Sitting of 9 March 2004

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

    Bus Companies
    Kevin Brennan: What plans he has to allow more commercial freedom for municipally owned bus companies. [159429]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): May I convey my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's apologies for his absence? He has written to the Opposition and your good self, Mr. Speaker. He is taking part in the Transport Council in Brussels.
    The Government have no plans to make changes to municipally owned bus companies.
    Kevin Brennan: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is in Brussels, which has an excellent municipally owned bus company, just as Cardiff has Is it not about time that we looked again at the commercial freedom of municipally owned bus companies, which are shackled by the regulations introduced under the Tories in the 1980s, when there was a fetish for privatisation? Is it not time to consider giving them the freedom to develop properly integrated public transport systems in our cities?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that municipally owned bus companies operate in a competitive market, alongside private sector buses, in some 17 towns and cities in this country. I am happy to share his comments about the efficacy of Cardiff's municipal bus company, but the; Government intend that those companies should continue to be free to get on with the business of running their buses, without any advantage or disadvantage because of their municipal status.
    Chris Grayling: Is not the problem with buses not the commercial freedoms of the municipal companies, but the way in which the subsidy provided by the public sector for bus services is so heavily skewed in favour of certain parts of the country?
    1360
    In Surrey, bus services are disappearing while hundreds of buses are being put on to the roads every day, courtesy of the taxpayer, across the border in London. When will the Government provide a better balance between the funding allocated to London and the other major metropolitan areas and the surrounding rural and semi-rural areas that are losing bus services for want of money?
    Mr. McNulty: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in asking about how poor Surrey's buses are during a question on municipally owned bus companies. In the first instance, he should take up the case with Surrey county council, which, I believe, is neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat-controlled.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Is not one of the problems with the better integration of bus services—whether municipal or privately owned—the attitude of the Competition Commission to matters such as the interchangeablility of fares and tickets? The Competition Commission seems to take the view that they may be anti-competitive, so bus companies and organisations cannot serve the public in the way that they want by making bus fares interchangeable.
    Mr. McNulty: I can happily tell my hon. Friend that he is just a tad behind the times. Last week, I had the great pleasure of launching the Solent travelcard, which involves some 14 bus companies working together, with interchangeable fares, in Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire, so that people can travel throughout that area without worrying about the confusion of whether they have the right bus ticket for each bus company. I hope that that, rather than what my hon. Friend describes, is a portent for the future.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. Archie Normanv: What plans he has to amend the guidelines for siting speed cameras. [159430]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The safety camera partnerships have prepared their 2004–05 operational cases on the basis of the "Handbook of rules and guidelines for the operation of the national road safety camera programme", dated 31 October 2003, which includes the criteria for the sitting of cameras. The handbook is kept under review.
    Mr. Norman: Will the Minister acknowledge that, although several speed cameras in my constituency have a negligible bearing on safety, the guidelines prevent us from getting a speed camera in the worst accident blackspot in the area—on the A21 at Flimwell, where 11 fatalities and nearly 100 accidents have occurred in the past five years—because the police say that the speed limit cannot be reduced because the traffic goes too fast. We cannot get a speed camera in place exactly because the speed limit is too high. Will he acknowledge that the guidelines for speed limits and speed cameras need to be integrated, so that we can address the problem of the worst blackspots and remove those cameras that have no real bearing on safety?
    Mr. Jamieson: I note that the hon. Gentleman has called for a relaxation of the rules on the placing of cameras. That is certainly echoed by a number of authorities around the country that have written to us after we asked them at Christmas whether all their cameras met the criteria, and we will consider that. The police have a certain amount of discretion, but we will look at that. Of course he may want to have a discussion with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—the Conservative spokesman—who has a very different view on such matters.
    The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) says that some of the cameras in his constituency are ineffective. Before a camera was fitted at the A264 Langton road-Langton green junction in December 2000, there were 16 crashes and four people were killed or seriously injured. Since the camera was fitted, there have been two crashes and no one has been killed or seriously injured.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people still do not get it? If we could reduce excessive and inappropriate speeds, we could reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. If education is the problem, could some more money from speed camera fines be used for education—specifically, for speed awareness courses?
    Mr. Jamieson: We have no such intention at the moment. The money from fines goes entirely towards maintaining cameras and ensuring that they are in the right places. I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted, as I have, that although I have asked the hon. Member for Ashford several times to tell us where the 4,000 cameras that are in the wrong places are, as yet we have heard nothing from him. I look forward to hearing him speak at the Dispatch Box today.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Minister aware that, despite the introduction of a large number of speed cameras in Hampshire, the fact is that fatalities in Hampshire have risen over the past two years? Is he aware that a representative of our safety camera partnership—I think that that is a misnomer in any case—is reported as saying:
    "Where we've put cameras, we've had a reduction in casualties… Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras"?
    Is not that kind of view doing a great disservice to road safety policy? Surely road safety is a question not only of cameras, but of routine policing as well?
    Mr. Jamieson: First, the Hampshire partnership informed us that its cameras were in places that met the Department's criteria. Secondly, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talk to his partnership to find out what has happened on accident reduction in places where cameras have been sited. If he is saying that there are more casualties in his area, he may be arguing for more road safety features, which might include more cameras. He might want to have discussions with the hon. Member for Ashford, who I notice is silent on this matter and seems to have given up on providing the evidence that he says exists to show that 4,000 cameras are in the wrong places.
    John Mann: If anyone can identify one of the useless cameras that is not working, I will do them a deal. I will swap them the road humps that I still have in Warsop in my constituency for a speed camera. I have a whole series of constituents who want speed cameras. If a community wants a speed camera, should it not be able to decide that through a ballot in a referendum instead of being fobbed off with useless excuses about why it cannot have one?
    Mr. Jamieson: I know my hon. Friend's views on road humps, and I think that he would agree that finding appropriate measures in a specific area is what reduces the speed of traffic. I know that his view is shared on a cross-party basis because we have received a letter from West Sussex county council, which says of cameras
    "However their activities are somewhat constrained through the strict rules on where cameras can be deployed. I receive many requests from parish councils and others for more flexibility on this issue."
    The letter is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Tex Pemberton, OBE, who, I believe, is a Conservative councillor on the council.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am always willing to meet popular demand.
    The Minister will be aware that when he solemnly announced last week that every single speed camera was in exactly the right place—based on evidence provided by the speed camera partnerships that put them where they were in the first place—he simply made himself look ridiculous. He keeps asking for examples of wrongly placed speed cameras, so I invite him to talk to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has just removed hundreds of cameras because they were in the wrong position. What does the Minister say to the Automobile Association, which says:
    "No partnerships are going to say cameras need to be taken down because they would risk not being able to cover their costs … In fact the pressure is on them to keep putting up more cameras just to pay for the ever-rising numbers of staff"?
    Does the Minister agree with the AA and us that we need a proper independent audit of the cameras to ensure that each one is helping road safety and not just making money for bureaucrats and the Government?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, although I do not think that he had intended to do so before I challenged him. First, the Metropolitan police have quite properly reviewed their cameras, as we asked all partnerships to do. The letter that we received from the London partnership told us that all its cameras were in places that met the criteria. The hon. Gentleman is essentially saying that the criteria should be altered or adjusted. He still has not substantiated the comments that he made to the Media around Christmas and new year saying that most of the cameras were in inappropriate places. That is not shown by evidence from councils because I have letters from all the partnerships—if he wants to have a look at them, they are from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councils and from chief constables. If he wants to say that cameras are in inappropriate places, he should come before the House with evidence, but so far, he has failed to do so.
    Mr. Green: The Minister appears to be deaf, as I have just pointed out that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said that he wants to remove hundreds of cameras. He may wish to treat the commissioner with contempt, so let us see how he reacts to the chief constable of Durham, a county with a very good road safety record, who writes that the cameras catch vehicles exceeding the speed limit in only 3 to 4 per cent of collisions. He also says—significantly, this is the issue that the Minister consistently ignores—that unlike many police forces Durham has
    "not reduced the number of road policing officers".
    Is that not the key? The Minister wants more cameras and fewer traffic police, but we want to keep the traffic police and put cameras only where they are needed. Does he agree that it is time to change his policy, which is damaging relations between the police and the general public, and is emphatically not the best way to make our roads safer?
    Mr. Jamieson: In the case of Durham, I had asked for an explanation of the reason why casualties had gone up, whereas they have gone down in many neighbouring authorities. The hon. Gentleman has still not dealt with the main point. He has backed off from talking about those 4,000 sites, and I believe that the ought to withdraw that comment. I have received comments from the partnerships, many of which cover areas represented by his party, including his own partnership in Kent. It referred to his remarks in the press, and said:
    "When is the non-sense that is regularly promoted in the national media going to be proactively countered?"
    I urge the hon. Gentleman to counter that impression. He does not have a policy but a posture. He will remain in opposition with those arguments and we will remain in government until he learns that he is not practising opposition but opportunism.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Could the Minister tell the House how many motorists who keep within the lay when passing speed cameras are prosecuted? Is it not time that we strengthened the guidelines so that the safety partnerships can consider any site where there has been a personal injury? Should we not give priority to consideration of the families of people who die or are seriously injured on our roads?
    Mr. Jamieson: That is the point The policy is not about catching people or raising money but about reducing death and injury on our roads. It has been manifestly shown that, where cameras are sited, there is on average a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on the road. My hon. Friend makes a good point—people who stick to the law and stay within the speed limit are driving safely. The vast majority of motorists do so, and they are not fined.

    Railways
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What steps are being taken to reduce costs in the railway industry; and if he will make a statement. [159431]
    John Barrett: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to reduce costs within the railway industry. [159432]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Controlling costs is a key challenge facing the railways, and both the Government and the Office of the Rail Regulator have made that clear to rail companies. Over the past eight months or so, considerable progress has been made on getting a grip on costs and delivering greater efficiency, and the rail review is examining what can be done to accelerate that.
    Mr. Burstow: Is it not time to have a look at the profits made by rolling stock companies and the charges that they impose on train operating companies for the hire of railway equipment? Is it right that £144,000 a year is paid for a two-coach Pacer, when it originally cost £350,000 to build and lasts for 20 years? Is it not time to include ROSCOs—the rolling stock companies—in the
    remit of the regulator so that their costs and the proportion of costs that they pass on to train operating companies and ultimately the taxpayer can also be looked at?
    Dr. Howells: That is a good question, and it is certainly addressed in the rail review. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, over the past seven years, ROSCOs have invested more than £4 billion in new rolling stock, and 4,000 carriages—about a third of the total UK fleet—have been replaced. We are interested in considering charges and profit margins to see how it might be possible to get better value out of our railways in general.
    John Barrett: Will the Minister confirm that, in attempting to cut costs in the railway industry, safety will never be compromised, so that events such as Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar will never happen again?
    Dr. Howells: Yes. I appreciate the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I find it curious, since the ethos of the railways has always been safety first, and it continues to be so. We should not be risk-averse as a society. There will always be risks involved in running the railways; we have to cut those risks down to an absolute minimum. The railway authorities are trying to do precisely that.
    Clive Efford: On costs, will my hon. Friend look into the upgrade of the electricity supply on network south-east to ensure that we are getting value for money? I have been advised by the Strategic Rail Authority that even once the electricity supply is upgraded, we will not be able to run 12-car trains across the entire network throughout peak periods. If we do not plan for the long-term future, we may soon find ourselves unable to run longer trains or meet capacity needs. I urge him to look into that matter.
    Dr. Howells: I will certainly look into it, although I have not heard the report myself. The absurdity of

    1365
    having leased and ordered huge amounts of new rolling stock without realising that it could not be run on the southern region because the electricity supply was not up to it has become a famous misdemeanour in the administration of the railways. We are spending £1 billion on upgrading the power supply to the southern region in the belief that it will enable us to run new and longer trains that will serve customers better.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend welcome the Strategic Rail Authority's recent announcement of its review of community rail partnerships such as that in my constituency between Whitby and Middlesbrough? Does he agree that that will drive down costs on the railways by re-establishing the important link between local communities and the railway industry?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, I do. There are opportunities for all kinds of imaginative ways of running the railways better. Often, local circumstances dictate how best the railway should be run in that area, and a great deal can be done to tap the creative potential that is there to provide better service for customers.
    John Thurso: Does the Minister agree that the amount of cost mismanagement on the rail system demonstrates incompetence on a monumental scale, especially as the number of bureaucrats involved in supervising and regulating the industry has increased fivefold in the past decade and the amount spent on consultants has tripled in one year? Who among all those bureaucrats and consultants is responsible for proper cost controls and internal audit? Is it the Strategic Railway Authority, Network Rail, the rail regulator or, ultimately, the Government? Where does the buck stop?
    Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the industry is administered in far too complex a way. There are too many chiefs, and the lines of command are too long and need to be shortened. We must be able to make decisions—very often, vital decisions—uch more quickly to produce a better railway. The Office of the Rail Regulator has identified £5 billion-worth of savings. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the confusion that exists. When I came into this job last July, the cost of the west coast mainline upgrade was about £14 billion. It began at £2 billion, and is now down to about £7.5 billion. Those cost predictions are flexible, by any standards. We are getting a grip on the situation, but that should have happened long before last summer.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend knows that Network Rail tries hard to get control over costs and it should be encouraged to do that. However, there is still too much fragmentation. Will he ensure that Network Rail has access to a sensible set of costs and that contractors are told that the days of fleecing the taxpayer are over?
    Dr. Howells:Yes. Network Rail's decision to take maintenance contracts in-house is a good start that will probably save the taxpayer approximately £300 million a year. More important, it will get the work done more
    1366
    efficiently and probably to higher standards. That is good news for those who use the railways and will lead to building up a skills base in Network Rail. That will be useful to the organisation in future.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the Minister thereby apologising for the fact that since 1997, the cost of providing; our railways has trebled? Does he agree with this week's report from Transport 2000 that much of the extra money
    "has been wasted on inefficiencies and incompetence at every turn"?
    Dr. Howells:We have discussed the matter several times and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is generous, will admit that we inherited a ramshackle vehicle in the form of Railtrack and a system that was fatally flawed. We are trying to create a much better railway system. That will take some doing because he was right about the grave flaws, some of which continue to exist. We have tried to tackle them in the past seven years but there is no question that we have not been entirely successful. If that sounds like an apology, I hope that he will accept it
    Mrs. Ann Cryer rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) again.
    Mr. Chope: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two goes today.

    Does the Minister accept that the reason for the delay in publishing the National Audit Office report, which is out today, is the huge scale and gravity of the waste of taxpayers' money the t it has uncovered? Does he further accept that it is time for the Government to learn the lesson, "Waste not, want not"? Is not it apparent from his previous answer that the Government inherited railway costs that are one third of current costs?
    Dr. Howells: It is true that costs were one third of current costs. They have increased by so much because there had been no investment in the railways before we took them over. That was proved when the terrible accident occurred at Hatfield, and Railtrack—the company that the Conservative Government set up—had no idea of its asset base. When we began to realise the number of broken rails and the extent of repair that was needed to the infrastructure, we understood that the railways needed investment. The Government are doing precisely that for the first time in 30 years.
    Mrs. Cryer:The economy is booming, especially in cities such as Leeds, which acts as a magnet and draws in an ever increasing number of commuters from areas such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we need to cut the profits of the ROSCOs, which were a result of privatisation, we should try to run more trains and strengthen provision for people such as those in my constituency who use the Airedale and Wharfedale lines?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that we could run more trains on the Airedale and Wharfedale line. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Japan, where rail infrastructure

    1367
    is 25 per cent. greater than ours. It has 20,000 km of track whereas we have 16,000 km. Last year, the railways in this country carried 1 billion passengers—the highest number since 1961—but the Japanese carried 21.7 billion. We ought to be able to squeeze much more capacity out of our railways. We have much to learn from the Japanese and we had better start learning it.

    Airports
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What plans his Department has to review the cross-subsidy of airports in the south-east. [159434]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The Government have no such plans.
    Mr. Prisk: Many airlines at Heathrow and Gatwick strongly oppose the idea of cross-subsidising a runway at Stansted. They would not benefit from that, and it would serve their competitors. Given that opposition, what assurances has the Minister received from BAA that it will be able to fund the whole le scheme, including road and rail access?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do exactly what is in the White Paper, where we clearly say that the Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. We expect BAA to bring forward plans for the development of new capacity at Stansted in a way that is responsive to market needs, and to provide the necessary funding. We fully recognise the independence of the Civil Aviation Authority and its role in regulating the sector, and the Government expect the CAA and BAA to secure an appropriate framework to bring the development to fruition.
    Mr. Graham Stringer: Is not the best way to deal with the crocs-subsidy issue to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Transport, and break up BAA? That would not only deal with cross-subsidies but remove something that has been a great barrier to providing runway infrastructure in the south-east for the past 60 years.
    Mr. McNulty: The CAA has made it clear that its policy of regulating each airport on an individual, stand-alone basis was introduced earlier last year, after consultation, to underpin commercial disciplines for airport development. The CAA has no plans to consult on that again. That would remain the reality, regardless of who owned the airports in the south-east.
    Mr. Edward GamierThe expansion of Stansted airport is of great local interest, as is the expansion of East Midlands airport. When will the Minister respond to my e-mails and rearrange the cancelled meeting on that?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be very clear today, although he was not at the business statement, that that meeting, which was called not by his good self but by another east midlands
    1368
    Member, was duly cancelled by that Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman's notion that my office cancelled it is erroneous. I am more than happy to have that meeting, which was to discuss the change of name at East Midlands airport, and any subsequent meetings, and I shall answer his e-mail in due course.

    Trams
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on tramway refurbishment. [159435]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Tramway refurbishment is a matter for the local authorities or the private concessionaire.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for his useful and illuminating answer. He knows Blackpool well, and he knows the support that the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and I have given to Blackpool borough council's application for assistance in the refurbishment of its tramway. The Minister also knows the importance of that project to the whole Fylde coast transport infrastructure, and he will appreciate that it is the key to further evaluation of possible light rail developments to Preston and beyond. In the light of those points, when is his Department likely to make up its mind on giving support to Blackpool? Does he recognise the importance of keeping the existing tramway infrastructure in good condition?
    Dr. Howells: It is important to keep the existing tramway system in good condition, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Department's decision on the bid will be made in the context of the wider transport programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will endeavour to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Clive Betts: In considering future investment in trams, the Minister might like to reflect on the success of the Sheffield supertram, which carries 12 million passengers a year. I hope that he will consider favourably plans for its extension to Rotherham. Will he also reflect on the complete nonsense of bus deregulation, which means that we do not have integrated transport at local level because trams and buses do not run together, and that we do not have proper joined-up timetabling or through-ticketing? Does he agree that to receive the best return on investment in trams, we need to ensure that buses and trams are co-ordinated at local level and do not run in competition?
    Dr. Howells: I agree with my hon. Friend that, wherever possible, properly integrated transport systems for passengers should be constructed. That is not rocket science, but there is not a blueprint for one system that works better than all others. Transport systems need co-ordination and joint input, and local authorities, private companies and passengers' representatives should be able to get together to deliver just that.

    Merchant Shipping
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the level of piracy and armed attacks against UK flagged merchant ships. [159436]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The number of piracy and armed attacks on United Kingdom flagged merchant vessels has risen from one or two a year in the mid-1990s to six in 2003. That is clearly unacceptable. Over the years, my Department, in partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has launched a range of initiatives to raise the profile of the issue around the world. We continue to work with the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, the International Maritime Organisation and the maritime industry on this issue.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that very helpful and comprehensive answer. He will be aware that the problem is particularly acute in Indonesian waters around the Malacca straits and Bintan island, where, last year alone, there were 121 reported incidents. Will he add his weight to the call by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers for the Royal Navy to provide protection for our merchant fleet in areas where there is a known danger?
    Mr. Jamieson: The incidents are fairly narrowly focused. Of the six incidents involving UK ships last year, two took place off Guyana, and the others took place off India, Vietnam, Cuba and Nigeria. I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that they were therefore widely spaced around the world. I am pleased to say that no one was injured in any of them; the ships were all at anchor and the incidents mainly involved robbery. We are working closely with those countries, in particular, and with the IMO to try to rid the seas of this problem. Given its geographical spread, however, I am sure that he will appreciate that it would be almost impossible for the Royal Navy to make even a minor impact on such a situation. We are mindful of the problem, however, and I am aware of NUMAST's concerns. We take this issue very seriously.
    Patrick Mercer: The Minister will be aware of how narrow the dividing line is between piracy, armed attacks and terrorism against shipping. What processes are in place to brief the merchant marine on the intelligence regarding the threat that faces it when travelling in such dangerous waters?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman will of course know that we cannot discuss in the House matters of security or of how we pass on such information in this context. He will probably be aware, however, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has made available to all UK flagged ships clear guidelines on how they should react in these circumstances. The United Kingdom also played a major part in drawing up the IMO's code of practice for ships. Furthermore, much of the work that we are doing internationally on port security also relates to maritime security. There is therefore a lot going on in this area, and there are a great
    1370
    many concerns. We are addressing these problems and taking a lead in the world on ensuring that we solve them.

    School Transport
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What steps he is taking to improve the safety of school transport. [159437]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Buses, coaches and minibuses used for the transport of children to and from school are subject to safety standards, as are all passenger-carrying vehicles. Before such vehicles go into service, they are inspected and certified. After that, they are tested annually and can be subjected to random roadside checks. I am not aware of there being any particular problems with the safety of school buses.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that in a rural area such as my own, the safety of children being transported on school buses is of the utmost importance to their parents. What opportunities will the new Bill being published on school transport provide to ensure that schoolchildren are taken on buses that are fully fitted with seat belts and that we get rid of the invidious three children to a seat rule?
    Mr. Jamieson: The safety of children on transport to school is absolutely paramount to us. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have policies to encourage cycling, walking and, of course, the use of buses rather than cars. He will also be aware that seat belts have to be fitted for journeys that children take within the school day, but that does not always apply to buses. The issue of seat belts has not presented a major problem to us, but over a period of time seat belts will gradually come in, because buses are gradually being fitted with bucket seats rather than bench seats, which will overcome the problem of three children sitting in a seat for two. Even that has not presented itself as a problem, however. One of the biggest problems that we have found often involves not the state of the bus but the behaviour of the children.
    Mr. John Smith: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the tragic death of my constituent, Stuart Cunningham-Jones, on the way home from school. Does he have plans, however, to review the minimum standards, and the ludicrous three-for-two arrangement, in the light of the coroner's report and the recommendations by both the jury and the coroner in relation to that tragic death?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am aware of the tragic death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones. Now that we have seen the coroner's letter on the matter, we are considering his recommendations carefully. In his letter, he said that on this occasion seatbelts did not play a part in the tragedy, but he emphasises that the behaviour of the children on the bus was a major factor. Bus drivers who work the school run are receiving special training, and the Department for Education and Skills is also examining

    1371
    the issue. The draft Bill that was published yesterday will address not just issues relating to the use of buses but safety issues.
    Mr. John Redwood: Given that most deaths and injuries on public service vehicles are caused by passengers being flung around in a crash, why does the Minister not simply say that all new buses and trains should have seatbelts fitted so that they match the standards of private cars? Our children would then be a lot safer.
    Mr. Jamieson: The rules, of course, are that all new coaches and minibuses must have seatbelts fitted. There is not an intention to fit seatbelts in buses on scheduled journeys, mainly travelling at slow speeds in urban areas, partly because it is totally impractical to do so. Generally, the problem is not in relation to buses that travel around city streets relatively slowly but in relation to higher speeds in other areas and on other roads. We are not complacent about the issue, however, and clearly, we will have to address it even more seriously in future.

