can the Minister comment on Section 74(2)(d)? This suggests that a person might not have a right of appeal, which could be contrary to TRIPS and perhaps Article 6 of the ECHR. If so, that is in itself a reason why Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill.
  There is a danger that we will swing too far towards the protection of small businesses if decisions are not appealable. I look forward to the Minister's comments, but I appreciate that he might have to write on one or two points.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Deciding the best way to exploit one's intellectual property assets, such as patents, is increasingly becoming a key objective for UK companies. One such decision that is becoming increasingly common is how best to enforce patents when faced with challenges to their validity or evidence of possible infringement emerges. In that situation, litigation is not always the best option, as it is time-consuming and expensive. Other solutions, such as agreeing licensing terms, may be more beneficial in the long run. The wrong decision at that time can have serious consequences for the future viability of the company, whatever its size.
  In order to assist companies faced with such important decisions, Clause 12 provides for a new procedure whereby any person can request the Patent Office to provide an opinion on issues related to the infringement and/or validity of a patent. Such issues are those that are most likely to arise in patent disputes. We consider that a procedure such as that proposed will give interested parties a realistic assessment of their chances of success or failure in possible future litigation. Thus, it can be a very useful tool in helping a company to make sensible decisions about how best to exploit its intellectual property rights.
  The outcome of the opinion would not be legally binding, but it would be an assessment based on a consideration of both sides of the argument that would

  GC 379
  be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner. Opinions would therefore be available as aids to decision-making. They are not compulsory: if they are helpful, people will use them; if they are not, people will not. At the very least, the situation is no worse than without opinions. At best, people will have an additional tool to help with their decision-making.
  The crux of the issue is that this is an alternative thing that people could do if they find it helpful. Its impact on others seems rather little. It would simply enable a person asking for an opinion to have some more helpful information before taking it forward. However, the possibility of seeking an opinion will not prevent any party who is determined to enter into litigation from doing so. An opinion would not be required before beginning litigation. It is an option only. It is designed to help resolve disputes and not to prolong them.
  Provision is also made under Clause 12 for a review procedure so that patent proprietors who are not satisfied with the outcome of the opinion and who cannot make use of existing procedures under the 1977 Act can seek to have it overturned. I think that I have dealt with the issue of resources already. Of course, the basis is that use could be made of resources already within the Patent Office and there would not need to be a large number of extra resources.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the overview that the Minister has given of Clause 12. Touching on resources, my next amendment will suggest a better use of resources. I am still not convinced. I am sure that we will have to return to the matter. In the mean time, I look forward to the Minister moving his amendment.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 21:
  After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
  "PATENT LEVY
  After section 71 of the 1977 Act (declaration or declaration as to non-infringement) there is inserted—
  "71A PATENT LEVY
  (1) The Secretary of State may by order make a scheme for assisting proprietors of a United Kingdom patent when faced with the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4).
  (2) The order may make provision for a levy as part of the filing fee charged under section 14 of the 1977 Act (making of application), and the levy may not exceed 1.5% of the filing fees.
  (3) Any money raised by the levy under subsection (2) shall form a special litigation fund, and the comptroller may allocate sums from this fund or assist a party or parties in cases of contested infringement in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4).
  (4) The circumstances referred to in subsections (1) and (3) are that—

  (a) the proprietor's opponent has access to vastly greater financial resources than the proprietor;

  (b) the proprietor has not recently acquired the rights to the patent;

  (c) the proprietor has had a favourable opinion from the Patent Office under section 74A of this Act;

  GC 380

  (d) the party to whom the comptroller proposes to allocate funds or assistance has a case which is likely to succeed but for the patentee's lack of financial resources;

  (e) the case is one of general public importance to the United Kingdom; and

  (f) the proprietor is alleging infringement of a United Kingdom or foreign patent that the Patent Office recognises.