    Nottingham Express Transport System
    Paddy Tipping: When he intends to visit Nottingham to travel on the Nottingham express transport system. [159439]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): My hon. Friend's skill at tabling questions is unsurpassed, as he is both timely and prescient, given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Nottingham yesterday to open the Nottingham express transit line 1 and had the opportunity to meet local authority officials to discuss local transport issues and their successes in Nottingham.
    Paddy Tipping: Clearly, the Secretary of State is ahead of the time, given that fee-paying passengers were not able to use the tram until 5.58 this morning. The Minister will be aware that the local authorities, Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council, have worked for many years to open line 1, and want to create a network—line 2 and 3. Will the Department work closely with the local authorities to ensure that we have a network to meet customer needs across Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that we expect the first line to attract an estimated 11 million-plus passengers and to be a real boon to Nottingham, not simply in transport terms but as a catalyst for regeneration. We always work closely with local authorities as and when they determine plans for future additions to networks, and we look forward to receiving Nottingham's subsequent plans eventually. Nottingham will base that on a very strong record in terms of local transport planning, in both county and city, which is to be commended.
    Alan Simpson: Having been at the launch with the Secretary of State yesterday, may I say for the record what an elegant figure he cut?
    1372
    It was almost as stylish and sophisticated as the trams. People at the launch were almost as complimentary about the Secretary of State as they were about my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who was at the initial meeting 15 or 16 years ago that started the process of establishing line 1.
    May I repeat the requests of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood? The excitement yesterday was that Nottingham Members wanted the Secretary to State to be able to travel from Bulwell in the north of Nottingham to Clifton in the south of Nottingham. To do that, however, the second or third line would have to be in place. Will the Minister assure us that it will not take another 16 years to get lines 2 and 3?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will appreciate that for 10 of those 16 years the matter was in another party's hands. I expect any analysis of the bids as and when they are received to be done swiftly. The important point is that, following all that has been done so far by the authorities, both city and council, there has been a significant increase in public transport patronage. We want that to continue in a broader context.

    Airports
    Mr. Alan Reid: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding who pays for the cost of security at small airports. [159440]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Government policy is that the aviation industry should cover all its operating costs, including those incurred in the implementation of security requirements. It is free to choose how to comply with the standards required, and how it wishes to pass the costs on to its customers.
    Mr. Reid: May I draw the Minister's attention to the impact of the policy in the highlands and islands? In April, passengers for Tiree will be forced to pay a £20 surcharge, and those for Campbeltown will have to pay £12. Those extra charges will have a devastating effect on the economies of small islands and remote communities on the mainland. Will the Government reconsider the policy, and cover the cost of security at small airports? It could be funded from air passenger duty. The cost of security could be spread across all air passengers, rather than the brunt being borne by those using small, remote airports.
    Mr. McNulty: We do not want an aircraft travelling from Barra, Campbeltown or Tiree to a major city airport such as Glasgow to be subject to less security than an aircraft operating from any other UK airport. We propose, however, to introduce a regime tailored for smaller and lighter aircraft and the airports from which they operate, commensurate with the nature of such operations and the risk that they pose. We shall consult the industry shortly. We simply cannot compromise on security, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a fair one.

    Crossrail
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on the importance of Crossrail to (a) London businesses and (b) the development of the Thames gateway. [159441]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): All those issues were covered in Cross London Rail Links Ltd.'s Crossrail business case, the recent review of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering. He will make an announcement on the future of the business case in due course.
    Mr. Beard: Does my hon. Friend agree that Crossrail's impact on the Thames gateway depends on the continuation of the line from the Isle of Dogs to the channel tunnel rail link at Ebbsfleet via the south bank? Does not the realisation of that potential in turn depend on confidence among private investors that the line will be built according to a credible timetable?
    Mr. McNulty: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government said last July that, in principle, Crossrail would be a very good thing for London and its transport network. I trust that he will forgive me for not going into detail about specific parts of specific lines, given that I received the Montague report only about two weeks ago. It is currently being analysed, and a report is soon to be produced.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the long-awaited Crossrail project is vital to the regeneration of the east end? Many people in London are waiting for a positive sign from the Government.
    Mr. McNulty: As the Government said last summer, Crossrail is indeed an important project for London, but we must not put all our eggs in one basket. We must give due weight to the myriad transport and other schemes that are already regenerating east London. East London, and its regeneration, need not wait for the green light to be given for Crossrail.

    Railways
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the administration of the infrastructure of the rural railway network. [159442]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Dr. Kim Howells): Responsibility for the infrastructure of the rural railway network rests with Network Rail.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for that full reply. Will the Minister comment on the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document, and in particular on the alarming implication that local authorities such as North Yorkshire county council may have to pay for some rural railway networks in future? Will he also confirm that the rolling stock that is to be passed to voluntary groups and local authorities will be in the best
    1374
    possible state, and that the speed limit that is set will ensure that the structure will not be inferior to other parts of the network?
    Dr. Howells: As the hon. Lady knows, the document that the Strategic Rail Authority has published is a consultation document. I should remind her that, in general, community rail lines are typically local or rural in character, have a speed limit of 75 mph or less, run a service that is of an hourly or lesser frequency, and have a single operator or one franchise operator plus freight, so there is a lot of leeway. This is not about closures or loading new costs on to local authorities, but it certainly is about trying to tap the existing potential for perhaps running some community railways better.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What steps the Government take to ensure that people appointed to public bodies are representative of the society they serve. [159449]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government want boards of public bodies to be both appointed on merit and representative of society as a whole. On 17 December 2003, we published "Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003". This document explains the action being taken across government to increase diversity on the boards of our public bodies, and the targets that Departments have set for 2006.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Given that the Government rightly believe that the best decisions are taken by boards that best reflect local society, will he agree to add to the seven Nolan principles a further committed principle for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments: that public bodies should reflect local communities and society in general?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in this matter. The Government acknowledged the importance of the Nolan principles of public life when they were published. Of course, they were produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was established at that time. Its work continues under Sir Nigel Wicks. and I shall certainly consider whether this matter would be better directed towards it. I should none the less add that we are keen to encourage people to involve themselves in public bodies at a local level in the first instance. That is why, for example, such work has been taken forward in relation to school boards.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: As the Minister's reply to me of 3 March shows, the number of appointments and reappointments to public bodies over the past three years demonstrates that four

    1375
    times as many Labour party appointments have been made as Conservative—or, indeed, Liberal Democrat—ones. This Government now wish to impose that system on judges. Can we expect similar results, and is that another reason why the Government are so frightened of the Constitutional Reform Bill being sent to a Select Committee of the House of Lords for proper scrutiny?
    Mr. Alexander: That seems a pod effort, but it is important to start with some of the facts. More than 80 per cent. of those appointed to public bodies over the past five years were not themselves politically active. When a Labour Government are in power, it is only natural that a number of Labour supporters a re keen to offer themselves for appointment to public bodies. But as I said, it is important that decisions be made on the basis of merit, and we want public bodies to be representative of society as a whole. In that regard, the hon. Gentleman might do better to direct his attention towards the supporters of other political parties, and to encourage them to participate in public bodies.
    Tony Wright: Is my hon. Friend aware of the innovation of the lottery boards? They have found new members by a process of lot, or random selection, which has led to the appointment of people who would not otherwise have been found for these posts. Will he embrace this innovation and encourage other public bodies to see how it could be developed?
    David Winnick: For judges?
    Mr. Alexander:As the sedentary comment of my hon. Friend suggests, one has to be careful about the question of the particular public bodies that adopt this approach. It is clear that we are looking for a high level of expertise for certain public bodies, so although I am interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) cites, we need to consider the capabilities of those offering themselves for service, rather than simply making a random selection.

    Civil Service
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on measures to improve occupational health in the civil service. [159450]
    Mr. Alexander: The Cabinet Office works with Departments to promote a consistent approach to managing health in the civil service. It will continue to advise and monitor that area by collecting information on absence rates, facilitating the sharing of good practice and promoting the importance of occupational health in the workplace.
    Mr. David: Have any comparisons been made of absenteeism due to sickness in the civil service compared with the private sector?
    Mr. Alexander: Finding statistics to make direct comparisons between the public and private sectors is
    1376
    difficult, but I understand that in some private sectors—such as manufacturing and production—sickness rates are similar to those experienced in the civil service.
    Mr. John Randall: Are there any specific measures to prevent memory loss among civil servants? If so, could they be extended to Ministers of the Crown?
    Mr. Alexander: I am tempted to reply that I have forgotten whether such arrangements are in place. I am unaware of any specifics but if there are, I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.
    David Taylor: What initiatives are planned to assist people with disabilities to use their talents by seeking civil service careers. [159451]
    Mr. Alexander: The Cabinet Office undertakes a range of activities to encourage people with disabilities to apply to the civil service and to increase the proportion of disabled people in the senior civil service. The summer placement scheme encourages people with disabilities to apply for the graduate fast-stream programme. The civil service also participates in Workstep—a Department for Work and Pensions initiative to help disabled people progress into mainstream employment where appropriate.
    David Taylor: Even though the number of disabled persons entering the summer scheme might be relatively modest, that initiative will help to dispel discriminatory attitudes and practices in Departments, as well as giving graduates fast-stream access to more senior jobs. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it remains a central objective dramatically to increase the number of civil servants with disabilities in senior posts from the low level that this Government inherited in 1997? What progress has been made in the intervening seven years?
    Mr. Alexander: We are determined to increase the number of disabled senior civil servants serving the country, but recognise that there is more work to be done. I particularly welcome the summer placement scheme, which ensures that the key fast-stream route into the senior civil service takes forward our work in relation to diversity.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Constituents of mine report that the problem is less one of getting into the civil service and more one of barriers to progress within it. Is there monitoring of grading and promotions, to ensure that there is no discrimination against disabled people seeking to advance their careers?
    Mr. Alexander: Discrimination has no place in the civil service as a whole or the senior civil service. By definition, those entering senior posts have been promoted from the ranks of the civil service. I am keen to see continued and heightened progress in meeting the challenge of increasing the number of disabled people in the senior civil service in particular.
    Julie Morgan: What plans he has to open up civil service jobs to external applications. [1159452]
    Mr. Alexander: Within the framework laid down by the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 and the

    1377
    recruitment code issued by the civil service commissioners, Departments and agencies have the authority to determine their own practices and procedures for the recruitment of staff to the home civil service—including whether to open posts up to external competition.
    Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if even more jobs were open to external advertisement, the civil service would be much more likely to reflect society and have a more diverse workforce?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The number of open competitions has increased and I am determined that—as the Prime Minister made clear in a recent speech—the service should be capable not just of offering expert policy advice but of assisting government in the delivery of policies.

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
    Brian White: What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [159454]
    Mr. Alexander: The Government's position remains as set out in their response to the report of the Public Administration Committee on ombudsman issues. We are working with the parliamentary ombudsman and others in the ombudsman community to promote joint working and to ensure that arrangements are fit for purpose. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution to the work of that important Select Committee.
    Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways to improve the ombudsman service is to remove the Members of Parliaments filter? Can he give an indication of when that is likely to happen?
    Mr. Alexander: That is one of the issues on which we are in discussion with the ombudsman at present. Under
    1378
    present arrangements, MPs certainly play an important role in channelling complaints through the ombudsman. but I understand that there is a range of opinions throughout the House on this important matter. The discussions will continue.

    E-government
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the progress of e-government initiatives within the Department for Transport. [159455]
    Mr. Alexander: The Cabinet Office is responsible for leading and supporting e-transformation in government. Within that, the office of the e-envoy is working to improve the delivery of public services and achieve long-term savings by joining up online Government services around the needs of customers. Progress on specific e-government initiatives at the Department for Transport is, however, a matter for Ministers in that Department. They will be able to confirm that specific initiatives are being developed in respect of transport.
    Tom Brake: Can the Minister comment on whether he believes that the Department for Transport is making a success of the vehicle registration system, and whether the level of failures in that system is acceptable?
    Mr. Alexander: I will, of course, be happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As I understand it, full capability for the electronic first registration of all vehicles now exists, with a take-up of more than 75 per cent.

GM Policy
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's approach to the technology of genetic modification, including its use in crops. The tool of GM has been used for at least 10 years across the world in the production of food and medicines, both human and animal.
In the UK, only a handful of foods have been approved for use—GM soya, tomato puree and some forms of maize. The first two were approved under the previous Administration and the maize in 1997–98. At present, no GM crop has all the approvals needed for commercial cultivation in the UK.
Decisions as to what can be consumed or grown in the EU as a whole have throughout been taken by member states collectively under a regime of safety testing, monitoring and control, which itself dates back 10 years. That legal framework has recently been substantially strengthened, and a much-strengthened regulatory regime came into effect in the UK last year. It is firmly based on the precautionary principle and applied on a strictly case-by-case basis. Every genetically modified organism for which authorisation is sought must receive a comprehensive prior assessment of any potential risk to human health or the environment.
In 1998 the Government decided to go further. We were advised by English Nature of its concern about the effect of current GM herbicide-resistant crops on biodiversity. It was agreed that farm-scale trials would be conducted to assess those risks. Those trials were largely completed and reported by the end of last year, and the results were referred to our independent advisory committee for its assessment.
In the meantime, another advisory committee had advised the Government to fund an independently run public debate or dialogue on GM issues. I accepted that advice and announced in May 2002 that the Government and the devolved Administrations would sponsor such a dialogue with three strands: the debate itself, a thorough review of the science, and an economic cost-and-benefit study by the Prime Minister's strategy unit.
The public dialogue reported general unease about GM crops and food, and little support for the early commercialisation of GM crops. People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were more open-minded, anxious to know more, but still very cautious; and it was suggested that, as they learned more, their hostility deepened.
The cost-and-benefit study concluded that the currently available GM crops offer only some small and limited benefits to UK farmers, but that future developments in GM crops could potentially offer benefits of greater value and significance, even in the UK. The science review concluded that GM is not a single homogeneous technology and that applications should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It reaffirmed that there were some gaps in scientific knowledge and, in particular. that it was important to
1380
keep the regulatory system under review so that it kept pace with any new developments. It concluded, however, that there was no scientific case for ruling out all GM crops or products.
The review examined all the concerns generally raised. In particular, it reported no verifiable ill effects from extensive human and animal consumption of products from GM crops over seven years, and it concluded too that current GM crops were very unlikely either to invade the countryside or be toxic to wildlife. The most important environmental issue identified was the effect on farmland wildlife, which was the subject of our extensive trials—the largest carried out in the world.
Our independent advisers have now reported to us on these trials. On the basis of that advice, and having consulted the devolved Administrations, I have concluded that the UK should oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape anywhere in the EU using the management regime tested in the farm-scale evaluations. However, I have also concluded that we should agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, but only subject to two further important conditions.
The first condition is that restrictions should be imposed on the existing EU marketing consent that expires in October 2006, so that it can only be grown and managed as in the trials, or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment. The second condition, which responds to concerns that have been raised about the phasing out of atrazine in the EU, is that the consent holders should be required to carry out further scientific analysis to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional maize, and also to submit new evidence if they seek to renew the existing EU marketing consent when it expires in 2006.
Before commercial cultivation of GM maize can proceed, separate approval will also be required under seeds legislation, and also under pesticides legislation for the associated herbicide use. Chardon LL will not be added to the UK national list of seeds until the necessary amendments to the EU marketing consent are in place. We also anticipate that co-existence measures will be in place before any GM crops are grown commercially. I do not in fact anticipate any commercial cultivation of GM maize before spring 2005, at the earliest.
The farm-scale evaluations also raised much more far-reaching questions about crop management and the environment. Incidentally, those questions reinforce the value of the case-by-case approach. The evaluations showed that there was no blanket difference between GM and non-GM crops. The trial crop with the "best" results for the environment was a conventional crop. The crop that was "worst" was also a conventional crop, yet we have nothing like the influence over the growing and management of conventional crops that we have over GM crops, even though the effects may be just as far-reaching. We are giving careful consideration to these issues.
I believe that the approach that I have outlined today is the right one. It is precautionary and evidence-based. In practice, it means licensing one application, which runs till October 2006 and is subject to two further conditions.
Apart from the scientific decisions that flow from the trials, there is the related issue of GM and non-GM crops being grown in the same area—so-called co-

1381
existence. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has recently produced advice on this issue.
I propose that, as the AEBC advises, farmers who wish to grow GM crops should be required to comply with a code of practice based on the EU's 0.9 per cent. labelling threshold, and that this code should have statutory backing.
There are particular concerns, of course, for organic farming, for which the Government have much increased funding, and to which we remain committed. The AEBC argued for a lower threshold for organic farming, but could not agree on a figure. We will explore further with stakeholders whether a lower threshold should be applied on a crop-by-crop basis.
I will also consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who suffer financial loss through no fault of their own. However, I must make it clear that any such compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than by Government or producers of non-GM crops. The Government will also provide guidance to farmers interested in establishing voluntary GM-free zones in their areas, consistent with EU legislation.
This is a difficult issue, bedevilled by confusion. There are many legitimate concerns—about gene stacking, cross-pollination and much else—but reports that combine comment on all these matters can be misleading. People worry that a GM crop could affect wild relatives and hence the gene pool. Maize—the crop that we are prepared to license—has no wild relatives in the UK. It is highly unlikely that any stray remaining plant or seed would survive a winter here and thus cause concern about a subsequent crop. Equally, very little organic maize is grown here, so many of the concerns usually raised do not apply. That reinforces the value of a case-by-case approach. Some GM crops are already used for animal feed, although they are not grown here. Several GM veterinary medicines are also in use and much vegetarian cheese is produced using a GM processing aid.
There is no scientific case for a blanket approval of all the uses of GM. Safety, human health and the environment must remain at the heart of our regulatory regime, and rigorous and robust monitoring must be maintained. Equally, there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM. I know of no one who argues, for instance, that the GM tool alone can solve the problems of the developing world. However, it is less than honest to pretend, especially against a background of climate change, that GM does not have the potential to contribute to some solutions.
That, too, was part of the outcome of the public dialogue. I thank those who ran it and those who took part. From that process and many other attempts to assess public opinion, it is clear that most people believe that genetic modification should be approached with caution. They want strong regulation and monitoring; farmers want a framework of rules for the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops; and customers want a clear regime for traceability and labelling so that they can make their own choices. The rules that we now have and those that we shall put in place in the months ahead meet
1382
the criteria as well as being soundly based on the scientific evidence, and I commend our approach to the House.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement and also for giving me advance sight of it.
The statement itself is not a surprise. Indeed, it confirms the decision made nearly a month ago in the Cabinet sub-committee, the minutes of which were then leaked. At that time, it was reported that the Government would announce their decision the following week. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reason why the decision was not announced was that, in the words of the Cabinet sub-committee minutes, the Government have been trying to
"prepare the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science or food security"?
Will the Secretary of State accept that one group of key MPs are the members of the Environmental Audit Committee? Will she explain why the Cabinet approved the growing of GMHT forage maize 24 hours before the Committee unanimously recommended that it should not do so? Is it not extraordinary to dismiss a Select Committee's recommendations before even having had a chance to read them?
Will the Secretary of State accept that the Environmental Audit Committee has raised some serious concerns about the validity of the farm-scale evaluations? In particular, does she agree that the findings of the GMHT forage maize trials were based on a wholly invalid comparison? Will she accept that, in the words of English Nature, atrazine turns a maize field into a wildlife desert? That is why atrazine is to be phased out and why it is not that surprising that any herbicide regime that does not use atrazine is likely to be preferable. The Government should conduct new trials to compare the effect of GMHT forage maize with its non-GM equivalent grown without the use of atrazine. The few trials that did take place were on too small a scale to produce conclusive results.
The Secretary of State knows that results have been published for only three of the four crops trialled. Can she say when the Government intend to publish the results for the winter-sown oilseed rape trials? Can she also say what work is being done to examine the cultivation of GM crops in north America? Will she accept that the experience there has been that, over time, the use of herbicides on GM crops has had to increase as herbicide-resistant weeds have developed? Does that not suggest that the trials in this country should have been longer, and can she explain why that evidence appears to have been ignored by the Government in reaching their decision?
We welcome the Government's recognition that there needs to be a clear framework governing separation distances and liability before plantings take place. In considering those issues, will she also take account of the north American experience, which has seen up to two thirds of all seeds cow contaminated by GM genes?
It has been suggested that legislation may well be needed to establish the rules. The private Member's Bill, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contamination

1383
and Liability) Bill, being introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) aims to do precisely that. Will the Government, therefore, take advantage of the Bill, which provides an opportunity to debate the necessary safeguards against contamination that we all want to see?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that, despite the Government's decision, more than 40 regions in Britain—including Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and the Lake district—have indicated their wish to declare themselves GM-free? Will the Government provide advice to these authorities on the establishment of voluntary GM-free zones?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that both the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have decided that no GM maize planting should take place for the foreseeable future, and say how she intends to obtain their agreement to the inclusion of GM maize on the national list?
Finally, the Cabinet sub-committee apparently noted that
"The public is unlikely to be receptive to this decision."
Is that not a masterly understatement? The Government's own national GM debate showed that 90 per cent. of the public opposed the commercial cultivation of GM crops. What was the point of having that debate if the Government now ignore the opinions of the overwhelming majority? Does the right hon. Lady accept that until that changes it makes little difference whether the Government give the go-ahead, since people will simply refuse to buy meat from animals fed with GM produce?
Has the Secretary of State seen the letter to the Prime Minister from organisations representing 8 million members, including the National Trust and the National Federation of Women's Institutes, calling for the postponement of the introduction of GM crops? The concerns raised by the Select Committee and by all those organisations are not scaremongering; they raise real questions about the dangers to the environment that may result from GM crop cultivation. Yet the Secretary of State has chosen to ignore all of them and to press ahead. Many people will want to know why, when by her own admission the economic benefits are small and limited. Until those questions have been satisfactorily answered, no approvals for commercial plantings should be given.
Margaret Beckett: Let me begin where the hon. Gentleman ended and remind him of what I said in my statement, and of what we have said repeatedly about the strategy in the report, which is that it is clear that there are few advantages to the UK of crops that are currently available. However, it is also clear that this technology has the potential to produce much greater advantage. That is why the Government have taken a case-by-case approach.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, and he would not be very happy with me if I attempted to answer all of them. Let me pick out one or two.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the point of having the public dialogue to which I referred. I remind him of what the AEBC itself said when it recommended that the Government have such a dialogue. It said in terms that the intention was not to conduct some kind
1384
of referendum on the crop trials or on the decisions that flowed from them, but that it thought that there would be merit in exploring the range and spectrum of public concerns, what questions the public had and the potential range of answers.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the recent letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I say this with some caution, because I have read the letter: I think that there is a degree of confusion. That is a problem when people draw their conclusions from material that has been leaked rather than from knowledge of what has actually happened.
The reference seems to have been to a discussion about future uses of biotechnology. That is not, of course, just genetic modification. It is a considerable range of scientific endeavour and potential scientific advantage to this country for the future. I very much doubt whether the organisations that signed that letter would wish to say, "Let us abandon all biotechnology." What should we do with all the 1 million people who are dependent on GM insulin, for example? What should we do about the poor vegetarians, who want cheese that does not have to be made with material that comes from animals? There is, as ever, scope for misunderstanding here, and it is important that we try to avoid misunderstanding.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the devolved Administrations. I cannot remember his exact phraseology, but what he said is not correct. The devolved Administrations have not made the decision that he suggests, and we are, as ever, trying to work closely with them.
The hon. Gentleman asked when we expected the results on winter-sown crops in tones that implied that he thought that the Government were suppressing them in some way. We shall publish those results when we receive them from the scientists in question, after they have been peer-reviewed. We have no control whatever over the timing of that, any more than we had over the timing of the first trial publication, but we anticipate that the results are likely to be available towards the end of this year.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the discussions and consultations held by the Environmental Audit Committee. We take seriously what the Committee says, and have looked with care at its observations. However, those observations drew on known material and the Committee could not draw on the further assessment, published in Nature —as it happens, on the morning of the publication of the EAC's report—which addressed some of the concerns that the Committee had raised. Having heard the Chairman of the Committee dismiss the article in Nature in all of 1½ seconds flat, I feel confident that the article will be disputed in its assessment of those concerns. However, in our judgment, and that of the scientists who carried out the assessment—independent scientists, not the same lot—it is not invalidated.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned English Nature. As I said in my statement, it was of course English Nature that first asked the Government to carry out further trials, as we did. However, he may not have observed that Dr. Johnson of English Nature said that he thought that the results of the trials were valid and showed that growing that particular crop would be