  (5) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.""
  The noble Earl said: While studying the background to the Bill, I gave some thought to what was to be done about predatory infringers. At Second Reading, I referred to the Bill promoted by Mr Liddell-Grainger, but that solution has its difficulties. That Bill sought to make exemplary damages available against flagrant infringers. But there are two main difficulties. First, every claim would include for exemplary damages. Secondly, and even worse, it would be necessary to show that the other party had acted improperly or badly. It seems that divorce lawyers try to do that all the time, but it makes amicable agreements almost impossible to secure.
  In the patent world, it would be easy for one side to suddenly see the technical strength of his opponent's case. However, no one would admit that they had behaved badly during proceedings. It often happens that an SME is faced with an opponent with vastly superior financial reserves, perhaps a multi-billion dollar conglomerate with few scruples. On top of the cost of legal advisers, it is often necessary to pay very considerable sums into court as security for costs. An examination of the SM E's accounts would readily reveal his financial ability to do that. The amendment would insert a new clause to allow the Secretary of State to set up a special litigation fund to assist in certain cases.
  Subsection (2) places a limit on the levy. The fund should be limited in size, because there is no intention that every case meeting the criteria laid out in subsection (4) should be given assistance. The idea is that the mega-conglomerates should always run the risk that, instead of teasing a small, weak SME with a brilliant patent it could face the wrath of the Patent Office. Suddenly it is not a cheerful chappie from Victoria Street in Thoroton having a valiant go on behalf of his client; it is Clifford Chance, and counsel will be Mr Floyd QC.
  In other words, it is a deterrent not a solution to every instance of wilful or flagrant infringement. The Patent Office would not be obliged or even able to pursue every case that met the criteria. This is not a patents legal aid scheme for all. At present, there is little risk at all for a financially strong infringer. Some cases involving disproportionate resources might be resolved very rapidly following the intervention of the Patent Office.
  Of course, it may not be legal to discriminate in favour of British or even European patent holders. There should be no intention to do that, since it may well be desirable to provide assistance in a purely domestic case.
  I have now calculated that a 1.5 per cent levy on search and examination fees would raise only about £40,000 per annum. That would clearly not be enough to make any difference at all. In some cases it may be necessary to put 1 million US dollars into court as security for costs.
  However, it is worth remembering that the Patent Office runs a substantial financial surplus. When he was speaking to Clause 12, the Minister suggested how he would like to use that surplus. But can the Minister explain what is currently happening to the surplus? Where does the money go? If it is to support innovation, how does it do so? The important point on funding is that the litigation fund should not be paid for through general taxation. The taxpayer has enough problems as it is.
  It is significant that the Patent Office would act independently in this area. It would not be a case of the Secretary of State picking winners.
  A number of other conditions that have to be met before assistance can be given are suggested in subsection (4). I will not weary the Committee by describing each one in turn.
  Certainly the amendment is aimed at security of court costs, but other assistance could be provided. The Patent Office may even pick up the whole case on behalf of the proprietor. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: I support my noble friend Lord Attlee in his eloquent presentation of the proposed new clause. However, it has been brought to my attention that the industry may be worried by an additional levy.
  I understand that in many cases the cost of presenting a major patent can be in the region of 3 million US dollars. A 1.5 per cent levy would not seem very much. But 35,000 to 40,000 US dollars on every application made would soon mount up. I begin to worry a trifle that this could be a needless irritant. Perhaps I might refine my noble friend's amendment by suggesting that it might be feasible to limit the slight extra levy to those found to have infringed a patent.
  At the same time, my noble friend has brought forward an amendment that seeks to bring the law of patents back towards the small man, to whom I referred at an earlier stage as David versus Goliath.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would insert a new Section 71A in the Patents Act 1977 which would allow the Secretary of State to establish a levy on all patent applications in order to raise moneys for a fund, referred to as a "special litigation fund", to assist patent holders with the costs of infringement proceedings in certain circumstances. These special circumstances are listed in proposed Section 71A(4).
  I think that the amendment is very premature. Such a significant change to current legislation can be made only following a full and proper consultation process. The Government have been keen to ensure that proposed new legislation is subject to proper
  GC 382
  consultation so that its advantages, disadvantages and long-term effects can be explored in sufficient detail to ensure that it will fulfil its intended purpose and function. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this proposal, on which there has been no consultation whatever. Before producing this kind of legislation, surely we need to undertake consultation because this idea is difficult, although important. We have started to look at the issue, but it is early days.
  The difficulties that some patent proprietors experience in enforcing their patents has been the subject of much discussion in recent times among those involved in the innovation and intellectual property fields, and has even attracted some interest in the press. While it is fair to say that the problem has now been recognised, there is still much argument over how best to solve it. For example, some experienced practitioners in the patent field do not think that a special litigation fund, whether or not supported by such a levy, is a workable solution. Committing to one option such as that proposed in this amendment, without fully exploring and comparing it with alternatives, would be a failure to act responsibly and could lead to all sorts of unforeseen difficulties downstream.
  In addition to the lack of consultation on this proposal, there is also the need to ensure that any provision is compatible with our commitments under European and international law. If access to such a special litigation fund were restricted to patent proprietors who are UK nationals, such a preferential treatment of UK nationals over others might infringe our commitments under the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the TRIPS agreement. Restricting access to such a fund to UK nationals would also raise EU state aid implications.
  Of course, this amendment is limited to raising funds for litigation from a patent levy. Were a litigation fund thought to be a good idea, and the solutions to any problems identified found, there are many ways that funding might be forthcoming. For example, funding could come from participating patentees directly, or from government funding for supporting business in various ways, instead of a levy on patents. Although the provision that would be added to the Bill by this amendment is only an order-making power and thus would not ever have to be used, its very existence could nevertheless preclude a proper consideration and evaluation of the right way to provide the funding. This could have a damaging effect on our ability to decide what is the best approach were support of this type to proceed.
  I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking steps to address the difficulties of enforcing patents. Several provisions of the Bill are designed to help with enforcement of patent rights. In addition, negotiations on a proposed EU directive concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which will also address some of the difficulties in this area, are at an advanced stage. Adoption of the directive may well take place before May. Moreover, the Patent Office, through its Patent Enforcement Project, has