1385
better for the environment. Dr. Johnson also made the point that electricity can kill people but we do not call for it to be banned.
Andrew George: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for providing an advance copy of her statement. I welcome the fact that it was billed as a Government statement on GM policy and not dismissed as a minor issue on one aspect of a consent licence, because this is a watershed decision.
Some people will want to characterise the debate as being held between cavalier scientists in the pay of multinational biotech companies versus green Luddites, which could mean that we lose sight of the serious questions that need to be asked. However, the Secretary of State has partly answered some of those questions. Decisions should be based on sound science, not on hasty or make-do science. The decisions made now are probably irreversible.
A number of questions arise from the statement. The Secretary of State announced two conditions on the growing of fodder maize. The first was that it be grown and managed "as in the trials, or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment". But who will make that decision? How will an assessment be made before the crop is grown?
Secondly, the Secretary of State appears to be saying that consent holders need to present new evidence if they want to renew a consent after October 2006, but they do not need to present it beforehand. In that case, why issue consents before 2006? I agree with the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that the decision should be put off until at least that date.
The AEBC says that lower threshold figures for organics should be given, but, with regard to GM contamination on organic farms, when will those decisions be made? Will it be before the first planting, which is likely to take place next year?
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on compensation payments, but when will they be in place? If DEFRA's arrangements for the fallen stock collection scheme are anything to go by, it will be a very long time indeed before any compensation arrangements are made.
The Secretary of State did not answer the question about Government support for areas that want to establish GM-free zones. It is important that she send a message today to demonstrate that the Government are prepared to go to Europe for some tightening of regulations to support regions such as Cornwall, which want to set up a GM-free zone to obtain market advantage.
The right hon Lady also failed to answer the question—properly put—about the Government's assessment of Dr. Benbrook's research in north America into the greater use of pesticides over time. We need further independent research.
As this is a watershed decision. the Secretary of State should have consulted Parliament rather than coming here with a statement after the decision had been made. I complained about that when she made a statement
1386
about single farm payments a few weeks ago, yet she has done the same thing today. She was unhappy about my comment that some people thought she was treating Parliament with breathtaking disdain, yet I have to point out that, although I raised the issue with Leader of the House and was promised a debate in Government time, as well as a vote on the issue, the decision has been made, so we can debate the matter only after the event. That is not good enough. A cross-party motion has been tabled in today's Order Paper calling for such a debate and, in future, the Secretary of State must consult Parliament and allow us to hold a proper debate, with a vote, on such substantive issues.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that I did not manage to deal with all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and I am grateful to him for repeating some of them. As he rightly says, some of them are of some importance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about experience in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is looking at the most recent suggestions made about changes in herbicide use. Many of the other issues to which he alluded were very much part of the assessment of the science review, which tried to look at all the scientific evidence from across the world. He particularly referred to contamination, but some of that evidence is not wholly germane as, for example, there are few, if any, co-existence measures in place in the United States. However, I can assure him that both the scientific review and our advisory committees have locked at and taken into account all the various evidence.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether decisions for thresholds for organics would be made before the first planting. We anticipate that that will be the case, although as I pointed out in my statement, little organic maize is grown in the UK, so the issue is not of major importance. However, we anticipate that the decisions will be in place. Furthermore, we intend, as soon as possible, to issue guidance on the establishment of voluntary GM-free zones, if that is what people want. We propose to address all those issues. Similarly, I have said that we will be holding consultations on compensation issues, and we shall do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the management of the trials and what we meant by the new conditions that we were putting in place. In the short term. the use of atrazine will continue to be allowed, although we anticipate that it will be phased out. The wording means that a range of other management regimes can produce equivalent effects without using that herbicide; it is intended to convey that we should be confident that we are not running a regime that is any more damaging to biodiversity than the regime that was trialled—that is why I have written to the lead authority, which is the French Government on the issue—and there are a variety of ways of doing that, as the trials showed.
Jean CorstonI thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. May I refer her to the part about public consultation? She stated that as the public learned moo e about GM, their hostility deepened. May I suggest that we ignore that hostility at our peril and remind her that the fastest growing part of

1387
the food sector is organics? Ten years ago, it was worth £1 million; last year it was worth £ l billion. People are very concerned that organic production will be compromised by association with GM contamination. Will she accept that many of us feel that the presence of atrazine in the comparator crop severely compromised the research? Finally, may I remind her that science is not neutral, is not always right and is almost never definitive?
Margaret Beckett: I am very mindful of that, but I have reported—faithfully, I hope—what was reported in the statement on the outcome of the public debate and dialogue. However, although that is what was said in the report of the public debate and dialogue about what was called the narrow but deep polling among a smaller group—as those in the group became more informed, their concern deepened my hon. Friend may not be aware that the overall outcome of the debate was independently evaluated by a study. That study, which I recall was performed by Leicester university, reported that an independent evaluation of the public debate, as opposed to its being written up by the people who ran it, suggested that, although there was genuine concern—it is right that we are properly respectful of that genuine concern—it was perhaps not as deep and widespread as the outcome of the debate and dialogue report suggested. There was a greater rang of views, although, of course, there is a very considerable degree of concern.
I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. She is entitled to say that, in her judgment, the presence of atrazine in the trials invalidates them. All I can say to her is that that is not the judgment of either our independent advisory committee or the different group of scientists who assessed that aspect of the trials' outcome. Indeed, that view was peer-reviewed and not endorsed.
My hon. Friend is right to say that people are particularly interested in organic production. I made the point a moment ago that little, if any, organic maize is produced and that organic production has grown substantially, perhaps not least because the Government have put millions of pounds into supporting and endorsing it. No one wishes to jeopardise organic production, but if my hon. Friend's argument is that we should completely ban the use of genetic modification in crops on the basis of the concerns that she expresses, that is not supported by the science. Much of the organic produce that is bought in this country comes from countries that grow GM crops in parts of their countryside.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State apologise for her discourtesy to the Environmental Audit Committee in deciding to make an announcement when she knew perfectly well that its report would be published 24 hours later? She referred to the Nature research. Who paid for that research, and how does a sample of four half-fields not treated with triazine make a valid basis for decision taking? Is it not the case that the scientific evidence for her decision today is at best equivocal; that the public remain implacably opposed I o GM and will not be spun by the Government into acquiescing; and that where there is no demand, there is no market and therefore no reason for her decision today?
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not believe that. If the Environmental Audit Committee felt that I was
1388
discourteous, I would, of course, regret that, but I do not believe that I have shown discourtesy to the EAC. I was asked whether we would announce the outcome of the discussion on an earlier date, and the answer is no. It was always envisaged that the decision would be announced now, following further consultation and discussion.
I do not know who paid for the Nature study, but I deplore few things more than the growing tendency to point the finger at people and say, "X paid for this; Y paid for that. Everyone is corrupt." The Nature study was conducted by independent scientists who had no interest in the outcome of the field-scale trials because, in fact, they did not conduct them. The study was peer-reviewed and would not have been published in Nature unless it was thought to be valid, so that issue ought to be put on one side.
I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman incorrectly say on the day of publication, when he so speedily rushed to judgment on the Nature report, that a handful of fields were part of the assessment that underlay the Nature article. In fact, there were about 26 fields, with different kinds of management, and the implications of all those patterns of management were assessed.
Finally, attempting to spin issues has never been a habit of mine, and I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, he is right to say that there is little, if any, demand for GM produce to be bought or marketed at present—so why do we need to ban it?
Diana Organ: Why did the Government hold the consultation when they so clearly ignored the outcome of that debate? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, if that GM crops go ahead, meat products from animals that may have been fed on GM maize are fully labelled so that consumers may choose not to eat that meat?
Margaret Beckett: For reasons that I have already made crystal clear, I do not accept that the Government have ignored the outcome of the debate. It was never intended that the debate would do more than explore the range and nature of the public's concerns. That is what it did, and it did so well. It identified the fact that the public want caution and that they want regulation and monitoring, which the Government have put in place or are putting in place, but it also confirmed that many members of the public accept that there may be circumstances in the future when this technology could be of value and that there is perhaps not the same pressure to turn one's back completely on the technology as there is from some other quarters.
On labelling, the science review referred to how one can study whether and what material ends up in the human gut. My hon. Friend will find that there is no evidence whatever to suggest that such material survives all the way through the human digestive system. She will certainly find, if she inquires, that although few animals are fed on GM maize, many animals are fed on GM soya. We have in place a strong traceability and labelling regime. We should do everything that we can to make it relevant to people's real concerns.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I do not disagree with the precautionary principle that the Secretary of State will exercise in introducing the

1389
crop and I appreciate that little organic maize is grown in this country, but has she taken advice on where the legal liability would lie if an organic crop were challenged by a GM crop? Would it lie with the grower of the GM crop, with the producer of the GM seed or with the Department that issued the licence?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady says "challenged", but I presume that she does not just mean that there is a challenge. She presumably means that there is evidence of a breach. It seems to me that there would be liability if there were proof of management neglect against the farmer who grew the GM crop or if the incident happened inadvertently and was in some way a fault of the seed supplier. Liability would lie with whoever was responsible for that event—not, I fear, with the Department.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the wrong decision because, now that atrazine has been banned throughout the EU, it is not supported clearly by the science? It continues to be strongly opposed by public opinion, which the Government say they want to listen to, and it is not driven, as it should be, by a public interest need for precaution, but by the commercial interests of the big biotech companies and, no doubt, pressure from the White House.
If cross-contamination occurs, as it will, who will pay the compensation, when the industry flatly refuses to accept any liability, the Government have rightly said that they will not allow taxpayers to foot the bill and the insurance e industry will not provide insurance for farmers who grow GM crops? ACRE insists that the only basis for going ahead with GM maize should be that it follows exactly the same regime as that for the trials. How will the Government secure that when it would require an amendment to the consent in Brussels to which the other 14 member states would almost certainly not agree?
Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend asks how we could secure that, but I have already dealt with the point about the same or equivalent regime and the question of what would happen if contamination occurred. He says that the decision is not supported by the science, but I simply disagree with him about that. He says that the decision is driven by the biotech companies, but I genuinely do not understand why people who are especially concerned—it is a legitimate concern about the influence, advice and interests of major multinational biotech companies are desperate to get any research on, or development and experience of, the handling of genetic modification out of this country. Our independent laboratories and universities have a strong scientific reputation, so I would have thought that people might want such research to be pursued here, rather than leaving it all in the hands of those whose motives they mistrust so much.
Finally, my right hon. Friend says that the decision was driven by the White House, but I simply say that I assume that the decision in 2004 was no more driven by the White House than the decision that he made in 1998.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Environmental
1390
Audit Committee's report said that a decision along such lines would be irresponsible. Does she agree with that conclusion? If it was irresponsible a few days ago, why was it responsible to take such a decision today? We should turn her statement round. If the crop is so unimportant to the United Kingdom's economic future, why break the dam now? Why license the crop now to get small economic gains? The real issue is the signal that the decision sends to future licensing applications for GM crops in this country.
The Secretary of State has not yet responded to two questions on whether areas in the United Kingdom will be able to declare themselves GM free. Will she now take the opportunity to say how that will happen—not only in respect of voluntary relationships whereby farms come together—and whether, for example, Wales and Scotland will be able to maintain their GM-free policies?
Margaret Beckett rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I point out that every hon. Member so far has asked about four supplementary questions? That is unfair to other hon. Members who wish to be called.
Margaret Beckett: As I have said, we intend to give guidance so that if people want to set up voluntary GM-free areas, they may do so. It would not be lawful to have an arbitrary designation of a whole geographical area, but there is nothing to stop people coming together and the Government will offer advice on how that may be achieved. I do not accept that the decision is irresponsible, but I accept that there is some truth in what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) says. The decision does send a signal. It sends a signal that the Government will try—no matter what the pressure is—to make decisions that we believe to b right on the basis of evidence that we carefully weigh. There will be disagreement about those decisions and legitimate disagreement about judgments. In the end, however, it is the Government's responsibility to do their best to make the right decisions, which is what we have done and will do.
Mr. Nigel Beard: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and especially on her reaffirmation that case-by-case scientific evidence will determine the future cultivation of genetically modified crops. What steps will be taken to protect such crop; from destruction by misguided direct action?
Margaret Beckett: I would have hoped that those with a view on trying to destroy such crops would have learned a lesson from their experience in the farm-scale trials, because if they had succeeded in destroying the trials we would have had no evidence on biodiversity with which we could decide not to proceed with growing two of the crops. A cautious approach is needed, and the law on the matter applies as it does to any other action that people take.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have asked the Secretary of State on several occasions who will compensate organic farmers if their farms bee contaminated by GMOs, and I am grateful to

1391
her for partially answering the question. In her reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), she amplified that answer by saying that the GM seed producer or the GM farmer would have to offer compensation. Who will determine what represents contamination? Will it be determined by the Soil Association, which is, after all, the organisation that certifies that an organic farm is growing organics?
Margaret Beckett: As I have already indicated, consideration will occur on a case-by-case basis, and who will be liable for any compensation will depend on what happens in a specific instance. With regard to how a case would be judged, we have indicated that we will consult on thresholds. We do not oppose the notion that there should be a lower threshold for it organic crops, but we think that it is wise to consider that case by case because it must be realistic; otherwise, it will harm the interests of organic growers and others.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that her decision will have wide ramifications for the third world and, especially, the new entrant states. Some of us see this as a Trojan crop. What advice can she offer the Governments of those countries when they come under pressure from the biotech industry to introduce other crops on a licensed basis? What guarantee can she give this country's consumers that they will be eating non-GM in the future?
Margaret Beckett: There is a limit to the extent of the guarantee that anyone can give because there is much GM material grown throughout the world and one cannot undo the reality of what has already been done. The EU has a strict traceability and labelling regime—I think we were one of the first Governments to put it into law and we will monitor that to ensure that it is observed. He makes an important point about the third world. The UK is a signatory to the Cartagena protocol, which puts in place an international regime of advice, support and monitoring to help developing countries to reach decisions.
I simply make one point to my hon. Friend and others who are understandably concerned I about the matter. I recently read an observation from someone who studies such issues in the developing world closely who said that if, for example, one could get a good and reliable crop of maize to grow in the climatic, pest and disease conditions of Africa, that single step would mean that millions of people would be lifted out starvation. Although I completely accept that there is much more to hunger and famine than that—especially given the possible impact of climate change—it seems to me that it would be folly to turn our backs on a technique that might allow us to tackle the problems of salinity, drought and other difficult conditions.
Mr. John Gummer: Does the right hon. Lady accept that her statement would have been unpopular and questioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House irrespective of what she had announced? Her decision seems to be a sensible way forward in difficult circumstances, and as we would have
1392
had few developments over the past 500 years without such decisions, it is necessary for the opportunity to be given.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that one part of her statement is especially important, because some conventional mechanisms for growing crops are seen to be environmentally damaging? How does she intend to try to identify those so that we can improve the environment of our nation for the benefit of all?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is quite right. Professor Pollock, who oversaw the trials, made the point that throughout history the human race and wildlife have competed for the sun. When wildlife is in the ascendant, as it was, for example, in the middle ages, many members of the human race went hungry, even in countries such as ours. However, we are now in danger of biasing the decision too far in the opposite direction. It is hugely important that evidence going far wider than anecdotal evidence is available to us for the first time about the impact on the environment and biodiversity of some conventional crops. The advisory committees to which I referred are pursuing those issues, looking at what research can be done and how we can follow it through, but I think that that is the most important lesson of all from those trials.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: My right hon. Friend has achieved a difficult balance. I think that she got it right and applied a very precautionary principle in making her decision. Does she agree, however, that the stringent operation of the trials and the criteria used to approve the particular variety of maize send a clear signal to the GM industry that in future it needs to concentrate on varieties that will have much less damaging effects on the environment so that we can look forward to GM varieties that perform much better in relation to the environment than the conventional varieties that we are using at the moment?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful for her remarks. One lesson is that it is important for GM companies to consider, as others must, the impact on the environment of their choices. It is also important that they accept that one lesson of the public dialogue was that people did not feel the need to attenuate their hostility to the technology because they saw little benefit for humans in many of the present developments. If people who are engaged in research in this field could turn their attention to things that have a clear net benefit for the human race, that would make a significant difference.
Sue Doughty: In 2002, research published by Newcastle university showed that bacteria in the intestine could pick up GM material in the stomach. The public are concerned about the fact that we do not have enough sound scientific research about the flow of GM material from one species to another. Is the Minister considering the possibility of substantial research so that the public can be satisfied about perceived risks to human health and their fears allayed?
Margaret Beckett: We have known since the 1940s that such a flow of material was possible, and it has frequently been studied for various reasons and in

1393
different areas. The hon. Lady is right that those issues are of interest and concern, and people are following them. She will find in the science review a reference to the studies that have been carried out, and she will know that the World Health Organisation does not perceive that there is any special impact on human health from the growing of GM crops available at present. It is because that applies to crops available at present that a case-by-case approach is important. I understand that the British Medical Association made a similar point just this morning.
Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State accept that such an important decision, which many members of the public and Members of Parliament oppose, will set a precedent and is the thin end of the wedge? Should we not therefore have a vote in the House after a proper debate, and will she assure me that, if this goes ahead, compensation for organic farmers whose farms are contaminated will be on the statute book before the final decision is made?
Margaret Beckett: I have already dealt with the issue of compensation, and I repeat to my hon. Friend, as I have to others, that, yes, we anticipate that we will deal with the co-existence regime and will also be able to deal with and resolve the issue of contamination. We also anticipate further discussions in the House. She is right, however, that these are important, complex and difficult decisions that, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, will undoubtedly make us unpopular with various players. That is what is called being in government.
Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Lady's statement illustrated the care with which she has assessed the difficult scientific and environmental issues surrounding the matter in reaching her conclusions. May I press her to make it clear in Government publicity the basis on which the decision was made, as there is ignorance about such matters and a need for education? Will she also clarify the use of the technology when applied to the plant as a biofactory? Finally, will farmers who choose to plant the approved variety be able to do so without public identification or announcement of their planting intentions?
Margaret Beckett: I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's final point—because there will not be trials such announcements may not he necessary. I am grateful for his remarks as Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we will do everything possible to convey the basis of our decision to people who, I suspect, will be beset by a fog of misinformation. He is also right to draw attention to the potential of the technology as a biofactory. I heard a passing reference from a Nobel scientist to its potential as a technique to produce plants that can fix their own nitrogen, which would mean that we would move away from the regime of fertilisers and so on, which has bedevilled much of our environment for a long time.
Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend said in her statement that it was "highly
1394
unlikely that any stray remaining plant or seed would survive a winter here and thus cause concern about a subsequent crop. Equally, very little organic maize is grown here". In other words, there is a perceptible risk of environmental contamination. There is a growing demand for organic food, not an appetite for GM food, so would it not be w se to learn the lessons evident in the behaviour of bigger companies such as Unilever, Nestle, Sainsbury and Tesco, which are not pursuing GM foods because they are consumer-driven, not scientifically led? Perhaps we should be more democratically led, not driven by disputable scientific interpretations that, it is accepted, still leave a possible opening for environmental contamination.
Margaret Beckett: It is because I use words with care and try to use them accurately that I used the words that he quoted. Of course, there is potential for cross-contamination and (Toss-pollination between one crop and another. but as maize is not native to this country it has no wild relatives, so that is irrelevant in this case. Similarly, I said that stray plants or seeds were unlikely to survive the winter because they are not native to this country. Strong sub stances such as atrazine had to be used in conjunction with the growing of maize because it is difficult to grow the crop in the UK as it does not belong here.
My hon. Friend talked about disputable science, and suggested that other approaches would be better. The technology has been more scrutinised and tested than any other. In the farm-scale trials we compared the use of genetically modified crops and others, and discovered information about the use of conventional crops and their impact on biodiversity that was not previously known. The vast majority of stuff that we have eaten for generations has never been studied in this way. Cabbage contains 17 or 27 substances that, fed separately in sufficient quantities to animals, can be carcinogenic. Should we all stop eating cabbage— [Interruption.] There are some good recipes using cabbage.
It is because I would not make up my mind in advance of the evidence and ban the use of genetic modification in crops that I have been accused of being pro-GM. I am not pro-GM any more than I am pro-Petri dishes or pro-mass spectrometry. II is a technique or tool that allows us to do with rather more precision something that the human race has been doing since the dawn of time. If the human race had not been doing so, most of us would not be here and the ones who were would be very hungry.
Mr. Robert Key: I welcome the right hon. Lady's sensible and balanced statement. She and her sceptical Ministers must have taken some convincing, but I am confident that they are right to move forward cautiously. Does she agree that the silent majority have found it difficult to hear the voice of sound science, and that one reason for that-I say this in the nicest possible way, without any criticism of the Minister involved—is that we do not have a science Minister in the House of Commons? Next time round, we need a science Minister in the House of Commons who is not bound by conflicts of interest that prevent him from saying anything about the issue.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his consistent view that we should assess the technology very carefully.

Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations)
1.30 pm
David Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the prevention of sex discrimination in relation to membership of, or the benefits, facilities and services afforded by, clubs and other private associations.
In promoting the Bill, I follow in the distinguished footsteps of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and of my good friend, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who tried to introduce a similar Bill. I am also indebted to Lord Faulkner for trying to move the issue forward in the other place.
More than 70 years ago, the area that I represent returned to this House Edith Picton-Turberville, who was a campaigning Labour MP renowned for her commitment to tackling discrimination. I cannot but think that she would be somewhat surprised that in the early 21st century we are still attempting to legislate to end discrimination against women. I hope that she would be pleased that one of her successors is still working in this House to tackle such discrimination.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring private clubs within the coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by making unlawful the unequal treatment of male and female members, associates and guests of mixed-sex private clubs with 25 or more members. That mirrors a similar provision in the Race Relations Act 1976. Let me take a brief look at how the Sex Discrimination Act applies to clubs. At present, section 29 applies to all clubs that are open to the public or to a section of the public: that is, where a person or it particular group of people can pay their money and enter the club—examples would be nightclubs and some sports clubs—to use its facilities and services. Those clubs cannot discriminate on the grounds of sex. If a member of a public club has been discriminated against on those grounds, they can take action under the auspices of the Act. Private members' clubs have been found by the courts not to come within the scope of section 29 because they provide facilities and services to their own private members, not directly to the public. The Sex Discrimination Act, as interpreted to date, allows such clubs to discriminate against members in the facilities that they offer because the discrimination has occurred in a "private" sphere.
Why bring private clubs within the scope of antidiscrimination legislation? In the past, private clubs have been asked to take voluntary action to abolish discriminatory practices. Some mixed-sex clubs have made a real effort to achieve that, but others still
1396
discriminate on grounds of sex. It is interesting to note that the availability of national lottery resources, which are allocated to clubs on the basis that they do not discriminate, has prompted many of them to change their practices. I am also pleased to say that, as far I can tell from my research, no clubs in Telford operate discriminatory practices. Perhaps it is time for others to follow our example.
Excluding women from equal treatment as full members of mixed-sex clubs is simply unfair and can involve demeaning and humiliating treatment. What kind of discrimination do women face in private members' clubs? I understand that more than half the 3,000 working men's clubs that belong to the Club and Institute Union still deny their female members full rights. They often restrict women's use of certain facilities, give them restricted voting rights and deny them access to the annual general meeting. Many golf clubs are the worst culprits in relation to discriminatory practice. Some still restrict playing times for women members to, for example, peak hours at weekends. Such treatment can deprive members of potentially valuable associations and networking opportunities, which can in turn have an adverse effect on their personal and professional lives.
In summary, what would the Bill achieve? It would have an impact on mixed-sex private clubs with 25 or more members by making unlawful unequal treatment between their male and female members, associates or guests. It would not affect single-sex clubs, other than by making unlawful the unequal treatment of male and female guests at an occasion to which guests of both sexes were invited.
I hope that the House will support the Bill. It is supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission and has a great deal of cross-party backing. I understand that the Government have warm feelings about it; and it is supported by a glittering array of parliamentary talent.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by David Wright, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. David Stewart, Vera Baird, Mr. Tom Harris, Mr. David Heath, Ann McKechin, Ms Meg Munn, Peter Bradley, Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons and Liz Blackman.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (CLUBS AND OTHER PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS)
David Wright accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the prevention of sex discrimination in relation to membership of, or the benefits, facilities and services afforded by, clubs and other private associations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 May, and to be printed [Bill 68].
Opposition Day

  Iraq (Attorney-General's Advice)
  1.37 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full.
  I am pleased to be speaking to the motion, which stands in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. It is co-sponsored by Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales—and the Scottish National party.
  The wording of the motion is tightly drawn, but for further clarity I should say that this debate is not about whether one was for or against the conflict in Iraq. As was explained to the House, my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were against military action in Iraq before it started because we were not persuaded that the war was justified. We did not believe that either dossier displayed any credible threat, immediate or otherwise, from the tyrant Saddam, and that remains our opinion. There was no justification for the war then: ergo, there is a real question about the legality of the action that was taken. That is the issue on which we hope to concentrate this afternoon.
  As the motion makes plain, we are calling for the Government to publish the advice or advices of the Attorney-General, because without such publication it will not be possible fully to inform the debate. Incidentally, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have described the debate and the disagreement as "legitimate." If we accept that the debate is legitimate, surely it is part of the function of Ministers of the Crown to inform it fully and apprise Parliament of all facts that are germane to the issue. That is beyond contradiction. In calling for the publication of the advice or advices, we call on the Government to inform the House.
  Nothing in the "Ministerial Code" prevents the full publication of the advice or advices. In the foreword to the current code, the Prime Minister says:
  "I believe we should be absolutely clear about how Ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament."
  Paragraph 5 on page 1 states:
  "The code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations."
  Ministers are expected to observe the seven principles of public life, which include openness. The code states:
  "Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
  The code therefore provides that Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing information only when that is considered to be in the public interest.
  When considering the disclosure by Ministers of Law Officers' opinions, it is helpful to consult "The Law Officers of the Crown" by J. LI. J. Edwards. The chapter of the 1964 edition entitled "Attorney-General's Fiat and Responsibility to Parliament" states on page 259:
  1398
  "When Parliament is faced with situations involving the disclosure of the contents of the Law Officer's opinions to departmental Ministers it is surely impossible to be dogmatic and to assert either the principle of absolute confidentiality, or on the other hand, a rule requiring the government to reveal in full or in part the content of the opinions. There may be circumstances, as exemplified by the Belfast Riots and the Archer Shee cases, in which everything is to Ix gained by telling the House all the facts."
  It continues on page 260 that
  "the better constitutional convention is the flexible rule expressed in Erskine May".
  The rule states:
  "The opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament or cited in debate. But if a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, he is entitled to cite them in debate."'
  Page 261 of Edwards states:
  "Intransigence on the part of Ministers or Members of the Commons when issues of this nature arise for debate is not calculated to enhance the prestige of Parliament or the administration of justice. So far as the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are concerned, in suitable cases sufficient reason should be given to convince the House of Commons that the Law Officer has considered all the relevant factors and has reached his decision with that impartiality of judgement which is the ultimate strength and protection of the constitutional independence of the Law Officers of the Crown."
  There are several examples of the disclosure of Law Officers' advices. For example, Law Officers' advice on the compatibility of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 has been publicly available in the Public Record Office since 1998. Their advice on the legality of proposed merchant shipping legislation and its compatibility with European law, as disclosed to the courts in the Factortame litigation, is available in the House of Lords Record Office. In a written answer on 12 January, Baroness Amos stated:
  "In 1993, Law Officers advice relevant to the subject matter of the Arms to Iraq inquiry was disclosed to the Scott inquiry."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. WA 64.]
  Hon. Members may remember that the advice was published in its entirety as an annexe to the report.
  The Government's amendment refers to a hard-and-fast convention. I do not know on what evidence they base that. There is no hard-and-fast, time-honoured convention.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job through his revelations. We have been told for several weeks that it is not the convention to reveal the Attorney-General's advice. My hon. Friend has explained that such advice has been disclosed in the past and, dare I say it, on issues that appear to be less import ant than going to war with Iraq.
  My hon. Friend knows that many of those who lead our armed forces in Iraq wanted unambiguous advice up to five days before le start of the conflict. Only then did they receive two lines of advice from the Attorney-General. Surely my hon. Friend's comments and our knowledge of the war present a case that it is crucial for Ministers to answer. Perhaps they will take the opportunity to intervene on my hon. Friend to explain why the advice has not been published.
  Mr. Llwyd: My hon. Friend speaks for himself and makes an important point. There is great anxiety in not only the House but the public arena about the reason for not producing the advice or advices.

  1399
  I am worried about the Government's stance. Apart from setting what appears to be a precedent for the Government to extract what is expedient for them from the document and make only that public, thereby applying soundbite politics again, the precise subject matter of the advice and its context are worrying.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the precedent, which the amendment mentions, was broken by the Government's selectively sharing some of the advice? Does he further agree that there is no difference in principle between sharing part of the advice, as the Government have done, and sharing all of it, as the rust of us want?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is an added concern, which has recently been widely mentioned. There is no distinction, although there are more examples of such actions in the past.
  Treasury counsel—senior, independent counsel—would have received a set of instructions when advising the Attorney-General. Their accuracy or veracity is key. If counsel were ill informed or, perchance, misled about a key component of the instructions, the advice would be flawed from the start. In the case that we are considering, the instructions would undoubtedly have set out the Government's case for war. It is fundamentally important to establish whether the instructions contained references to the infamous 45-minute claim. If they did, and counsel accepted them as valid, the whole basis of the advice could have been flawed or skewed from the beginning.
  Furthermore, did the Government argue that the 12year-old United Nations resolutions were extant? Was that presented to counsel as au undisputable fact? Again, if so, the advice could have been skewed from the beginning.
  Ian Lucas: Is the hon. Gentleman making the case that the instructions on which the advice was given should be disclosed too? The motion does not make that clear.
  Mr. Llwyd: I shall go into detail about that later, but I shall also deal with the point briefly now. Counsel's advice would undoubtedly include the instructions, because he or she would have to base his opinion firmly on the facts before him or her at the time. Given that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, I am surprised by his intervention. Perhaps it shows why he is here and not in practice.
  Ian Lucas: I am surprised by that response, because clearly a set of instructions to counsel is distinct from the advice that is tendered in response to them. The hon. Gentleman is completely misleading the House with that suggestion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might wish to reconsider that remark. Certainly, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is not misleading the House.
  Ian Lucas: What was said was clearly inadvertent, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that the advice and the instructions that led to it are distinct documents?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is a questionable parliamentarian as well.
  1400
  We want to know whether the Government stated as a fact that the 12-year-old UN resolutions were extant. That is why the question that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, which echoes my remarks, was hugely significant. He asked:
  "The Attorney-General has provided three written replies to the effect that he did not rely on any facts in Government dossiers when reaching his opinion that Iraq had failed to disarm. In those circumstances, what factual material was he given by the Government from which he could draw that conclusion?"
  I am making the same point. The Prime Minister's response was:
  "The Attorney-General was given whatever material he required to make his decision, but the basis of the decision was that Iraq continued in material breach of UN resolutions. I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that in respect of resolution 1441 there was a whole series of things that Iraq was supposed to do under Saddam Hussein… The point, surely, is that the Iraq survey group has already found that there was a failure to disclose proper information to the United Nations inspectors and that there was a series of activities and programmes in breach of UN resolutions, so it is completely obvious that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441."— [Official Report, 3 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 895.]
  Many of us throughout the House thought that that reply was insufficient and, in fact, not a little demeaning, considering the seriousness of the question and its subject.
  I refer in passing to a further case in point. It is our understanding that in the Katharine Gun case, which collapsed on 25 February, the prosecution decided to offer no evidence on receipt of Mrs. Gun's defence statement. She was running a defence of necessity, in other words, to prevent unjustified loss of life and damage to property. That would have made it necessary to produce the Attorney-General's opinion or advice to the defence. Usually in such circumstances, the Crown would have applied by counsel to the trial judge to exempt it from producing that, on the ground of public interest immunity, and such a certificate would not have been granted if the advice were equivocal. Again, that highlights the need for the full advice to be produced.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). Is that right?
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes.
  Mr. Foulkes: I thought so. Is not all this pettifogging? Is it not far more important that Saddam Hussein is in custody and that Iraq is liberated and moving towards democracy and prosperity? If the hon. Gentleman and his nationalist allies had had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of people.
  Mr. Llwyd: There is more to it than that. If the right hon. Gentleman were in the Old Bailey facing a charge of breaching the Official Secrets Act 1989—which is apparently what he wants to happen to his one-time friend the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)—he would not call legal niceties pettifogging. Those niceties are the bulwark that

  1401
  ensures that our rights are preserved. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks so little of them, after so many years in this House, I despair.
  David Winnick: I am going to the Home Affairs Committee in a moment, so I will be unable to listen to the rest of the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for many of us, the question of human rights in Iraq was not a petty, unimportant issue, but that we considered human rights there and in Kosovo in the same light? As I remember it, the nationalist parties opposed intervention in Kosovo, as they did in Iraq. If a regime such as Saddam's, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has said, is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people over the years, why should we in the House of Commons oppose military action to end such tyranny?
  Mr. Llwyd: No one in this House, I imagine, would ever have supported the Saddam regime. No one in my party has ever said anything of the kind, and no one ever would. However, the remit of this debate is to look at the legal process and to see where Parliament fits into that process, if at all.
  Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of those who are now the fiercest critics of Saddam Hussein failed to join some of us when we were demonstrating against his regime in the 1980s and campaigning against the arms trade with his and other evil regimes?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of consistency on this subject, and I take his point on board. I fully agree.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Given that we are a signatory to the International Criminal Court, surely the question of whether the war was legal is not pettifogging, but goes to the heart of whether we support in principle and in practice the framework of international law.
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I add that, at a time when allied forces are quite properly trying to bring normality back to Iraq, one index of that normality will be the rule of law. How can we impose the rule of law on Iraq when we ignore, at our peril, international law in its entirety? That does not make a great deal of sense.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to read Hans Blix's statement on the way in which he was removed from Iraq while still undertaking weapons inspection, and replaced by the Iraq survey group, which did not find any weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Blix is concerned that the real aim of the United States and Britain was always to go to war, rather than to achieve some kind of peaceful resolution to what was obviously a serious situation.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that we opposed the war from the beginning.
  1402
  I return to the theme of the debate, which is fairly tightly drawn, to pursue the question of the Attorney-General's advice. If his advices were to be published in full, the matter might be laid to rest. As I said earlier, counsel invariably sets out in its advices the precise facts on which its instructions are based. The advice takes shape as those facts are assimilated and the law applied. That is why this question is of such huge import. Some might say that in publishing the advice, the Government would open a Pandora's box and give rise to such claims being made day in, day out. The answer to that is that there will be a discretion, as at the moment, but that what makes the present case so compelling is the consequence of the advice given, and the question of whether Members of Parliament were adequately informed of what was going on when the House voted on the matter some time ago. We need to pursue that because otherwise we will from now on be given only what the Prime Minister considers to be good for us, which cannot be right in any democracy. My party would resist that at all costs.
  Another cardinal point in favour of publishing the advice in full is that this was the first occasion on which UK forces went to war almost solely on the basis of intelligence. Lord Boyce, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, was so concerned that a few days before—
  Mr. Foulkes: On how many occasions was the intelligence dossier referred to during the debate on 17 March, and how many questions were asked about it? There were only a couple of questions, and it was mentioned only once in passing. That was not the basis for the decision; the basis was the way in which Saddam Hussein flouted resolution after resolution of the UN, including 1441. That was what was referred to in the debate.
  Mr. Llwyd: I shall refer briefly to resolution 1441 later. Frankly, I cannot say precisely how many times the dossier was referred to. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do sc if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—her yen preserve us.
  Days before the conflict began, Lord Boyce demanded an "unequivocal legal authority" for the invasion of Iraq. This is, therefore, an important issue.
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: The admiral demanded that before the Attorney-General's view was published. What I am really puzzled by is the fact that none of these who oppose the case for the legality of the war addresses the Attorney-General's argument. Will the hen. Gentleman do that now? The Attorney-General said that the Security Council had decided— [interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention.
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. How can I argue 'bout the full advice if I have not seen it? That is a fairly obvious point.
  Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Gentleman does not need the full advice. All he has to do is address the logic of the

  1403
  Attorney-General's argument. Does he refute the fact put forward by the Attorney-General that the Security Council had decided that Iraq was in breach of resolution 1441; that in so being. it was in breach of resolution 687; and that being in breach of 687 invoked the right to use force as expressed in resolution 678? That is the only fact that the hon. Gentleman needs to make his argument.
  Mr. Llwyd: It most definitely is not, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman. In a few moments, I shall deal with the three resolutions, albeit it a fairly short time. Frankly, it is not enough for the hon. Gentleman simply to disclose something written on a sheet of A4 paper that purports to be the Attorney-General's full adviceߞ
  Mr. MacDonald: What matters is not how long it is, but the logic.
  Mr. Llwyd: I shall come to the logic. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal with that point in a moment.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman said that a key issue was that the decision to go to war was taken on the basis of intelligence. Is not another key issue the fact that the decision was, at the Government's own request, taken by this House, this Parliament? That was wholly unprecedented, and in order to persuade Parliament to back them the Government saw fit to place before Parliament a large amount of material, including part of the Attorney-General's advice.
  Mr. Llwyd: That is absolutely right, but I take exception to being given only a part of anybody's advice.
  Some apologists will say that legal professional privilege might apply in supporting non-disclosure, but in my view it would not apply in this instance. The Government are concerned about the lack of trust with which the public treat politician in general and the Government more specifically. How can they expect to build up that relationship when they behave in this way? How is a member of the public expected to engage, if he or she is not allowed to see fully sit hat is going on?
  The Government have talked extensively about freedom of information and openness. There was even talk of another Freedom of Information Act. That must have been nothing but spin, in the light of the Government's record in general and of this episode in particular. I hope that the Government will change their mind about producing the full advice to Dr. Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman. Failure to do so would be to undermine her office completely.
  I shall now deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald). The Attorney-General believed that resolutions 678 and 687 were both revived, and that 1441 would allow for military action, as was anticipated by resolution 678. He believed therefore that there was automaticity in resolution 1441 and a trigger for Action. However, that is not what was understood by the combined ranks of
  1404
  the Governments of France, Germany and Russia. I would suggest that such mass misunderstanding is rare in international diplomacy.
  Ms Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Llwyd: I will, but I want to make this the last intervention that I take. I must make some progress.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is it not the case that resolution 1441 was passed only because of assurances that there was no automaticity?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady is right; that is precisely the point that I was trying to make.
  Following the adoption of resolution 1441, the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United Nations said:
  "There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required under operational paragraph 12."
  Turning to what the Attorney-General has made known, we find that he said that resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq. I do not disagree with that. However, that force related only to Kuwait— [Interruption.]Well, that is what he has said in the information that he has given us. He said that resolution 687 set out ceasefire conditions, then somehow came to the conclusion that those two old resolutions, which were specifically drawn up to authorise action in Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait—
  Mr. MacDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Llwyd: No, I have already explained that I must make some progress.
  Many experts believe that the Attorney-General's argument is flawed, because although resolution 678 authorised military action, using the diplomatic language "all necessary means", that referred specifically to military action to free Kuwait. Resolution 687 marked the permanent ceasefire. It did not adopt or preserve the right to use force set out under resolution 678, although such words did appear in paragraph 4 of resolution 686. Rabinder Singh, QC, said in his opinion of 10 September 2002 that there was a clear recognition that the right to use force required express terms if it was to be continued, and that the absence of clear terms in any resolution after 686 led to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorised.
  Further, resolution 687 states that the Security Council
  "decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region."
  That clearly suggests that the Security Council will remain seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps might be required for the implementation of that resolution. We must remember that both resolutions 678 and 687 were specific to the matter of Kuwait. It is therefore difficult to follow the Attorney-General's thesis in the material with which he has graced us. That is, that those resolutions somehow authorise the use of force. In my submission, according to their

  1405
  wording it is impossible to accept an implicit authorisation for the use of force without a further resolution, because the Security Council remained seized of the matter.
  At this juncture, I could cite the opinions of many respected international lawyers who would agree that such authorisation was not and is not revived. This aspect of the argument has been debated before and the ground has been well covered. To be fair, some respected lawyers have also given a differing opinion, but they are in a small minority. There is, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, a legitimate debate. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister urged us—in new Labour parlance—to find closure on that debate and to move on.
  Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford university, recently said that there was, in principle, a possible case for the lawfulness of resorting to war, but that the US and UK Governments had overstated the Iraqi threat. On the question of whether the Attorney-General's advice should be published, however, he said:
  "Of course I'd like to see the full advice. What we have seen of the Attorney-General's advice does not deal with the key question of why the situation was deemed so urgent that inspectors had to be withdrawn and forces sent in."
  On the question of legality, Malcolm Shaw, QC, professor of law at Leicester university, said:
  "On the basis of intelligence we had at the time and publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war."
  When asked about disclosure of the full advice, however, he said:
  "I don't see why not. There's no constitutional bar to doing so."
  Nick Grief, professor of law at Bournemouth university and a specialist in international law, said that he did not believe that there was a legal basis. As to the publication of the Attorney-General's advice, he said, "Definitely." James Crawford, professor of international law at Cambridge university, is unclear as to the legality. On the disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice, however, he said:
  "If the war was conducted in private, there would be every case for hiding the advice. If it's going to be fought with public funds, in public and expending the lives of members of the public, then it should be published".
  Lord Alexander, QC, did not believe the war to be lawful, and on the question of the Attorney-General's advice, he said:
  "Yes. I want to do justice to the Attorney General's arguments. This was the most important legal opinion given in the last quarter of a century. The Attorney has already published a summary. So why not publish the whole text. There's no legal distinction between the two."
  Those are five distinguished international lawyers who have differing views on the first question, but are unanimous on the question of the publication in full of the Attorney-General's advice.
  To conclude, I emphasise that the House will be asked to divide this evening on the specific motion before it. Despite the opinions held by me and my colleagues, it is not meant to be a further vote on the war. The question before the House is whether the Attorney-General's
  1406
  advice on Iraq should be published in full. Those who believe in informed democratic debate, freedom of information and transparency in government should have no problem joining us in the Lobby this evening. I urge every right hon. and hon. Member to consider the matter carefully and to support the motion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  2.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
  That this House notes, the long-standing convention, followed by successive governments, that the advice of the Law Officers is given in confidence and is not disclosed publicly; notes, however, the Answer given in the House of Lords by the Attorney General on 17th March 2003 which set out his view of the legal basis of the use of force against Iraq and the letter of the same date from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee giving more detail of the legal position; and believes that the priority now for the Government is to help the Iraqi people rebuild Iraq.
  I am grateful to the Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists for using their time for this debate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) began by telling the House that he would confine his argument to the case for publication of the legal advice. As his speech went on, however, he developed his case into an argument about the nature of the legal advice as to whether the war was legally justified. At the end of his speech, he provided the astonishing and illuminating revelation that when two or more lawyers are gathered together and consider the same question, they almost always disagree.
  On this issue, from the very start, there have patently been legitimate disagreements about whether, in the event of there not being a second resolution—a point with which I will deal later—it would have been and was lawful to take military action against the Saddam Hussein regime in the circumstances that we found last spring. I respect those arguments, but I wholly resist the insinuation in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the Attorney-General, and Ministers reflecting his view, have somehow not been straightforward with the House about the nature of the legal advice that he gave or that we received.
  As the amendment, states, a long-standing convention exists that the advice of the Law Officers to Ministers is given in confidence and should not be published. I have never thought, however, that precedent alone is sufficient justification for anything, and, of course, the Government, like all our predecessors, have been prepared to depart from previously accepted conventions when there has been a good reason. The bigger question is therefore why there are strong substantive arguments in favour of this convention, now and for the future.
  First, a general principle applies to all relationships between lawyers and those whom they advise that the advice that they offer must in principle be given in confidence. If we want our societies to be based on the rule of law, as we do, we must have properly qualified lawyers who are subject to high standards of professional integrity. To be effective, lawyers require