  GC 383
  recently accepted a tender for a study on the feasibility of a fund of the type proposed by this amendment. This work is therefore at an early stage, but a proper and full evaluation of all the factors is the right way to proceed.
  We do consider that there is an issue here. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords when I say that we are on the side of David against Goliath, but we need to be certain that David is truly being bullied by Goliath and so we need to look carefully at the best way to help David if it turns out that there is a serious problem here.
  For these reasons, the Government are unable to accept the amendment at this stage and I strongly urge the noble Earl to withdraw the it.
  Earl Attlee: The Minister referred to lack of consultation. That never prevents the Government from tabling legislation. I have only to think of the provision on clandestine entrances in goods vehicles, which was introduced as an amendment on Report in the House of Commons and not debated at all. We discussed it in the House of Lords, but there was no consultation about it and the industry was very upset. Although I understand the need for consultation, it is not necessarily a reason for not doing anything on the matter.
  Why has the Minister not thought of consulting on the matter? He has consulted on the Patents Bill and the implementation of the EPC, which is obviously very desirable. If, in less than a couple of weeks, I can come up with the idea of some sort of special litigation fund, it is surprising that the Minister, with the benefit of all his officials, has not thought of consulting on the issue himself.
  The Minister mentioned the obvious point about the difficulties, in terms of competition law, of supporting UK nationals. We might want to support European patents; the Minister touched on the European directive on intellectual property rights, which we hope will be welcome. He also touched on the possibility of the Government, through the DTI, funding such cases. The attraction of my amendment is that we would get away from the Government and the Secretary of State picking winners. The activity would be for the Patent Office on its own, judging the merits of a patent and whether it needed to be protected.
  I shall read what the Minister said very carefully and in due course decide what I shall do with my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Amendments, repeals and revocations]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  "(3) Article 6 of the Patent Office Trading Fund Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/1796) is revoked."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
  Page 12, line 1, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
  "(1) Section 22 (information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) is amended as follows.
  (2) In the heading, for "defence of realm" there is substituted "national security".
  (3) In subsections (1) and (5)(a), (c) and (d), for "the defence of the realm" there is substituted "national security".
  (4) In subsection (6)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "inspect and authorise" to "in connection with it" there is substituted—

  "(i) inspect the application and any documents sent to the comptroller in connection with it;

  (ii) authorise a government body with responsibility for the production of atomic energy or for research into matters connected with its production or use, or a person appointed by such a government body, to inspect the application and any documents sent to the comptroller in connection with it;";

  (b) for the words from "that Authority" to the end there is substituted "a government body or a person appointed by a government body carries out an inspection which the body or person is authorised to carry out under paragraph (a) above, the body or (as the case may be) the person shall report on the inspection to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable.""

  Page 12, line 29, at end insert
  "In section 41(10) (method of enforcing in Scotland certain orders made by comptroller). for "a recorded decree arbitral" there is substituted "an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.""
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Commencement etc]:
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 8, line 14, leave out "Section 14(3)(b) and paragraphs 5,6" and insert "Paragraphs 5"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 8, line 21, at end insert—
  "(4A) A statutory instrument containing provision made by virtue of subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, unless the only such provision it contains is transitory, transitional or saving provision."
  The noble Lord said: The amendments to Clause 15 include Amendment No. 28, which, although it will not be moved, I shall try to sweep up in the generality of what I say. I am quite sure that that offends against some principle or other, but let me do my best.
  Under Clause 15(6), commencement orders which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an Act are subject to an affirmative procedure, but otherwise