  1407
  the confidence of their clients. All of us who have practised—even for a short while, is I did-know that there could and would be no effective relationship if the advice that we gave, which must sometimes not be the advice that our client would wish to hear, was disclosable to the other party in proceedings or to the court or the defence in criminal proceedings, or was made publicly available. If that were so, our system of justice as a whole would suffer.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with that statement in its entirety. Is it not the case, however, that the Government, as the client, chose to waive at least part of their privilege in relation to the document, because i hey chose to publish a summary of the Attorney-General's advice rather than simply stating, "It is the Government's view that …"? Why did the Government do that? Was it not in fact to back up their position, which ought therefore to make them reconsider whether the full advice should not be made available now, given the circumstances that have arisen?
  Mr. Straw: On a number of previous occasions, Governments, including those of the hon. Gentleman's party, have made available to the House the outline opinion of Law Officers. For example, in relation to Maastricht, which some of my hon. Friends will remember well, the then Labour Opposition moved an amendment to ensure that we could sign up to the social chapter. Along with many arguments put forward there was the argument that if we signed led up to the social chapter, and overturned the protocol which the Major Government had signed up to, we would not be able to ratify the whole Maastricht treaty, and we were told that that argument was made on the basis of legal advice. A Minister then came to the House rather shamefacedly and told us that, by the way, that was wrong, and that, after all, we could, if we wished remove the opt-out from the social chapter and still sign up to and ratify the Maastricht treaty. On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary came to the House and gave an outline of the basis for the subsequent opinion, which is very similar to that which I gave the House on 17 March last year, and the Attorney-General went to Committee and gave an outline of the case, but he never published his advice.
  To the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), whom I respect, I say that if the Conservative party is serious about getting into office. about which I have grave doubts, it ought to think two, three, four and many more times before going down the opportunistic route of backing the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. I have been through all the speeches made this time last year and previously. I can remember no occasion whatever—not one—on which Conservative Front-Bench spokespeople demanded to see the full text of the Attorney-General's advice. What I do remember, for sure, is that people had legitimate legal arguments about that advice. I also remember a very good speech, which was not in agreement with the Government, by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in which he said:
  "I do not speak of the legalities. have read what the Attorney-General said about that matter and I do not feel competent to express a view as to whether he is right or wrong, but I am competent to say this: many distinguished lawyers—as distinguished as the Attorney-General—will take a contrary view."
  1408
  That is certainly true. He continued:
  "In any event, if I am honest, I do not think that legalities go to the root of the matter. The real question is whether it is right-right expressed in moral terms."— [official Report,18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 796.]
  He then disagreed with what the Government were doing, and I entirely respect him for that. Lest there be any doubt, however, it is of course absolutely essential that although morality was at the heart of what we were doing, Governments must be satisfied that what they do is also legally correct. At the heart of the argument last year was the question of whether or not it was morally and politically right to take military action, and that remains the case.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The legal arguments were rather important, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for reminding us of the days when he used to support disclosure of such matters, but he did less than justice to what my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said about the opinion of major international lawyers. The point was not that they disagreed about the conflict, but that although they disagreed about the conflict, they agreed that the Attorney-General's advice, in its full form, should be disclosed. If the Foreign Secretary resents the insinuation behind that, he has the remedy of publishing the advice.
  Mr. Straw: I shall come to the issue of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. My position on disclosure in opposition was entirely consistent with the position I have taken in government.
  Llew SmithI accept that if a private individual seeks legal advice, he or she has a right to ensure that it remains confidential. If I may state the obvious, however, a Government are not a private individual but a democratically elected, accountable body. How can accountability be retained if a Government will not provide the people with the information on which they have made a decision? How can there be accountability and democratic government if they will not provide Members of Parliament with that information so that they can vote in a particular way?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. Should the principles that apply to private individuals and corporations in respect of legal professional privilege—
  Mr. William: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress first.
  Should those principles apply to Government, or are there such differences in the nature of Government that we should make an exception to that general rule? I do not suggest that, for many if not most purposes, the nature of Government is comparable to that of a private individual or corporation; and because we live in a democracy, Governments must be significantly more accountable for their actions than private individuals or corporations—and rightly so. But Governments, Ministers and senior officials need legal advice in the same way as private individuals and corporations.

  1409
  Ministers have an overwhelming duty to act lawfully, and, as I know from my time at the Home Office, Governments are frequently parties in legal actions. I therefore suggest that the same considerations apply in this particular instance.
  Those arguments, moreover, have been accepted by the House as a whole. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to freedom of information. I well remember the great debates on freedom of information, because it was my party that promised at the time of the 1997 general election that we would introduce a freedom of information Act—and my party that introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which provides a far more extensive right of disclosure than exists in virtually any other European country outside Scandinavia.
  We had many debates at that time about the balance between disclosure and the public interest in nondisclosure so that government could continue. That was always going to be an issue. Big questions were raised about the extent to which background papers available to Ministers, such as Cabinet Committee papers, should be made available. But I do not recall, and I have checked carefully today, a single occasion on which there was any objection to the exemption in respect of legal professional privilege—what became section 42 of the Act—or, more directly, in respect of what became section 35(1)(c), concerning the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice. There was consensus throughout the House, and in the other place, that provision of such advice ought to be protected.
  Mr. Cash: The Foreign Secretary should bear it in mind that the Attorney-General is not a mere lawyer, and that the Government are not a mere client. The right hon. Gentleman's analogy with legal professional privilege is, I think, gravely defective. Does he not agree that the Attorney-General is in a unique position, in that he is personally accountable for giving advice of this kind? He is not collectively responsible even to the Cabinet, and he is accountable to Parliament. That lies at the heart of much of what we are discussing today.
  Mr. Straw: I certainly agree with that. As I have said, I am not arguing that Governments are in the same position as private individuals or private corporations. I am arguing, however, that if government is to operate effectively, legal professional privilege is essential. As the hon. Gentleman knows all too well, were he ever to become a Law Officer in a future Conservative Government, it would be essential to his operation on behalf of his client. At least, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield accepts that.
  The construction of the Freedom of Information Act reflects the distinction between legal professional privilege in general and advice from Law Officers, or a request for such advice, in particular; but I argue on both bases. As I have said, the argument was accepted by all parties in Parliament, and it has also been accepted by leaders of the Bar. Those of us who keep in touch with our former colleagues in the Bar Council, its professional body, know that it is not slow in coming forward to criticise the Government when it disagrees
  1410
  with us. It does that frequently. I therefore hope that weight will be attached to the views of its chairman, Stephen Irwin QC, who went on record nine days ago to say:
  "It is of great importance that confidential advice should remain open to Government.
  If future Governments—whether Labour, Conservative or whatever—feel that confidential legal advice on matters of major importance might be made public they may not ask for that advice when they need to, or may not reveal all the facts to their advisers.
  Were this advice to be published, it would leave future Governments of whatever hue in difficulty when it comes to obtaining confidential legal advice on major matters of public or international law. That would clearly be against the public interest."
  Mr. Irwin added:
  "Whether you talk to his political opponents, his political friends, judges or anybody in the law, what is completely clear is that the Attorney-General has enormous integrity and great determination to support the rule of law."
  Those of us who know our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General know that that testimonial is entirely deserved. Yes, the man is independent, and rightly so. Yes, he quite often tells us that which we may not wish to hear, but in doing so, he is upholding the finest traditions of hip office and defending the interests of Parliament.
  To the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, let me say that it is one thing to argue that lawyers sometimes disagree anong themselves. We have learned this afternoon that the do, and as a former member of their profession I must say, "Thank God they do." Far fewer lawyers would I e employed if they always agreed. That is the gravamen of what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, but he also suggested that the Attorney-General was disagreeing with himself—that he could somehow have presented the House with a clear statement of his conclusions, yet his advice would have been wholly contrary to that. He knows that that is completely untrue. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield nodded in affirmation when I read out the testimonial about the Attorney-General, recognising his integrity and professionalism If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not arguing that the Attorney-General is disagreeing with himself, what the devil is he arguing?
  Mr. Llwyd: I speak s a member of the Bar, and I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General. In no circumstances would I impugn his integrity. What I am saying is that he is gagged.
  Mr. Straw: That, too, challenges his integrity. Decisions about the release of the Attorney-General's advice are a matter for the Attorney-General. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that insinuation as well.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign secretary has just alleged that the disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice is a matter for the Attorney-General, and he implied that it was a matter for him alone. As you well know, page 389 of "Erskine May" clearly states that the question of whether the Attorney-General's opinion may be cited in

  1411
  debates or otherwise is exclusively a matter for the Ministers concerned—that is, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point for debate.
  Mr. Straw: I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell).
  Sir Peter Tapsell: It seems to me, as a layman, that the Foreign Secretary, as a lawyer, is complicating what is essentially a simple issue. Nobody denies that the Government are entitled not to reveal the advice that they receive from the Attorney-General, but they have chosen in this case to make public a very considerable part of that advice. Given that they have done so, it is difficult to understand the legal, moral or even political basis on which the Foreign Secretary refuses to give the whole of that advice.
  Mr. Straw: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but as he knows, some documents are summaries of considerations and of hers are not written for publication. Everybody knows that, if they are being truthful. Such documents are at out examining the issues, and if they were not protected by legal professional privilege or by the rule protecting the publication of Law Officers' advice generally, it would not be possible for Ministers to get from the Law Officers the explicit, frank and honest advice that we receive.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall take some interventions in a moment, but I want to make some progress first.
  Throughout the intense public debate about whether the United Kingdom should contemplate military action, which extended from March 2002 until this House made its decision on 18 March last year, two questions were understandably intertwined. The first was whether it was right politically to threaten, and if necessary to take, military action against the Saddam regime; the second was, if so, whether there was a legal basis for doing so. Both questions gave rise to the issue of the authority of the United Nations, to which the United Kingdom has always been profoundly committed. We played a key role in getting the United Nations Security Council to look again at the issue of Iraq in autumn 2002. Along with our permanent representative in New York, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and my political director, Sir Peter Ricketts, I negotiated virtually every line and every word of the resolution that became resolution 1441, which was passed on 8 November 2002. I therefore know its text, and I know its negotiating history.
  There were many hours of intensive argument about the detail of that resolution. Significantly, however, there was remarkably little debate about the preambulatory paragraph, which claimed and asserted that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security by reason of its non-compliance with the resolution, its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and its long-range missile systems. Nor was
  1412
  there any argument about the assertion at the beginning of the operative paragraphs that Iraq had been in, and remained in, material breach of its obligations. To pick up on an issue raised by one of the many lawyers whom the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned, nor was there any argument as to whether UN Security Council resolution 678—the original resolution—was still in force. Resolution 1441 dealt with that issue explicitly: it was still in force.
  Instead, the argument in the Security Council centred—as it did here, in many ways—on whether the resolution that became 1441 would provide sufficient further authority for military action if it proved necessary, or whether a second resolution would be required. In headlines, though, the issue was more complex than that. The debate, in advance of resolution 1441, was written up as an issue of "automaticity". In the event, those who were pressing heavily for a second resolution backed away from that demand. At the same time, the resolution provided no "automaticity". Instead, we agreed unanimously to a process that placed obligations on Iraq: a full and final declaration, and complete co-operation with the inspectors on substance as well as appearance. Further material breaches were very clearly defined by operative paragraph 4. Operative paragraph 12 defined the process by which the Security Council would come together to consider the matter if further material breaches were disclosed under operative paragraphs 4 or 11. If so, operative paragraph 13 made it very clear that "serious consequences"—in other words, military action—would follow.
  At every stage, right up to the decision that was taken on 18 March last year, the Government's position was that we would much prefer to have a second resolution. We went to enormous—if abortive—lengths to secure a second resolution, and I attended ministerial meetings of the Security Council four times between the end of January and 7 March. I also made it consistently clear that there was no requirement for a second resolution. As colleagues on both sides of the House will recall, on the first occasion that we debated resolution 1441–25 November 2002—and on every subsequent occasion, the question of whether we needed a second resolution arose, and legitimately so. Time and again, I spelled out the negotiating history and said that we would prefer a second resolution, but that we did not need one.
  By 17 March last year, in the light of the breakdown of negotiations on a second resolution, and in the light of clear further material breaches by the Iraqi regime—no one in the Security Council or in the House argued about the fact that it had broken both the tests in operative paragraph 4—the Cabinet recommended to Parliament that military action should be taken. We did not publish the Attorney-General's advice to the Government, but I should point out—I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will think about it—that the Attorney-General's advice in respect of military action has been published on no occasion whatsoever that we can identify.
  Although we did not publish that advice, we did two things that we thought would help the House in setting out the legal position as the Government saw it. First, the Attorney-General set out in a statement his conclusions on the matter. Secondly, I wrote a detailed five-page letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs

  1413
  Committee about the legal basis for the use of force. In it, I said explicitly that resolution 1441 does not provide "automaticity", but that that
  "does not, however, mean that no further action can be taken without a new resolution of the Council."
  The letter proceeded to spell out why we believed that taking further military action without a second resolution was entirely justified legally.
  That was the basis of the advice that we received. It was made available to this House via a note in the Vote Office, and, in addition, I wrote to every Member on both sides of each House, setting out the text of the Attorney-General's statement and my five-page letter. Let us be clear: many countries took the same view as the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia, Japan, Bulgaria, Spain, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Korea and many others took exactly the same position as we did in respect of the law and the need to take military action.
  Mr. Salmond: A few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary said that the question of publication was a matter for the Attorney-General. That view was challenged. Would the Foreign Secretary care to explain and revisit the argument that he advanced?
  Mr. Llwyd: What about page 389 of "Erskine May"?
  Mr. Straw: I am familiar with "Erskine May", but I should tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—he has not been in government; I am—that it is utterly improbable that a Minister would publish legal advice from the Attorney-General without the authority of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor—General. I have never known that to happen, and I do not believe it ever would.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).
  David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that the very same people who used the absence of a second resolution as an excuse not to support military intervention opposed the liberation of Kuwait, in respect of which there was no ambiguity whatsoever about the Security Council resolution? I do not question the fact that they are anti-Saddam, but every time action is taken against Saddam—be it the liberation of Kuwait, sanctions or the liberation of Iraq itself—they make every possible excuse not to end one of the most notorious tyrannies since 1945.
  Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on this issue. We have to be judged by our actions and the consequences of our decisions, as well as by our words.
  I should tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that all the resolutions were made available to the House in Command Papers. My dossier was published, and every single word in it was public and accurate. If he looks at resolutions 678 and 687 in their entirety, he will see that they were not confined to
  1414
  authorising legal action in respect of the removal of the Saddam regime from Kuwait; they also gave wider authority. That wider authority of resolutions 678 and 687 was revived by resolution 1441.
  Jeremy Corbyn: The Foreign Secretary has given an interesting build-up to the passage of resolution 1441 but says that it male various assertions about Iraq's real, present and credible threat of weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectorate was there, so can the Foreign Secretary explain why Hans Blix was denied the further two months that he requested to continue the inspection? What response does the Foreign Secretary have to make to the Iraq survey group's non-finding of any weapons of mans destruction—given that we were all told that the reasons for the war were weapons of mass destruction and a real, present and credible threat from Iraq?
  David Winnick: Why did he oppose the liberation of Kuwait?
  Mr. Straw: It was not just the Government who were telling my hon. Friend. The whole international community believed that Saddam posed a threat to international peace and security by the proliferation of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile systems. Russia did not rely on a dossier from the United Kingdom Government. Neither did China, Germany or France. The whole international community reached the conclusion it did from the evidence—in particular, year after year of noncompliance by Saddam Hussein that was charted to the Security Council in the 173 pages of a 29-chapter document that Dr. Blix put before the Security Council on 6 March.
  I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and other hon. Members to examine Command Papers 5769 and 5785, which I laid before the House in February and March last year. They set out the case and include the speeches that I made before the Security Council. I relied not on direct intelligence but on facts shared with everybody else— including the fact that after 12 years, Saddam was still refusing active compliance with the inspectors. As Dr. Blix said in his report t of 27 January, it was a game of catch as catch can.
  Of 29 separate clusters identified by Dr. Blix almost six weeks later, he was; explicit that in the cluster relating to anthrax, 10,000 litres of anthrax were unaccounted for. His words, not mine, were that there was a substantial presumption that material was still in Iraq and still active and could be used. When one put together all the publicly available facts and the behaviour that we could see with our own eyes, there was substantial evidence of further material breaches by Iraq.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North asked why we did not give the inspectors more time. That decision had to be made by the Security Council and Governments—Dr. Blix never suggested otherwise—on the basis of earlier Security Council

  1415
  resolutions, not on the evidence of the inspectors, as to whether or not Saddam's regime had been given enough time.
  David Winnick: He was given 12 years.
  Mr. Straw: Saddam was given 12 years and also overran all the time limits specified in resolution 1441.
  Mr. Grieve: We have strayed on to wider issues. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary seemed to imply that it would be impossible to publish the Attorney-General's advice without his consent. While I appreciate that one should always ask the Attorney -General to agree, perhaps the Foreign Secretary concurs that ultimately, such advice becomes the property of the Government. It is for the Government to decide whether or not they wish to publish. That must be the position.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right—publication is ultimately for the Government.— [Interruption.]Sure. If it was published by a Minister, of course it is a Government document in the end. In practice, one would have to seek the opinion of the Attorney-General. In practice, the idea that one would publish such advice without the Attorney-General's approval is so distant as to be wholly unlikely.
  Mr. Foulkes: Has my right hon. Friend ever asked the opponents of the war what they believe Saddam Hussein used to invade Iran and Kuwait and to kill hundreds of thousands of people at Halabja?
  Mr. Straw: That is for them to say.
  I am glad that we have moved on from whether or not we should dance on the head of a pin and have the legal advice made public. We accept that there was legitimate argument about the legal advice, but at the heart of this, political and moral judgments had to be made about whether or not we should go to war. We must accept the consequences of our decisions. Those who oppose military action must accept the consequences of what would have been their decisions, which would not have been the status quo.
  Mr. Salmond: The world would have been a safer place.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that Iraq would have been a safer place.
  Mr. Salmond: And the world.
  Mr. Straw: Let us be absolutely clear that neither the world nor Iraq would be a safer place if Saddam Hussein had remained.
  Lembit Öpik: I came here to hear the justification not for the war but for the refusal by the Foreign Secretary and the Government to share the legal advice. This is not about the integrity of any individual but about the integrity in the eyes of the public of the British body politic. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be in the public interest on his specific occasion to share the legal advice? After all, if the outline was
  1416
  accurate it will simply confirm that the legal advice was consistently reflected in that which the Government have already published.
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman works on the basis that Ministers are not liars.
  Lembit Öpik indicated assent.
  Mr. Straw: But the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy gave himself away. He started by saying that we should make available the legal advice, then added that we should make available the instructions as well. The hon. Gentleman's party and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists disagreed with military action in respect of the war. They now seek to make one argument after another to justify their policy. That is fair enough but they must not expect us to be party to that attempt.
  The Government have responsibilities to the House and have met them more than any previous Government in respect of military action. I came to the House and said that decisions on military action must be taken on substantive motions whereas, extraordinarily, that was never done in the past. We also made available a digest of the legal basis for the use of force, which had not been done in the past.
  Mr. Llwyd: It is a not a question of disclosing the instructions. I said that if the full advice had been published, the instructions would be there because it was upon those factual bases that the advice was drawn. That is an obvious point for any practising lawyer and quite plain. The factual bases would have to be on the face of the documents.
  The Foreign Secretary says that we introduced a smokescreen in relation to the war. I spent five minutes speaking about the legality of the war. The right hon. Gentleman has so far spent 20 minutes speaking on that aspect.
  Mr. Straw: Because it is at the heart of the issue. I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman but Hansard will tell us tomorrow whether his recollection or mine is correct. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he wanted the instructions to be published as well. We have had a spirited debate about whether or not the legal advice should be published and the basis for our decision to use force against Iraq. Whatever our differences over military action, we should look forward as well as back. I am not dismissing for a second the need for clear retrospective examination of Government decisions—not least and above all where military personnel are put in harm's way and innocent and military lives are lost.
  Along with our international partners from more than 30 countries, the Government's focus today is on working with the Iraqi people to build the safe, free and prosperous country that they deserve.
  Yesterday we saw a potentially historic step along that path. For the first time, representatives of Iraq's different communities, ethnic and religious groups have come together and agreed a common political approach for their country. The signature of the transitional administrative law is a significant Iraqi achievement.

  1417
  The law sets out a framework for governance during the transition and represents a landmark Iraqi consensus across a range of contentious issues.
  I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to all parties to that agreement. The members of the Iraqi governing council have shown great patience and fostered a spirit of consensus throughout the negotiations, which has laid the foundations for success. I also want to pay tribute to the work of Ambassadors Paul Bremer and Sir Jeremy Greenstock in facilitating the negotiations on the transitional law, and for everything they and their teams are doing to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country.
  Sir Jeremy comes to the end of his period as a British representative on the coalition provisional authority, working directly alongside Paul Bremer, at the end of this month. He has been an outstanding diplomat and public servant, and I venture to suggest that, without his skill and ability to relate to others, the job of securing the transitional law would have been much more difficult. I pay tribute to him and to his wife, Anne, who first had to endure long periods of separation, but has more recently been in Iraq with Sir Jeremy, working particularly on women's issues.
  Looking at the detail of the transition law shows how far Iraq has come since the dark days of Saddam Hussein's rule. The law enshrines fundamental principles of human rights, including protection for the freedom of religious belief and practice, freedom of expression and a free and independent judiciary. All Iraqis will be equal in rights, and equal before the law—without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, religion or origin. The law makes provision for a national commission for human rights and it includes provision for an electoral system designed to achieve 25 per cent. representation of women in the national assembly—a higher target than has been achieved in our Parliament.
  I would say to right hon. and hon. Members who were sceptical about the military action against Iraq, that none of those achievements, including a free press, an independent judiciary, recognition of all religions—Sunni and Shi'a Kurds, as well as Arab Kurds—could possibly have been achieved without the military action that we set in place.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: We can certainly agree about the enormous contribution of Sir Jeremy Greenstock to Iraq, and, indeed, his contribution when he was our permanent representative at the United Nations. However, all the constitutional elements to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred stand no chance of implementation unless the security situation is sufficiently stable. What is the Government's present judgment on the extent to which a stable security position will obtain when the constitutional responsibilities are handed over? How many British troops will be required to be in station in Iraq and for how long?
  Mr. Straw: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the signature of the transitional administrative law is the clearest demonstration to date of the strong desire of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis to build a free,
  1418
  stable and democratic society there. That it happened after the appalling attacks in Ashura a week ago shows how strong is the shared determination of the people of Iraq to build a better future for themselves. That was one of the most remarkable aspects of all. Security remains the overwhelming concern of the multinational force, the Iraqi security forces and the coalition provisional authority. Part of the issue is the status of forces post-30 June. It will probably be difficult to reach agreement, but I Am optimistic because all sides understand the importance of doing so.
  As regards how long our troops will remain in Iraq, it is a matter for my tight hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and we will not be able to make judgments about that until nearer the mid-year point. I have already made it clear to the House that it will take at least this year before there is any possibility whatever of significant British troop withdrawals. The crucial point is that we committed ourselves to Iraq for the long term and we shall stay there in support of the Iraqi people. On 30 June, unless something wholly unanticipated happens, there will be a transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
  Other good developments are taking place. Nine months ago, I recall endless concern being expressed—quite rightly—about the lack of electricity and water supply, failures in sanitation systems, difficulties with the transport system and problems in schools and hospitals. We do not hear so much about those problems these days, because huge efforts have been made to raise the standards of those public services, not just to their level on 17 March last year, but well above the level that most Iraqis in most parts of the country have ever known. We have also helped to establish a free trade union movement—I would hope that that would be welcomed on both sides of the House, but particularly on the Labour Benches-which never existed under Saddam.
  All that is in stark contrast to the repression, neglect and exploitation practised by Saddam's regime. The full extent of the crimes committed under that regime is only just emerging: dungeons, shackles and instruments of torture in police stations and prisons; vast qualities of documentation on those killed and persecuted by the regime; and testimonies of arbitrary imprisonment, beatings, torture, amputations and mass executions. Some 270 mass graves have been reported, containing hundreds of thousands of bodies. The fate of hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis, and other nationals, remains unknown.
  There are many challenges ahead in Iraq, but the Iraqi people are, with international help. making good progress in rebuilding their country. Whatever our different positions on the justification for military action, our focus nova should be on supporting the Iraqi people, and all those who are working with them, as they build a free, safe and prosperous Iraq at peace with its neighbours and taking its rightful place in the international community
  2.56 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have no difficulty in associating myself with the Foreign Secretary's last remarks about the position in Iraq. In a sense, it is probably right to say that the judgment of

  1419
  history will determine whether the intervention of the various powers, including the UK and the US, bears fruit—it was always going to be a difficult venture. Equally, I have no difficulty with the fact that I voted for the motion to use armed force. I did so based on my assessment of the position and, of course, on the material that the Government presented to the House—presumably, the exact basis on which the Government intended hon. Members to make up their minds.
  The difficulty with the current debate is that we seem to be in danger of straying from the single essential point into much wider considerations. The motion requests the publication of the Attorney-General's advice. I fully accept what the Foreign Secretary said when he enunciated the general principle, pertaining to an Attorney-General's advice; it is little different from that given by any other lawyer to his client It. It is essential that the Government have access to the best legal advice, as they do through the Attorney-General, albeit that it is not always him who writes the advice—or at least provides some of the basic information or gives an opinion—because he has a pool of talent on which to draw in supplying the advice.
  It is ordinarily important that such advice should remain confidential. The reason for the confidentiality is exactly that enunciated by the Foreign Secretary: the desirability of being able to get advice without it being published and also because—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would not disagree—the Government cannot hide behind the advice of an Attorney-General. It is the Government's decisions, based on advice, that have to be taken. In the old days, the advice used to be called an opinion. It is someone's opinion, not the gospel truth, that is offered to the world. It is the best advice that an individual, having sought the opinion and help of others, can offer the Government on what may be a complex and difficult issue.
  I have no difficulty with those basic principles. I think that the Foreign Secretary accepts that the convention has not required that previous advice from those who held the office of Attorney-General must never be published. The pages of parliamentary history show that that has happened on a number of occasions. Interestingly enough, it has generally happened when a problem about the legality or appropriateness of subsequent Government action has arisen. Matters such as the Archer Shee case and the Belfast riots seem to me to fall roughly into that category.
  Mr. Straw: I remember them well
  Mr. Grieve: They may be a long time ago, but one virtue of our parliamentary tradition is that what happens in Parliament is based on precedent. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is not about to consign that tradition to the bin, as it is very desirable. The problems faced by our forefathers tend to replicate themselves in the problems that we face. There is nothing new under the sun, so the past is a good place to look when one needs to know the best way to proceed.
  The Foreign Secretary has argued that he does not want to publish the Attorney-General's advice in this case. I disagree with that decision. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets hot under the collar, I hope that he will listen to some straightforward arguments about why the advice should be published.
  1420
  First, we must look at the circumstances in which the advice came to be given, and the use that the Government have made of it. Last year, the Government faced a difficult task. The Foreign Secretary restated a few moments ago what the Government believed at that time—that military action against Iraq was necessary and that Iraq had systematically flouted a series of UN resolutions. The Government also believed that Iraq posed a regional and even global threat; at least, that was how the matter was presented to the House when it was debated here. Finally, the Government wanted to ensure that Iraq was stopped. They took the view that UN resolutions already agreed allowed action to be taken and that there was no need to go back to the Security Council to secure a further resolution.
  To achieve that, the Government put out a great deal of information. Instead of acting first and debating the result in Parliament afterwards, they decided to take the novel step of seeking Parliament's sanction and approval for the action that they intended to take. I thought that that approach was commendable, and I welcomed it at the time.
  The Government put into the public domain a mass of information that, generally speaking, would not in the past have been seen by parliamentarians or the public. There were dossiers, and information about Iraq's capability in respect of weapons of mass destruction; also made available were assessments of the risks that Iraq posed, and of previous UN resolutions and the way that they had been broken, as reported by Dr. Blix. The Government also made it clear that they had gone to the Attorney-General before asking Parliament to come to this very important decision. Although the Government were not about to publish the Attorney-General's advice, they stated that they would publish a summary. That summary was published, and was available to hon. Members when the time came to make our decision.
  Liew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we did not go to war because Saddam flouted UN resolutions? Had that been the reason, I assume that we would have gone to war with Israel many years ago, although I would not have supported that. We went to war with Iraq for one reason—because it had weapons of mass destruction. At least, that is what we were told.
  Mr. Grieve: There lies the nub of the issue. When I came to consider whether it was proper to take military action against Iraq, I was not shadow Attorney-General. My assessment was influenced by Iraq's systematic flouting of UN resolutions, dating from the end of the Gulf war with Kuwait. The armistice at the end of that war contained conditions that were simply not observed. I was greatly influenced by the systematic violation of those agreements. However, for many Labour Back Benchers and other hon. Members, the critical question—and I accept that it was very important—was whether the situation was grave enough to merit military action.
  Clearly, the question of proportionality arose, and I remember the words "real and present danger" being bandied about. Was Iraq a real and present danger as well as being in breach of the resolutions? As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) says, the issue

  1421
  of WMD featured very largely in the debate. Although I did not think that the WMD issue should be taken in isolation, it was clear from the debate that for many hon. Members it was of critical importance.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: My recollection is that a number of senior Conservatives were extremely anxious to go to war, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy my curiosity about a particular question. It appears that publication in full of the Attorney-General's advice is now crucial for the hon. Gentleman. He is a lawyer, and he was considering these crucial matters very deeply, so why did it not occur to him, or any of his senior colleagues, to request full publication of the advice at the time?
  Mr. Grieve: I confess that I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past six months.
  Mr. McCabe: Why did not the Opposition request full publication at the time?
  Mr. Grieve: I had no reason to seek the publication of the Attorney-General's entire advice at the time, because the Government placed before the House a body of material that stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, two things have happened since then that have caused us to have this debate, which would not have happened otherwise. First, the weapons have not been found; and, secondly, evidence has emerged that calls into question the Government's competence in handling the intelligence material in relation to WMD. We know that because we discovered in the debate on Lord Hutton's report that the Secretary of State for Defence knew in March 2003 knew that the term "WMD" referred to battlefield weapons only, but that the Prime Minister apparently did not.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has offered two reasons why we should see the advice in full, but matters have moved fast. I remind him that there is another reason. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), the former Secretary of State for International Development, was a member of the Cabinet that took the decision to go to war, but she now says that there was something fishy about the decision. I cannot remember that happening in the past. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) wants to know what has changed, but he should ask those who sat around the Cabinet table at the time. Therefore, does my hon. Friend not agree that we are right to ask the questions that we are asking?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to move on to questions about the actions of that former Cabinet Minister since her resignation. Moreover, we know that the legality of the decision to take military action appears to have been the subject of some controversy, to say the least. I do not mean that as a criticism of the Government, but we know that the second permanent legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Mrs. Wilmshurst, was so concerned that she resigned over the issue.
  1422
  That is not to say that she was right and the Attorney-General wrong, as it is possible for people to have different opinions. However, we are entitled to ask whether the Attorney-General was given the right information on which to base his advice. That is the critical issue in this case, and the Government cannot avoid it. It may be that the Government were misled by the intelligence services. Their claim about WMD may have been made in complete good faith, As a result, the Attorney-General, again in complete good faith, may have based his advise on it. If that is the case, it may reflect on the competence of the intelligence services-intelligence is a fairly murky area—but it would not necessarily reflect badly on the Government and it would not make the decision to go to war unlawful. We did not have the correct intelligence because Saddam Hussein consistently denied and obfuscated the true position over the previous months and years. It would be useful to have the entire picture because it might well exonerate the Government of anything more than making a mistake.
  Alternatively, the, conspiracy theory is that the Government knew that the evidence on weapons of mass destruction was nothing like as good as the way in which they presented it to the House, but chose for their own reasons—perhaps they were particularly concerned about their Back Benchers—to deny their Back Benchers and, for all I know, the Attorney-General access to it. That is why the Attorney-General's advice, which the Government specifically relied upon to present their case to the House to justify the legal basis for military action, is so relevant.
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary is willing to listen with an open mind. Subject to the problem that the Attorney-General's advice might contain either classified material, which would have to be edited, or references to secret material that the Government have still not been able to present to the public, it is entirely in the Government's interest to make the advice available. The Government used parts of the advice to persuade the electorate and Parliament. One year later, they have got themselves into a position where, possibly through no fault of their own, elements of the factual opinion that they gave have been called into question on valid grounds, and supplying the entire advice would provide reassurance. In that light, I must say to the Foreign Secretary that it strikes me as being fairly reasonable for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) to table his motion.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument fairly carefully and agree with him, but it is highly unlikely that the Attorney-General's advice contains anything secret. If that were the case, the Katharine Gun case would not have collapsed because the judge would have allowed a public interest immunity certificate.
  Mr. Grieve: We may be entering the realm of speculation by discussing the collapse of the Katharine Gun case. The hon. Gentleman's point is a little farfetched because we do not know why it collapsed-we were told that there was a lack of evidence. I do not know whether there was a lack of evidence, whether the Government had material that they would have liked to have put before the court but could not because it was

  1423
  subject to PII or whether the Government had material covered by PII that they did not want to put before the court but would have been forced to put in front of the judge.
  Mr. McCabe: I want to return to the notion that the Government may have deliberately sought to dupe an array of people in the build up to war. Were members of the Privy Council such as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) so slow and inept that they could not see possible areas of doubt? Were they so in love with the idea of war that they did not want to consider the matter? What is it about the position now that was not remotely apparent to any of them at the time? This issue is difficult for all of us, but at the time they were in no doubt about the information that they were receiving. Apart from the political opportunity, which we have heard about, why have all the doubts surfaced subsequently? Why did members of the Privy Council not entertain any doubts at the time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord):That was a very long intervention.
  Mr. Grieve: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have kept abreast of what has happened since. When the debate took place, it was clear that Iraq had flouted the UN resolutions—I suspect that no hon. Member in the Chamber this afternoon could suggest that it had not flouted UN resolutions because it did so consistently. The obfuscation, the denial and the expulsion of the inspectors in 1998 form a pattern, and each of those events might well have justified taking military action at the time that it occurred. I can think of all sorts of other things that Iraq did not do: it did not hand back the Kuwaiti art treasures and it never provided a full list of those it had deported and murdered; the list is endless. Saddam Hussein was a monster who behaved monstrously before, during and after the war against Kuwait. I have no regrets about having seen him removed from power.
  The issue was difficult for the House. We were told that the pressing need to take military action rather than relying on other means was the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which provided a real and present danger that had to be addressed than and there and not by any other prolonged means. That argument influenced me when I considered how I should vote. I was comfortable in voting for the resolution provided that the Government were acting honestly with the House, and I certainly have no reason to think that they were not. The hon. Member for. Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) may remember that it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that, if only people trusted him more on other matters, it would be easier for them to trust him on that important matter, where we all think that trust was required.
  Mr. John Randall: My hon. Friend and I took different views about military action at the time, and I did so with a heavy heart. In March last year, I asked the Prime Minister for he full evidence because many of my constituents and I wanted to be persuaded by the Government. We wanted the evidence to know
  1424
  that the Government were doing the right thing, and that argument remains. We need the evidence to persuade people to trust our Government.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. Other Conservative Members also voted another way as a matter of conscience and were given every allowance to do so—I fully respected their position. I agree that there is a need to restore public trust. It is in nobody's interest for trust not to exist, and we will all lose in those circumstances. The belief that there are short-term party political advantages from a decline in trust in politicians in general is frankly a mistake. A loss of trust will ultimately affect the entire system of governance in this country and do none of us any good.
  The Government's reliance on the advice, the fact that they published a summary of it and the fact that it was intimately linked to the information that was available at the time and on which they based their view seems to make publication desirable. At the end of the day, however, it is their decision, not mine.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there was a pragmatic reason for the release of the summary? Having been intimately involved in those matters, perhaps he will take it from me that the necessity for producing a summary opinion had much to do with getting Labour Members of Parliament through the Lobby. Furthermore, the alternative in the absence of any such summary would have been a deluge of opinions from Matrix and other chambers, which would have been in the hands of those who were opposed to the war, and the nation would have heard them on the airwaves if they were broadcast nationally on that day.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sure that that analysis is correct. There is nothing wrong with what the Government did, and it was all the more desirable for them to take the unusual step of publishing a summary.
  Rather than getting agitated by what, in the light of what has happened, is a perfectly sensible suggestion, the Government should go away and consider the matter carefully. It is in their interest and that of good government generally that the advice should be published. If there are compelling reasons why it should not be published that go beyond the reasons of convention, the Foreign Secretary should explain them, rather than saying simply that convention does not allow publication and then giving us an interesting speech on several issues that are not germane to the point that we are discussing this afternoon. I wish the Government every success in what they are trying to do in Iraq, but I also think that it would be wise for the Government to publish the entire advice from the Attorney-General.
  3.20 pm
  Llew Smith: To save time and prevent unnecessary interventions, I shall say straight away that I was among those who voted against the war. However, I oppose Saddam Hussein now, just as I opposed him and demonstrated against his rule in the 1980s. I find it ironic that some of his greatest critics today were some of his greatest friends in the 1980s. I remind the House, as I said in an intervention, that I

  1425
  opposed the arms trade with Saddam Hussein and other evil regimes. I remember some of the criticism that we were subject to at the time. We were told that if we continued our campaign we would put British jobs in the arms industry at risk. We ignored that criticism because we thought that the campaign against selling arms to regimes such as Saddam's was more important than putting at risk some jobs in the UK arms industry. In saying that, I accept that right hon. and hon. Members disagree about whether we should have gone to war.
  Perhaps I was naive to assume that we could disagree on whether to go to war but that we could still agree that all the information that the Government received before taking the decision to go to war should be provided to hon. Members and to the public. Sadly, that is not the case. However, I believe that the Government have a moral obligation to provide that information, especially to the families of those who died as a result of the war. That obligation extends to us all, so that we can decide whether that act of war was legal. I am not a recent convert to that argument and I have not jumped on the bandwagon. Indeed, I am one of those who have consistently posed such questions to the Government over the past 12 months.
  On the day following the House of Commons vote on the war, the Prime Minister stated:
  "We want to ensure that any post-conflict authority in Iraq is endorsed and authorised by a new United Nations resolution".—[Official Report, 19 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 932.]
  But many of us who voted against the war contended that we did not even have an existing UN Security Council resolution that endorsed a military invasion and that it was an illegal war. In reply to a question of mine in May 2003, I was informed that Sir Jeremy Greenstock had said, when he spoke at the UN:
  "There is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in …Resolution 1441 "—[Oflicial Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 739W.]
  We all know that no second resolution was ever put to the United Nations.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is well versed in the statement that was produced by France, Germany and Russia thereafter, which emphasised that that was their understanding of the resolution that they had voted for.
  Llew Smith: I support such sentiments and I suspect that it is one of the reasons why a second resolution was not put to the UN at the time.
  Many hon. Members today wonder how a year ago they were able to vote for a resolution for war that asserted that this House:
  "recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security".—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 760.]
  That was false. As Dr. David Kay, an ex-CIA agent and the former head of the Iraq survey group, which was set
  1426
  up to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, put it to the United States Senate in January this year, after he resigned:
  "We were almost all wrong".
  We now need to know whether Ministers simply proved to be very bad judges of geopolitics, stubbornly refusing to listen to the millions who marched against the war a year ago, or—worse—deliberately distorted the evidence, cherry-picked the details that suited their case for invading Iraq, and pressed the Attorney-General to provide an opinion that endorsed a political decision already taken two years earlier to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
  Mr. McCabe: I respect my hon. Friend's view on the war, although I do not agree with it. Is he seriously suggesting that Ministers in this Labour Government deliberately set out to lie, distort and misrepresent the truth to con us all into a war? Is that really what he believes?
  Llew Smith: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. McCabe: You voiced it.
  Llew Smith: Where I come from, we have a quaint tradition that if someone poses a questions, someone else answers. You have both posed and attempted to answer the question. You posed the question and now I shall answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Llew Smith: My hon. Friend posed the question and I shall answer it. My answer is that I cannot answer his question truthfully until we receive the information that some of us have demanded and is the reason for today's debate. If we receive the information in the weeks or months ahead, I shall be in a far better position to answer my hon. Friend's question, but until that happens I have to say that I just do not know.
  The sequential refusals of the Attorney-General in the other place, and Ministers in this House, to release the full legal opinion have prevented both Houses of Parliament from finding the truth about how the war was started. I have tabled many questions on the legality of the war—probably more than any other Member, as the Minister will accept. I have requested that all—I emphasise the word "all"—the information that the Government received should he in the hands of Members of Parliament and the public. Sadly, a Labour Government who came to power in 1997 committed to open government have failed to keep their promise. The Government's responses to my requests for information have included "No" and "Information withheld". The Government have also responded that it is
  "not the practice to disclose the content of confidential discussions with foreign Governments."—[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 21W.]
  On another occasion, they said that the
  "substance of advice which the Law Officers may have given to Government is not publicly disclosed."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 236W.]

  1427
  I have also been told that
  "information is withheld under exemptions 2 and 4… of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 6 October 2003; Vol. 410 c. 1114W.]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): For the sake of clarity, will my hon. Friend confirm that when he says that all information should be put into the public domain, he means that all the intelligence information on which the Government based their decision should be put into the public domain?
  Llew Smith: I assumed that my hon. Friend the Minister would have known without bothering to ask that I was referring to the information that the Government received from the Attorney-General. Indeed, that is the reason for the debate. I did not ask for intelligence information or any other information that would put national security at risk. I am referring to the information that the Attorney-General provided to the Government. I see no reason why Members of the House, and indeed members of the general public, should not receive all of that information in order to be able to pass judgment on whether it was right or wrong, legal or illegal, to go to war.
  We also know from Anthony Aust, a former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics, writing in The Guardian on 2 March, that legal advice to the then Tory Government was published in 1972
  "over the Simonstown Agreement with South Africa. The treaty for the navy base obliged Britain to supply the apartheid regime with military equipment. The legal advice was published to justify the exports."
  Indeed, Ministers were becoming even more secretive, adding that even information on whether legal advice had been offered was a secret.
  In an intervention I said that I could understand that if a private individual sought legal advice, that individual had a right to determine whether the advice would remain confidential. But I repeat that a Labour Government or any other Government lent are not a private individual. This Labour Government were democratically elected and are therefore accountable to the people. It is not possible to have that accountability if the people—those who put the Government into office—are prevented from having information that determines the most important of all decisions: whether the country should go to war. I believe that Members of this House cannot take that kind of decision unless we, too, are provided with that information.
  While all this has been going on, a cloak of secrecy has been drawn over these matters. Despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found—Saddam was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction that he could use within 45 minutes and that were a threat to the west—no resignations have followed. Last December, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether, if no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, we could expect resignations at the highest levels of Government. Unfortunately, he failed to answer
  In my opinion, the war was illegal. It was immoral, and it has resulted in a more unstable world, where terrorism is a graver threat. It was conducted on a false
  1428
  premise—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that it could use them within 45 minutes and that it was a threat to us in the west.
  3.32 pm
  Sir Menzies Campbell: Were I winding up the debate, I should be compelled to describe it as wide-ranging. But in the time available to me I shall try to focus on the issue of publication, which I understand to be the gravamen of the motion in the name of Members of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party.
  Let me remind the House that when General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, the legal position was clear and unequivocal. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, there could be no dispute about the illegality of that act. But the military action against Iraq 12 months ago had neither such legal clarity nor unanimity, then or now. The truth is that legal opinion was then, and remains today, as controversial and divided as public opinion.
  The circumstances were and remain unique. The United Kingdom went to war on the basis of intelligence assessments, not because of an actual or even an immediately threatened act of aggression. It has been repeated again today that we went to war, the Government said, on the basis of the contention that Iraq was in breach of United Nations resolutions, and that that of itself justified military action to enforce those resolutions. That contention, if I have stated it both accurately and fairly, as I believe I have, seems to me to fail to take account of three significant legal principles.
  The first principle is that war must always be the last resort when all other diplomatic and political alternatives have been exhausted. Yet at the time of our debate on 18 March, and the military action that followed it, inspections were still continuing, and in the opinion of Dr. Blix could usefully be allowed to continue. Diplomatic and political alternatives were still available.
  The second principle is that when military action is taken, the use of force must always be proportionate to the political aims. The object of the resolutions upon which the Government rely now, and upon which they relied then, was to disarm Iraq, not to topple its Government. It is self-evident that military action for the first purpose is different in degree and extent from what is required for the second.
  The third principle is that regime change is illegal under article 2, paragraph 4, of the charter of the United Nations. Yet which of us doubts that the clear objective of the United States, with which we were associated in alliance, was regime change? Last week in Sedgefield, in a speech whose second half in particular requires careful study and consideration, the Prime Minister distanced the Government from regime change. But it cannot be avoided that we acted in concert with the United States, for which regime change was a publicly stated justification for military action.
  Those three elements—last resort, proportionality and regime change—all have legal consequences. I do not believe that any opinion seeking to examine and analyse the legal justification for military action could or should have ignored them. That is why I believe that the