  GC 385
  orders under Clause 15 are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended in its report of 29 January 2004 that certain orders—other than those falling under subsection (6)—be subject to the negative procedure.
  I appreciate that it is at least very likely that noble Lords tabled Amendment No. 28 in response to that recommendation, but its effect would be that an order which contained even the smallest and simplest transitional provision would be subject to the negative procedure. It would be unduly burdensome if an order were made subject to that procedure simply because, for example, it ensured that a particular provision in the Bill applied only to patents granted after the provision came into force. In short, the procedure would be disproportionate.
  None the less, the Government are keen to act on the committee's recommendation. That purpose must guide all noble Lords in their consideration of this matter. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are therefore what we hope will be a practical alternative. They ensure that orders which contain any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision are subject to the negative procedure; but orders which contain only transitory, transitional or saving provision are not subject to such procedure. That is the distinction. As before, orders which make textual amendments to Acts will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
  The committee acknowledges in its report, as noble Lords will know, that such an arrangement is not without precedent. One such precedent, for the sake of illustration, is Section 276 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
  In the light of that explanation and the amendments that the Government have tabled today, I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendment and support the Government's response to the committee's report. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of his amendments. It is not profitable to duplicate the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On that basis, provided that we get a clean bill of health from that committee for the Government's amendments, I shall support them and not move mine.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 8, line 27, at end insert; and subsection (4A) does not apply to such an instrument"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Grand Committee adjourned at four minutes before six o'clock.

  Ulster Scots
  Ulster Scots
  Northern Ireland Equality Commission
  Northern Ireland Equality Commission
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Northern Ireland: Environment and Heritage Service
  Northern Ireland: Environment and Heritage Service
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Gulf War 1990–91: Kuwaiti Prisoners
  Gulf War 1990–91: Kuwaiti Prisoners
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  Alcohol-related Crime
  Alcohol-related Crime
  Armed Forces: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Armed Forces: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Obesity
  Obesity
  Simvastatin
  Simvastatin
  Post Office: Delivery of Party Election Material
  Post Office: Delivery of Party Election Material
  Pension Protection Fund
  Pension Protection Fund
  Disability Benefits
  Disability Benefits
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Motability
  Motability
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Common Agricultural Policy: Integrated Administration and Control Scheme
  Common Agricultural Policy: Integrated Administration and Control Scheme

  NHS Trusts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Pursuant to the dissolution of 16 National Health Service trusts since 1 August 2002 and their reconfiguration through the establishment of seven new NHS trusts, I propose to create originating capital for the new NHS trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.

  Assets from some of the dissolved trusts were also transferred to primary care trusts. Public dividend capital is not required as a financing transaction for these transfers as primary care trusts are subject to a different financial regime. Net assets transferred from dissolving NHS trusts to primary care trusts are reflected in an increase to the general fund of the primary care trust.

  These operations involved no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Council for Science and Technology
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister today appointed 16 members to the Council for Science and Technology following its recent review. The appointments represent a wide range of experience from the scientific community, business and charities. The 16 appointments are:

  Professor Sir John Beringer CBE

  Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE FRS FRSE

  Professor Janet Finch CBE DL AcSS

  Mr Andrew Gould

  Professor Wendy Hall CBE FREng

  Dr Hermann Hauser FREng CBE CPhys FInstP

  Dr Dieter Helm

  Professor Alan Hughes

  Dr Sue Ion OBE FREng

  Dr Rob Margetts CBE FREng

  Sir Paul Nurse FRS

  Sir Keith Peters FRS PMedSci

  Dr Raj Rajagopal FREng CEng FIEE FIMechE FIE FCMI

  WS 64

  Professor Michael Sterling FREng

  Professor Kathy Sykes

  Dr Mark Walport FMedSci

  The Council for Science and Technology is government's top level independent advisory body on strategic policy for science, engineering and technology. Its advice has been instrumental in helping the Government develop their present strategies for improving the excellence of the research base and putting it on a sustainable footing, for improving science education and for making effective use of science, engineering and technology. On 22 July 2003 the Government announced updated terms of reference and a new organisation for the CST to reflect the needs of the UK Government and the devolved administrations for advice in coming years.

  The CST will report to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the devolved administrations. The 16 members will choose one of their number to act as co-chair alongside the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King.

  Full details of the CST's terms of reference and organisation, and biographies of the members, can be found at www.cst.gov.uk.

  Decisions on appointments have been made following open competition and wide consultation with key players.

  Deepcut: Surrey Police Final Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  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 learnt and the action taken as a result. The

  WS 65
  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 assessing progress in implementing recommendations (Hansard 10 February 2003 col. 35WS, and 16 July 2003 col. 42WS).

  We are committed to continuous improvement in the training and care regime, and will look carefully at
  WS 66
  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.