  1429
  public are entitled to know whether the Attorney-General considered those elements, and if so what weight was attached to them.
  It is said that convention precludes publication of the Attorney-General's advice, but that principle was breached when part of the advice was published. If the principle is of such profound significance, as soon as it is breached the argument that it must be maintained in all circumstances suffers at the very least considerable damage. That principle can have been breached only because of a recognition by the Government of the special circumstances of the time—special circumstances reflected, as the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) has just said, in the Government's decision to put to the House a question seeking endorsement of the decision to take military action; special circumstances indeed. But that convention is not a statutory rule. The law is not broken by publication of the Attorney-General's advice, and it must be borne in mind that conventions in our constitution are conceived of in the public interest. It is not their purpose to protect parties or Governments from scrutiny or embarrassment. So, in this case, it is my conclusion that the convention does not serve the public interest and that the public interest is best served by full disclosure. That is why the House should support the motion.
  3.39 pm
  Ross CranstonOnly rarely does the House discuss matters of lawyers' law, and I am rather surprised that we are doing so this afternoon. The confidentiality of the Attorney-General's advice may be a matter that plays more in the taverns and byways of some parts of Wales, and possibly of Scotland, than in my constituency. Frankly, it has no resonance in my constituency.
  Yes, there is an interest in the security situation in Iraq because some of my constituents and some of the sons and daughters of my constituents are in that country with the United Kingdom's armed forces. There is interest in the developing democracy in Iraq and the emergence of a free press, responsible government and the interim constitution that was agreed recently. There is also some interest in what is to happen to Saddam Hussein and when he is to be tried for crimes against humanity, but there is no interest whatever in the subject of this debate. None the less, I shall address it.
  I thought the debate was to be about a specific issue—the confidentiality of the advice—but the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) strayed into the substance of that advice. I understood him to say that because we do not have the full advice we cannot understand the full legal reasoning. If that is what he was saying, let me assure him that the matter is widely canvassed in legal literature and there are extensive discussions of the various legal arguments. It is not merely a matter of an A4 sheet, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) claimed; a fuller memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was published by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which set out in detail issues such as automaticity. That advice clearly stated that we did not accept that the
  1430
  situation gave rise to automaticity, but that Iraq had a final opportunity, under resolution 1441, to comply with the UN resolutions but had not taken advantage of that.
  Salmond: That being so, we should do justice to the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Does not the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) find it passing strange that the published summary of the Attorney-General's advice included no consideration of such pertinent issues as proportionality in weighing up the legality or otherwise of the conflict before reaching a conclusion?
  Cranston: As I just said, one has to look not only at the summary of the Attorney-General's advice, but at the memorandum to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee publishes on 17 March, which explores in great detail the legal reasoning adopted by the Government.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: May I put a specific question to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Is it his position that the UN resolutions, including 1441, gave warrant for regime change?
  Ross Cranston: The resolutions—1441 in particular—gave rise to an obligation that the then Iraqi Government bring themselves into compliance. The onus was on that Government to comply with the obligation to disarm. They had a final opportunity to do so, mechanisms were set up for that under 1441, but they did not comply. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. and learned Friend's argument appears to be that the legality of the case for war was wholly transparent, partly because of the summary and partly because of various memorandums. But if the legal basis for going to war was as transparent as all that, why, only days before the war, was the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, still asking for a clear legal authorisation?
  Ross Cranston: Because, clearly, our armed forces and our civil servants are scrupulous about complying with legal advice. I do not know the substance of the advice being sought, but two issues are, unfortunately, sometimes confused: the legality of taking action and—whether or not the action is legal—the need to comply with what was set out in the Geneva protocols and is now incorporated in the statute of the International Criminal Court, namely, that one cannot commit crimes against humanity, war crimes and so on.
  Mr. Salmond: The admiral can help us, because he speculates in The Herald on 8 March—just yesterday—that the impact of his questioning may have had an effect. He says:
  "Now, if that caused them to go back saying 'We need our advice tightened up', I don't know."
  Ross Cranston: As I said, our armed forces are scrupulous about whether or not they are acting in accordance with the law. I do not know the background, but I can well understand Lord Boyce wanting

  1431
  assurance on that point. On the substance of the advice, which is not the issue of the debate, I am absolutely clear, as I have told the House on a n umber of occasions, that the repeated failure of the then Iraqi Government to comply with a series of resolution s dating back to the first Gulf war—resolutions 678, 687 and a number of others, leading to resolution 1441—gave rise to the obligation unconditionally to co-operate, which Saddam Hussein failed to do.
  Let me come, first, to the technical issue that is the substance of the motion: the obligation to publish the advice. In private law matters, there is both confidentiality—the lawyer's obligation to maintain the confidence of the client—and the separate evidential rule, which involves legal professional privilege, one aspect of which is that one cannot get access to legal advice during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. One cannot get access to communications between the lawyer and the client that have been used for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The reason for that goes back to statements such as those of Lord Brougham in the early 19th century, for example, and reiterated by the chairman of the Bar Council, quoted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  I shall quote Mr. Irwin, who is the current chairman of the Bar in England and Wales:
  "Were this advice to be published, it would leave future governments of whatever hue in difficulty when it comes to obtaining confidential legal advice on major matters of public or international law. That would be clearly against the public interest."
  In other words, we want our armed forces and civil servants to seek legal advice, and the protection given by the confidentiality of the advice encourages them to do so. That has always been the rationale of the confidentiality of advice, although one may question it. In my former guise, I was not always persuaded by the notion that legal professional privilege should be absolute. The law should recognise that there are good public policy reasons in some cases for overcoming legal professional privilege, but that is the general rule.
  In the public sector, there are additional features. There is the provision in section 35(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. There is the provision in the ministerial code, and there is the convention. It is a convention, not an absolute rule, and it is recognised in "Erskine May". The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy quoted Edwards's "The Law Officers of the Crown." It is a convention widely recognised that the Law Officers' legal advice remains confidential. there are exceptions; it is not an absolute rule. There is the case of the Belfast riots in 1865, and there are other exceptions. In recent times, Law Officers' legal advice was published as a result of legal proceedings in the Factortame case and the Scott inquiry, but good public policy justifications are needed to publish in defiance of the convention.
  The argument that it might be necessary to publish the Attorney-General's advice in specific legal proceedings so that people can defend themselves in criminal cases has already been used in the debate. Several Greenpeace volunteers are appearing before the magistrates court as a result of occupying tanks at the Marchwood military docks in February 2003. They want to argue a defence of necessity and say, "We were trying to prevent an illegal war, so we need access to the Attorney-General's advice."
  1432
  Mention has also been made of the Katharine Gun case, although if one reads the statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions carefully, one finds that the abandonment of that prosecution had nothing whatsoever to do with the Attorney-General's advice. The Greenpeace activists are barking up the wrong tree, and I suggest that they get better legal advice if they think that the Attorney-General's opinion would provide them with any defence to the charges of aggravated trespass or criminal damage because there must be some proximity between the Attorney-General's advice and the defence of necessity. Anyhow, they may make the application and can seek judicial review if the magistrates refuse to order the advice to be produced.
  We have heard a second argument about the situation somehow undermining the position of the parliamentary ombudsman, who, as I understand it from press reports, has sought the advice as a result of an application from The Guardian. It would be deeply ironic if the advice were made available to her but not to the House, and I frankly do not think that she should have access to the advice. I cannot understand the legal justification for making the advice available to her, but that is another argument, which frankly is not especially relevant today.
  The third argument, which is a serious argument, is that we must understand the factual basis on which the advice was given. Serious commentators such as Professor Peter Hennessy have commented on the matter. Professor Hennessy said:
  "That opinion turned largely on what intelligence told Whitehall about the degree to which Saddam Hussein and his weaponry posed a danger to other people's nationals other than his own."
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was reported last week in The Guardian as saying:
  "The reliability of the advice is directly related to quality of the facts on which it is based".
  The argument is serious, but it can be easily resolved because the facts on which the advice was based were perfectly clear. The facts are set out in Security Council resolution 1441, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke about the way in which each of the resolution's words was carefully negotiated.
  The preamble to resolution 1441 sets out two facts: Iraq's breach of Security Council's disarmament resolutions over 12 years since 1990, and its failure to comply with inspection regimes under those resolutions. As the preamble says, the Security Council was deploring
  "further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by …UNSCOM".
  It also says that the Security Council recognises
  "the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security".
  The obligations on Iraq are clearly set out in the substance of resolution 1441. Paragraph I says that Iraq is "in material breach". As I have said in previous debates, that is the most serious kind of breach because it may give rise to the breach of a treaty. Paragraph 2 gives Iraq
  "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".

  1433
  Paragraph 9 puts the important obligation on Iraq to
  "cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA".
  The resolution is perfectly clear.
  Mr. Colin Challen: I have been listening carefully to my hon. and learned Friend. I am not an expert in international law, but surely we should take into account the context of resolution 1441. The American delegation to the United Nations said that 1441 would not lead to military action. Indeed, it would have been difficult to secure unanimous agreement for that resolution if the French or Germans had believed otherwise. It is odd to build an argument on the basis of what happened on that fateful day in the United Nations.
  Ross Cranston: Resolution 1441 imposed a unanimous obligation on Iraq, saying that it was "in material breach", but had a final opportunity to comply with its obligations inter alia by co-operating "immediately, unconditionally, and actively". Paragraph 13 goes on to say that
  "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is going to conclude that 1441 gave the green light to go to war. Why, then, did the much praised public servant, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, make a statement outside the UN in which he said that there was "no automaticity" about our going to war in that resolution?
  Ross Cranston: I touched on that earlier, when I said that there was no automaticity, but that Iraq had to achieve compliance immediately, unconditionally, and actively.
  Dr. Blix produced three important and detailed reports for the Security Council, the first of which was published on 27 January. One remembers that report in particular because in it Dr. Blix used the following expression.
  "Inspection is not a game of 'catch as catch can'."
  He pointed out that the obligation in paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 was to co-operate actively. In his report of 14 February, he referred again to the need to cooperate and said:
  "Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."
  Finally, in his March report, Dr. Blix said:
  "It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive', these initiatives 3–4 months into the resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' co-operation."
  In other words, Dr. Blix was saying that Iraq had not complied with its obligations under 1441.
  The issue of whether or not weapons of mass destruction existed is beside the point as far as 1441 is concerned, because under that resolution the onus is on
  1434
  Iraq to demonstrate that it does not have such weapons. I remind the House that in the preamble to resolution 1483, passed after the conflict had finished on 22 May 2003, the Security Council reaffirmed
  "the importance of the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and of eventual confirmation of the disarmament of Iraq".
  Paragraph 11, the substantive part of that resolution, reaffirms
  "that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations".
  Even after the conflict, the Security Council said that Iraq must disarm. The fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been found so far is clearly beside the point.
  Llew Smith: How can weapons of mass destruction be beside the point, given that they were the reason why we went to war?
  Ross Cranston: It is clear, in terms of 1441, that we took armed action because Iraq had not demonstrated that it did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the point. The onus was on Iraq to demonstrate that it did not have them, but it failed to do so.
  I was sad to see that the other day the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, supported by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), signed up to the petition to the International Criminal Court on UK war crimes. That petition is entirely misconceived. It confuses the earlier notion of the illegality of the war with that of how any war is conducted in relation to the Geneva protocols, and also suggests that we in the UK are guilty of genocide because we acted in accordance with the sanctions resolutions imposed by the United Nations. That is completely wrong.
  It is clear what the motion is all about. We cannot get away from the obvious fact that we have a legitimate disagreement in this House about the war in Iraq. The motion is one more weapon that is being used by those who opposed the war to further that cause. I completely reject the suggestion that the Attorney-General was suborned in terms of the opinion that he gave. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the Attorney-General is a man of the highest integrity. Before he became Attorney-General, he was a leader of the commercial Bar and chairman of the Bar Council. He is a man of the highest intelligence and integrity, and the suggestion that he was manipulated to produce advice must be clearly and unequivocally rejected.
  The motion represents one more attempt to go over very old ground. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, our major concern should be the future of a democratic state in Iraq.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I regard it as a little odd, to say the least, that the Solicitor-General is not in her place to discuss these matters, given that she assumed such a prominent role in the Gun prosecution case and that the Attorney-General is the subject of the debate. A few days ago, I said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph that I deeply regret the fact that the Attorney-General is not in the House of Commons to answer for and to be accountable for the decisions that he takes on

  1435
  behalf of the nation, particularly in matters of this kind. Many people have the highest opinion of the Attorney-General, and I would concur. However, nobody is infallible. Moreover, under the conventions of the House, it is—or was, until this Government took over-always the case that the Attorney General sat in this House, for extremely good and sound reasons. I shall revert later to the role of the Attorney-General.
  I share or bear some responsibility for the Government's position because I repeatedly asked questions in the run-up to the war. I pressed especially for the Attorney-General's opinion on the legality of the war to be made available. Furthermore, on 14 March 2003, I specifically asked the Prime Minister in a parliamentary question whether he would make a statement on the legal basis for military intervention against Iraq. His initial answer w is that there was a long-standing convention that legal advice to the Government remained confidential. That has often been repeated. He continued:
  "We always act in accordance with international law."— [Official Report, 14 March 2003; Vol. 401 c. 482W.1
  Towards the end of my remarks, I shall revert to that point and speak not only about dismantling the issue of the resolutions but the philosophy that lies behind the question of what constitutes international law, what the Prime Minister thinks about that now and what he thought about it then. His speech in Sedgefield on 5 March has a great bearing on the publication of the Attorney-General's opinion.
  In the run-up to the debate on 17 March 2003, the Attorney-General published an opinion in summary, which was given to Parliament. As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, I was clear about the reason for that. It was partly pragmatic. I believe that the Labour Government were legally justified in going to war. I approved of the war, and I believe that the decision has been proved correct. As history unfolds, despite the difficulties, of which there will be more, the moral, political and legal justification for the war will become apparent. However, a veritable deluge of opinions poured out of all the international law chambers of the Middle Temple, Gray's Inn and so on. They dominated the airwaves. Professors of international law gave interviews on every television and radio station and said that the war was illegal. We also knew that our debate would be broadcast to the nation. A million people or thereabouts had marched against the war, which was a matter of intense controversy. The question that was asked most often was whether the war was legal.
  I believed—I emphasise that I express a personal opinion, although others share it—that it would be highly undesirable if proceedings in the House were dominated by a deluge of opinions, on only one side—that the war was illegal. It appeared to me that it would therefore be wise for alternative opinion to be presented to the House to rectify the imbalance that would have been broadcast to the nation. Furthermore, from the Government's point of view, that would have influenced those hon. Members who were prepared to vote for the war only reluctantly and who could be persuaded if the deluge of opinion from international lawyers were counterbalanced. Those Members had a difficult choice—I am not in any way cynical about that, or unfairly critical of them—and I believe that the
  1436
  submission of the Attorney-General's opinion in summary form had an enormous influence on the debate. I think that I am right in saying that the legality of the war was not challenged during the course of that debate. That may seem curious in retrospect, but on the whole, the fact that the Attorney-General's summary opinion had been put before the House laid the matter to rest for the time being.
  As we know, however, that has not been the case since then, and the debate on legality rumbles on. For many reasons that I have often stated, from the Front Bench during debates and in correspondence in the national press, I have repeatedly called for publication of the full opinion. The Prime Minister apparently understands the basis of that argument, because in my exchanges with him during his statement to the House on the setting up of the Butler inquiry, I explicitly suggested that the Butler committee should have a copy of the full opinion from the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister replied that it could have anything it wanted, and the Foreign Secretary had said as much to me the previous day in reply to a similar question. On that basis, we know that the Butler inquiry will have access to the full opinion. We also know that the ombudsman has called for it. As I said in my exchanges with the Solicitor-General at the time of the dropping of the Gun prosecution, it would be in line with the ministerial code for the matter to be put before the House to be cleared up.
  The Government amendment repeats the mantra, which the Foreign Secretary has repeated today from the Dispatch Box, that under the so-called
  "long-standing convention…the advice of the Law Officers is given in confidence and is not disclosed publicly".
  I do not mean this offensively, but, as a point of factual correction, that is not true. In all fairness, I think that the Foreign Secretary admitted as much in our exchanges, so we have cleared that up. However, it is intolerable that for several weeks—even several months—millions of people in this country have been subjected to yet another propaganda outburst, in which that convention was claimed to exist. In fact, that was not properly challenged at all until last week.
  I became so frustrated with that that I wrote a very plain letter to The Daily Telegraph setting out, in terms, the precedents for disclosure. I also spelled them out on the "Today" programme. Given that there is no rule of absolute confidentiality— go further, and say that no—rule of confidentiality exists at all—it is intolerable that the nation was deluged with so much propaganda and was led to think that disclosure of the Attorney-General's opinion would contravene some constitutional principle of the highest importance.
  The Foreign Secretary simply could not deny that many of the opinions previously disclosed by an Attorney-General related to state policy and questions of war and peace. That has happened on many important occasions, not all of them in the mists of antiquity, although some go back to 1865. They include the Belfast riots case, in which Palmerston made it explicit that there was no reason why the Attorney-General's opinion should not be made available to the House of Commons; he based that decision on the Cagliari case of 1858. Subsequently, along came Balfour in 1901, who, for reasons of political convenience, tried

  1437
  to change the rules. However, Edwards—the great authority on these matters—makes it clear that we cannot say dogmatically that there have been no occasions on which the Attorney-General's advice has not been made available, and there are so many instances when it has been, that it would be utterly absurd to cling to the idea that, in matters of great controversy and dispute involving state policy, as in the case of the Iraq war, the Attorney-General's opinion should not be made available this time.
  Mr. McCabe: As the hon. Gentleman has told the House that there is no doubt in his mind as to the legality of the war, I assume that the release of the full advice would have no impact on his opinion, since he has already used his best judgment to come to that conclusion. Will he therefore tell the House whose cause would be served by the release of the information?
  Mr. Cash: I am coming to that. The answer is simple: it is the cause of trust. The very people who have been deluged with the deception that there is a bar to the Attorney-General's opinion being released to the public would benefit. Let us make no mistake: many people have been deceived into believing that a constitutional bar exists. We are bound to ask why such an alleged bar was set up. It was because the Government did not want people to know that no absolute rule of confidentiality existed. It was for that reason that I wrote my letter to The Daily Telegraph and appeared on the "Today" programme. As I have said, I did so because I became so fed up and frustrated at the deception that was being perpetrated.
  Mr. Salmond: How does the hon. Gentleman feel that the earlier exchange with the Foreign Secretary was left? The Foreign Secretary said first that the matter was up to the Attorney-General, but he seemed later to retract that. Did we reach a satisfactory conclusion on that issue?
  Mr. Cash: I think we were getting there.
  Such matters have been canvassed in the past, and I ought perhaps to refer again to Edwards, the great authority on the Law Officers of the Crown. He makes it abundantly clear that it is no more than a courtesy for the Attorney-General to be asked for his consent when a Minister decides—as a matter of his ministerial accountability—to exercise his discretion to release the opinion of the Attorney-General in regard to the sphere of functions relating to that Minister. In this case, it is the sphere of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, to a certain extent, the Defence Secretary that is at stake. Having opened my remarks by noting the absence of the Solicitor-General from this debate, it is instructive to point out that we now have two Foreign Office Ministers here. I hope that that is in recognition of the fact that they are responsible for the release of the
  1438
  opinion, and that it is not specifically the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General, but those Ministers, who are primarily concerned.
  Mr. Llwyd: On that point, does not it make matters even worse that one of the senior legal advisers at the Foreign Office tool a view opposite to that of the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Cash: Certainly, it is unusual to find the Foreign Office legal adviser resigning. I am not privy to the full facts of that resignation. Of course, the Attorney-General's advice at the time will have been based on the facts as he understand them, on which I will comment in a moment.
  Briefly, however, I want to deal with the other precedents that have been mentioned. The Archer Shee case in 1911, which was the famous Winslow boy case, raised matters affecting the integrity of the Admiralty. Then there was the instance of Austen Chamberlain on the legal questions arising over peace and disarmament in 1927. There was also the case of the naval base at Simonstown in 1971. There was the instance — this was not so much a matter of state policy, although I think that it was a matter of immensely important foreign policy— of the Maastricht treaty in mid-1993. The advice given by the Law Officers with regard to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was disclosed in the Factortame case, was also an example. In addition, there was the substance of the advice given in connection with the Scott inquiry, and an incidence in the 1960s in relation to Commonwealth immigration. Lastly, of course, there is the summary opinion of the Attorney-General given in relation to this war.
  The full advice has, therefore been given on a number of occasions, and advice has been given in substance or in summary in others. As far as I know from all the reports that I have heard, the Australian Attorney-General's full opinion was given to the Australian Parliament. Many of the traditions on which Australia's parliamentary system is based are similar to ours, and no doubt similar considerations applied. I have been informed that the US Attorney-General's opinion could well be made available, too. Therefore, if we consider the desirability of transparency, there seems to be no profound reason why the opinion of the Attorney-General should not be available in this case.
  Given the debacle in the House of Lords yesterday in relation to the Constitutional Reform Bill, the role of the Attorney-General may be subject to some uncertainty, if not threat, in light of the kind of reforms being proposed and the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's role. The debate therefore has a certain poignancy, as it could turn out to be highly inconvenient to have a man of integrity and independence of mind standing up to a Government and saying, "You cannot go to war." Previous Governments have had to contend with difficulties with regard to advice given by the Attorney-General in relation to matters of state policy, and that has been catastrophic for them.
  As we know, or ought to know, conventions depend on the reason for the rule. If the reason in this case is merely to protect the Government—if the alleged convention not to release the advice of the Attorney-General is intended merely to protect the Government

  1439
  from their crities and those Back Benchers who voted reluctanct for the war—that is a bad reason. The convention, such as it is—broken as often as it is adhered to—should not be relied on in this instance. T. S. Eliot wrote in "Murder in the Cathedral", that now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain: temptation shall not come in this kind again, for I now know it is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason. I believe that the Government's moral dilemma in relation to the non-publication so far of this advice turns on that moral dilemma.
  For me, the most important question arising in this debate turns on accountability and trust—accountability for judgment and trust in the basis on which that judgment was made: the two are interwoven. The disclosure of the advice is a matter not for the Attorney-General, but for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The Attorney-General could have arrived at his opinion, pursuant to my question on the eve of war, only on the basis of the facts before him at that time. The facts were provided by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and so was the perception, or the understanding, or the conduct, of international relations in the context of international law. That may not be apparent at first sight, but I believe it has a great bearing on the matters we are considering.
  Contrary to suggestions by leading counsel in the press recently that the rule of confidentiality is based on the legal professional relationship between legal adviser and client, it is surely obvious to anyone that—as I said in an intervention earlier—the Attorney-General is not a mere legal adviser, and the Government are not a mere client. Given the case of R v. Allen n 1862, and on any constitutional analysis, the Attorney -General has a vital role in our constitutional arrangements. He is personally accountable to Parliament and is not collectively responsible to the Cabinet, as was made clear by the judgment of Lord Justice Cockburn. He is therefore in a unique and exposed position. At the time of giving his opinion on the legality of the war, if he had declared it to be unlawful and if his advice had not been accepted, he would have been honour-bound and expected to resign. That is his prerogative and his responsibility. If he advises the Government that a war is legal, all is well; if he does not, all hell is let loose.
  In such circumstances, there is every reason why the Attorney-General should not be left as the boy on the burning deck. I am bound to say that that thought lay at the back of my mind when I told the Solicitor-General on 26 February, in relation to the dropping of the Katharine Gun prosecution, that I found much of what she said pretty unconvincing. It was anticipated that the full opinion of the Attorney-General would be demanded during the course of the case by way of disclosure. In particular, it was clear that Katharine Gun regarded herself as being blatantly in breach of the Official Secrets Act. The route adopted for the dropping of the prosecution on the ground of "evidential deficiency" is to say the least tortuous, although it does relieve the Attorney-General of the need to issue a nolle prosequi in the public interest, for which he alone would be personally accountable to Parliament, that being unchallengeable in any court.
  The Solicitor-General claimed in her statement on that day that the Prime Minister was bound to take his law from the Attorney-General. In a letter of
  1440
  26 February, the then Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir William Mackay, stated that, in line with page 389 of "Erskine May",
  "the Law Officers have no control over the legal action of the Government. A Minister is not obliged to take his law from the Attorney General. Accountability thus rests with the Ministerial decision taker."
  In other words, we are back to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, although the latter refused to accept that point in his speech.
  At 6 o'clock yesterday evening, I received an unsatisfactory answer from the Solicitor-General about the so-called evidential deficiency, which we all believe has much to do with the desire not to publish the full opinion. On the dropping of the Katharine Gun prosecution, the Attorney-General indicated in the other place that the papers relating to that evidence would be made available—or so I thought I heard him say. I have asked the Solicitor-General to lay these papers in the Library, and she said that she would provide an answer shortly. I faxed her last night, asking that the papers be made available for today's debate, but they have not been provided.
  As I have said before, the production of the full opinion is a matter separate from the legality of the war. Many believe, for example, that the 45-minute claim was exaggerated in order to get Labour Members through the Lobby. In common with my colleagues—or most of them—I believe that the war was both legal and necessary. Indeed, I have much sympathy with the Prime Minister's speech last Friday on global terrorism, although I disagree with him when he claims that the question should not be one of "issues of trust", but of his judgment. For me, it is a question of both judgment and trust.
  The Prime Minister is right to say that the United Nations needs reform and that international law needs re-evaluating. There is no final arbiter or court to adjudicate on many of these matters, although in my opinion we were unwise to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Lord Boyce was right to insist that our armed forces were satisfied that the war was legal. We need to go further than that, however.
  Of course, there is much to be said for the rules of international law in their general sense, but the Attorney-General's opinion is intimately bound up with the centre of gravity of our perception of, and conduct of, international relations, and with international law and our view of the nation state. It is therefore integral to the Government's view of foreign policy. The release of the Attorney-General's opinion would throw much light on these matters.
  As the Prime Minister said in his Sedgefield speech, in our own self-interest we and the United States are ultimately bound up with the fate of other nations. Although he does not seem to appreciate the fact, his decision to go to war was based on the Westphalian concept of nation states, which he repudiated in his speech. According to that concept, states decide for themselves what is in their own self-interest—as the French, the Germans and the Russians did in respect of resolution 1441. Indeed, all those nations adopted their positions as individual nation states in their own self-interest, in opposition to the self-interest, as they saw it,

  1441
  of the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, Monsieur Vedrine, the former French Foreign Minister, said that the French were making decisions according to their interpretation of their own interests.
  Fundamental matters of foreign policy such as the 45-minute claim and what the Prime Minister knew about whether or not the weapons were battlefield weapons are inherently matters of judgment as well as of trust. If the Prime Minister wants us to trust his judgment, he would do well, in line with the precedents on state policy, to satisfy the House that the instructions to the Attorney-General as evidenced in his opinion—and Her Majesty's Government's policy on international law and the United Nations as reflected in that opinion—stand scrutiny. That should include the Attorney-General's opinion about the extent and relevance of international law, so that it cannot be said that the Attorney-General had changed his mind about the legality of the war, as we know he did in respect of the Gun prosecution.
  In circumstances that echo today's debate, it emerges that in 1924 the Cabinet exerted undue pressure on the integrity and independence of the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Hastings, in relation to the Campbell sedition case. But the storm clouds grew and eventually burst in a vote of censure on Ramsay MacDonald's Government, which then fell. It would be as well for the Prime Minister to take note.
  4.35 pm
  Alan Simpson: I do not propose to speak for half an hour, and I begin by apologising for not being a lawyer in a debate that has so far effectively been dominated by lawyers.
  It is in the interests of all right hon. and hon. Members to ensure and insist that decisions made by the House comply with international law. It is to that context that I shall confine my comments. I do not want a re-run of the arguments about whether or not the war should have been fought. I accept the Prime Minister's view that, at one level, that is a matter of judgment. I have never questioned the sincerity of the Prime Minister—I just think his judgment was awful. The House has a responsibility to express judgments, and we will be judged by the public when they cast their votes. That is the nature of politics. Part of that process presupposes that judgments are made within a framework of legality.
  The official position of the Conservative party cannot be rewritten as part of a post-hoc rationalisation. Before the war, I toured television stations either preceding or following the shadow Foreign Secretary. It was clear that the issue of legality did not for one moment pass through his mind. At some stages, his gung-ho approach left me feeling that if the Conservatives had evidence of Saddam passing wind, that would have been enough to declare war. The Conservatives just wanted to be in there, so for them to suggest at this point that they had a continuing concern about compliance with international law is not to be truthful. That is not necessarily the claim made by all Conservative Members but it would certainly be a gross distortion of official Conservative Front-Bench policy at the time.
  Convention or not, one of the most important principles of open, democratic accountability in respect of an issue as profoundly important as going to war is
  1442
  that legal advice should be presented to the House. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about lawyer-client confidentiality, but it was the House that endorsed support for the war. As such, it was Parliament that should have been deemed to be the client and it is Parliament that should have the right to know the contents of the legal advice.
  My reservations about the wording of the motion do not relate to whether the advice should be disclosed. Rather, the motion presents an inadequate proposition by posing three important questions that it then ducks. It cannot be sufficient merely to ask for the advice of the Attorney-General. We must ask for the background advice given to the Attorney-General by his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst. We need to know also which other counsels' opinion was sought. As a House, we ought to address what we would do with advice presented to us today.
  As to the opinion of other counsels, having had a limited amount of local government experience, I take a sanguine view of the advice that one gets from lawyers. Lawyers will give the best advice that money can buy—and the best opposite advice that money can buy. Whether one believes that or not, councillors in local government would usually look at the legal advice and ask whether it would get past the district auditor, knowing that someone else would judge them on that advice—
  David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Alan Simpson: No, because we have had so many interventions, and it is inappropriate for an hon. Member who has been absent for much of the last couple of hours to intervene at this stage.
  The point is that someone else will judge the legality of one's actions. What the legal profession provided was legal advice and opinion, not necessarily an affirmation of legality. Ultimately, that is what the House will have to face up to.
  Some hon. Members have mentioned human rights and argued that it was right to tackle the wretched record of Saddam Hussein, but I must remind them that that was not the basis of the case made to justify going to war. As others have pointed out, regime change would have been illegal under international law. The case made to justify the war was mounted on the basis of Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, the threat to international security and the breach of UN resolutions.
  In respect of UN resolutions, we should remind ourselves of what was said by Hans Blix—not only head of the weapons inspectorate, but himself an international lawyer. In an interview with The Independent at the weekend, he said:
  "I don't buy the argument the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
  He went on to say that ownership of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council, and not with individual international states. That is the proper basis and we should reflect on it. It is a fact that the rest of the UN Security Council believed that there was no automaticity to a war on the basis of resolution 1441. As Sir Jeremy Greenstock made clear, a second resolution would have been required to justify war.

  1443
  What Hans Blix is telling us is that the possession of the right to determine was the prerogative of the UN Security Council. That is my main concern.
  As a Parliament we must move beyond simple demands about what information and advice should be made available towards recognition that countries cannot act as judge and jury in their own cause. Those who argue that the outcome justifies the war are treading a flawed and dangerous path. It cannot be right for any country to be able to start a war simply because it wants to, and then declare the war lawful because it chooses to. That is making up international law as one goes along. If we presume that right for ourselves, the same right applies to every other country—whether it be a rogue state or "axis of evil" country or not. All those states would have exactly the same rights. The willingness of this Parliament to hold itself to account to international law, as judged by other international bodies, is the central issue at stake
  This weekend the Prime Minister made a speech about the war on terrorism. He made an important point when he said:
  "It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents 21st century reality; and giving the UN the capability to act effectively as well as debate."
  The Prime Minister was asking for new flexibilities. I suspect that, if that were put to the Security Council, other member states would talk about different constraints on the freedom of individual states. Throughout his speech, the Prime Minister may have wanted flexibilities, but he wanted them within a framework of legality. That is the central issue that we must address.
  If the Government genuinely believe that there was a legal case for war, we should take the initiative ourselves and refer the case either to the International Criminal Court or to the UN Security Council.
  There needs to be a judgment that is not made by us. The people who perpetrate a war cannot be the ones who determine whether it was legal.
  That was brought home to me by the comments of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff at the time. Other hon. Members have made reference to his demand, six days before the war started and with troops lined up on the borders of Iraq, for an unequivocal assurance that the war was legal. The significance of that demand is that he should have made it at all. No members of the defence staff or the armed forces would ever want to be accused of being unwilling to fight a legal war, or to put their lives on the line to defend the country against a real and present threat to our security.
  However, Sir Michael was merely voicing the concerns of the defence establishment, which reflected the view of the British public that the war was not legal. The Chief of the Defence Staff feared that British soldiers would find themselves hauled up before the ICC and charged with committing war crimes because the war was not deemed to be legal.
  The House must find the courage to do more than demand that the Attorney-General's advice be published. We must go further, and deal with the central question that the British public want us to address. The answer to that question cannot be determined through the claims and self-justifications of those who made the
  1444
  decisions. Only in the court of international opinion, or in the international institutions established to define the legalities of war, will the question be answered that people still ask us every day on their doorsteps. Was the war legal? At the moment, the answer in the public mind is no.
  4.47 pm
  Hywel Williams: I am not a lawyer, and that makes me unusual in this debate. However, my remarks centre on the fact that non-lawyers can also contribute to the discussion of these matters, as can people from the countries represented on these Benches.
  My constituents are puzzled by the Government's strange reticence on this matter. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary likened the situation to the relationship between lawyer and client. He said that confidentiality must be respected, or the relationship would be worthless in the future. Similarly, he claimed that the Attorney-General's advice must remain confidential.
  However, the relationship in question is not like the one that exists between a client and a lawyer. It is the relationship between a Government and a people. The advice given to the Government was the basis on which we went to war. That is not a pettifogging issue, as the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) claimed. He is not here at present, but it is not as if we are talking about double parking, shoplifting or the larceny of bicycle inner tubes. We are talking about war—the most extreme action a Government or state can take. The tragedies of 20,000 people, at least, attest to the seriousness of the matter. War is serious; it is not pettifogging.
  If we are to resolve the matter collectively, and if the Government are to achieve the closure that Ministers and their friends so long for, the people of our countries must be satisfied. They must be given the full information so that they can decide the matter for themselves. I thought that Labour Members believed in the maxim, "Trust the people," but clearly they do not in this instance. I hope that the Government can trust the people in the future and that they publish the advice.
  I was against the war and remain against it. I am clear about that, but this matter does not concern the war itself. The question here is whether people should he told the basis for going to war. If the advice is published, it will not be hon. Members who are satisfied but the people, in which case my constituents will be satisfied or otherwise by the Government's actions. The question is not for my hon. Friends or me; it is for the people, because the Government are answerable to the people of the United Kingdom—the people of Scotland, the people of Wales and the people of my Caernarfon constituency.
  If the Government persist with their course of action and refuse to come clean and allow the matter to be resolved, the people will find them shifty and evasive, and—perhaps wrongly—they will be found guilty by default. If they have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and no guilt, let them publish the advice and be justified.
  4.51 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Contrary to suggestions by my

  1445
  hon. Friends that the issue is pettifogging and that ordinary people are not interested in it, I have received many letters about it and am glad to speak on behalf of my constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) asked, whose cause would be served by publishing the legal advice. I have a simple answer: the cause of democracy will be served by publishing the legal advice. We have heard that Ministers' arguments that there is no precedent for publishing the Attorney-General's advice is wholly specious. In his comprehensive speech, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) set out all the precedents going back to the 19th century. Before he informed us about the historical precedents, we already knew that the Government had partially revealed the advice by presenting a summary. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see the difference between publishing a summary of the advice and publishing the whole advice.
  The other argument that we have heard from Ministers—I hope that we will not hear it again this afternoon—is that the Government are somehow comparable to a lawyer's private client, but that is tendentious. The Government are not the clients; if anything, we are the clients, and therefore we are entitled to see advice that was sought in our names.
  Some of my hon. Friends have asked why there is concern about the legal advice. One reason why there is concern is that it is widely acknowledged that the greatest expertise about the law in relation to war and foreign policy rests not with the Attorney-General, who is a distinguished commercial lawyer but not an expert on these matters, but the Foreign Office. Is it pure coincidence that the deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office resigned on the eve of the war? Could it be that there were uncertainties within the Foreign Office that were not reflected in the published summary of the Attorney-General's advice?
  Mrs. Mahon: At the United Nations, almost every person who was asked their opinion, including the Secretary-General Kofi Annan, did not give their blessing to the legality of the war. They are the experts on going to war.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  On the eve of war, the deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned, which was not sufficiently remarked on at the time. Days before the war, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Michael Boyce, insisted on a simple statement on the legality of the war. That gives the lie to my hon. Friends who claim that the legality of the war was transparent all along. If the Chief of the Defence Staff demanded a definitive statement on the legality of the war, it means that there was uncertainty among those who were best placed to know—our armed forces. People ask why we are obsessed with this pettifogging issue and why are we always looking backwards, but I believe that the British public value our armed forces and do not want to feel that we sent them to fight an illegal war. That is not a trivial matter. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the framework of international law.
  1446
  One of the reasons for the uncertainty, the bloodshed and the attacks on our forces in the region is a widespread belief internationally that the war was not legal. Certainly, military action was not taken on the basis of a genuine international consensus. It was undertaken unilaterally by the US and Britain. Whether my hon. Friends like it or not, the issue still concerns the British public. The legality of the war has a bearing on the legitimacy of the actions of our troops in the future.
  The issue will not go away. There is a shadow hanging over the Government and all the bluster and threats against certain of my hon. Friends—such as intimations that we will be put in front of a special tribunals and asked whether we are, or have ever been, socialists—will not make it go away. The shadow from the war with Iraq is a widespread perception—not only among Opposition Member and Back Benchers-that we sent our troops into an illegal war. If the Government are confident of the legal basis for the war, they have nothing to fear from completing the process that they have started and publishing, in full, the Attorney-General's advice.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: It is a great pleasure to sum up the debate, which was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
  Over the weekend, The Guardian asked for my memories of the Iraq debate held almost a year ago; I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and many others who participated in it will also be asked, if they have not been already, about their memories. I took the precaution of re-reading the debate, and it is instructive to see the development in the positions of several people.
  I was pleased to note that I started my contribution by saying what I still believe to be the case—that the fundamental issue at stake was not Saddam Hussein, Iraq, oil or international terrorism, but the development of a new world order. In particular. it was the development of a doctrine of pre-emption by the dominant—indeed, the only—superpower in the world, and how the world community would adjust to that new reality. Having read the speech that the Prime Minister made in Sedgefield on Friday, I am even more concerned, because in it he sailed close to the wind about such a doctrine. As l as been said at least once in this debate, the problem with a doctrine of pre-emption is that it would not be used only by the most powerful country in the world. By definition, without a framework of international law by which countries must abide, it is a doctrine that can be used by any country that is more powerful than another country from which it perceives a threat. l still think that the framework of law is the most important issue in the war in Iraq. The issue is still with us and it is clear that the Prime Minister is now struggling with it, although it might have been better to have had that intellectual struggle before the conflict, instead of afterwards.
  I make my second point because, remarkably, I hear from a number of ultra-loyal forces on the Government Benches that somehow the question of weapons of mass destruction was not the dominant theme in the Prime Minister's presentation to us on 18 March. In fact, he presented us with a clear and present danger, saying:

  1447
  "Let me explain the dangers. Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate 0.25 square km of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of anthrax, and 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. What happened on 11 September has changed the psychology of America—that is clear-but it should have changed the psychology of the world."—[Official Report, 18 March 2008 Vol. 401, c. 769.]
  The Prime Minister presented us with a world in which there was a clear, imminent threat, one that required an immediate response. It could not even wait a few weeks for Hans Blix and the rest of the inspectors to complete their work and furnish us with the facts. Those facts, which were then unknown, are now probably known to the extent that no such weapons of mass destruction have been found.
  I want to do three things in summing up the debate, beginning with a look at the framework of law. I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who quoted extensively from many legal authorities and said that people who were for or against legality all argued that the Attorney-General's advice should be published. I thought that that was an extremely powerful point, even if the Foreign Secretary did not take it fully on board. I want to quote key people who were involved in terms of the international framework of law: Hans Blix and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who were not involved in our domestic political debate, but who were at the very centre of what can be defined as the world order, or at least what should be defined as the world order.
  Secondly, I want to look at the development of Government thinking, because one; of the reasons why the Attorney-General's advice should be published is that it is clear to me that the Government's thinking on the matter went through a serious evolutionary change as the realisation dawned that a second resolution would not be possible. I should like to see whether the Attorney-General's legal opinion reflected that change as the sequence of events unfolded, which is why I should like to see all his advice published.
  Thirdly, I want to repeat the fundamental point that the party to this argument, the client, was not the Government. The client was Parliament and the people of this country, who are absolutely entitled to see the legal basis on which they were committed to conflict.
  With regard to the question of quoting people, the Foreign Secretary follows the Prime Minister in almost demeaning his profession. Lawyers are people who disagree. It is said that there are as many legal opinions as there are lawyers. I am an economist, and the same sort of thing is said about economists. There is an argument unfolding that this is a matter about which reasonable people can agree or disagree: that there is no absolute certainty, no absolute fact, no moral code to abide by, but a series of arguments On Friday the Prime Minister said it again:
  "The lawyers continue to divide over it"—
  the question of law—
  "with their legal opinions bearing a remarkable similarity to their political views of the war."
  I stop the quotation there. Lawyers would be less than human if their legal judgments were not informed by their general views. Every human being has that tendency. But is it not also possible that many lawyers, and many other human beings, informed their view of the war by their opinion of its legality, not vice-versa?
  1448
  The question of legality is fundamental. In all the conflicts that I have been asked to vote upon, on some of which I agreed with the Government, as with the then Government on the first Iraq conflict and with the present Government on a number of humanitarian interventions more recently, I have taken as my fundamental code United Nations approval and sanction for conflict. Although they have never arisen to date, there might be circumstances in which the United Nations sanctioned an action and I still would not feel it to be right, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) pointed out, the legality of a war is dependent on whether the action is proportionate, whether it is effective and whether all other avenues have been tried. However, the guidance of the United Nations is not a bad place to start from when deciding whether a conflict is legal and justified.
  I shall quote from three opinions. The first is from a former Solicitor-General, Lord Archer—not the Tory but the Labour one—who served in that position for five years during the 1970s:
  "Resolution 1441…manifestly does not authorise military action. If the Council had intended to do so it could have said so quite unambiguously. To seek to spell out such authority from a reference to 'serious consequences' is to treat the Security Council as a Delphic oracle".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 90.]
  If the advice of the present Attorney-General had been not that war was legal, but that it was not justified and not legal, what would have been the Government's response? Would it have been to change their course of action or their Attorney-General? I want to get to the heart of the relationship between the Government and their Law Officers.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is making a preposterous suggestion. If the Attorney-General had come to a different view, it would have been communicated to the House and that would have been the end of the matter.
  Mr. Salmond: So if Lord Archer were still a Law Officer in the Labour Government and had communicated his view, we should not have gone to war?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is making the general suggestion that the position of the Attorney-General is not independent of Ministers and that if his advice is not acceptable Ministers require it to be changed, on threat of his being sacked. That is a preposterous statement and is utterly untrue and incorrect—in respect not only of the present Administration but of any Administration. Peter Archer is a good friend and I should be happy to take him through the negotiating history of 1441 and explain why I think he erred, but if he had been the Attorney-General and had, finally, come to a different view, that would have been the end of the matter.
  Mr. Salmond: The key word is "finally". One of the issues that we want to explore is whether the Attorney-General's advice went through a variety of versions before the Foreign Secretary published the final document in summary— [Interruption.] The Foreign

  1449
  Secretary waves his hands, but earlier in the debate he implied that the veto over the publication of the advice was in the hands of the Attorney-General, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him whether the Attorney-General's advice went through a series of drafts before it became the final advice that the Foreign Secretary deigned to give the House when he wanted sanction for the war. However, if the Law Officers have a veto over such action—as the Foreign Secretary says—I am very pleased to hear it. I am glad that someone has a veto over military action.
  My second quotation is from Hans Blix— [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary can listen to the quotation and then comment. Hans Blix is an international lawyer as well as a weapons inspector, and he said:
  "I don't buy the argument that the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions…It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and the US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership over the ceasefire, in my interpretation…Any individual member could take a view-the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically."
  I shall come in a few seconds to the questions of who owns a decision to go to war and who owns the advice of the Attorney-General, but the point of view expressed by Hans Blix is surely correct: ownership of the interpretation of what is sanctioned by the UN lies with its Security Council and not with individual countries in the Council, which might come to different conclusions.
  In the lead-up to the war, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, set out his position, saying that
  "the legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired…If the United States and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter"—
  of the United Nations. Those are not lawyers giving different legal opinions; they are the key players in an international framework of law—players whom the Foreign Secretary decided to bypass or ignore for the purposes of gaining legal sanction for the decision to go to war.
  Another issue that has been raised in the debate is the Elizabeth Wilmshurst resignation, which has not been spoken of or debated publicly to the same extent perhaps as the Katharine Gun trial and other issues, but it is surely pertinent when a career civil servant, who, by all accounts, had a distinguished career and was near the pinnacle of her profession as deputy legal adviser in the Foreign Office, resigns on the eve of a conflict. At the very least, that gives us the strong suggestion that the arguments involving lawyers that the Foreign Secretary thinks take place outside the realms of the Foreign Office were taking place within the Foreign Office itself. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General weighed up those arguments and counter-suggestions before he finally decided to agree with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and give them the basis that they wanted for the legality of the conflict.
  I also want to explore the development of Government thinking. The Foreign Secretary is very sensitive on this matter. He takes every opportunity, even when it is not central to the debate, as it is in this one, to tell us about his efforts on resolution 1441, but
  1450
  we can be reasonably convinced—can we not?—that the Government's position on the central importance of that resolution was developing as events moved along. On 4 March, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed to the Public Administration Committee:
  "This was a moving situation because for a long time we were thinking this might hove been authorised by a specific UN resolution, in a way because it would have been clear cut. We worked hard to get it and worked on the assumption that we probably would. I'm not aware of a plan B. It only became apparent when that resolution was not forthcoming that advice was needed.
  What advice was the Cabinet Secretary talking about? Had there been prior advice based on resolution 1441? Was it only after the desired outcome of resolution 1441 was not forthcoming: that "advice was needed"?
  The indication that the Government's advice was developing also comes from the comments of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce. For example, in The Herald on 8 March this year, he said
  "My views were clear and made very formally in Cabinet and in the view I transmitted to the Attorney-General through Number 10. I required a piece of paper saying it was lawful. Now, if that causes them to go back saying 'We need our advice tightened up'. I don't know."
  Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, clearly believed on the eve of war that he had not been supplied with an adequate and clear explanation of the legal position, and he required one, quite rightly, because he was concerned about the implications for him and the armed forces under his command if one was not provided. I should like the Foreign Secretary to say whether the Attorney-General's advice evolved to meet the circumstances and when that advice departed from resolution 1441 and went outside that resolution's remit.
  The Prime Minister has never been able to explain the content of his interview on "Newsnight" on 6 February 2003, in which was absolutely explicit that the only circumstance in which war would be sanctioned out with a second resolution was if one country exercised an unreasonable veto. As we well know, it was a question not of one country exercising an unreasonable veto, but of the majority of the Security Council not being prepared to agree to that second resolution. We need to know how the Government's legal advice developed as events took their course.
  The absolutely crucial aspect of the debate is the information allowed to those who make decisions. The Foreign Secretary has made great play of the fact that the House was given the unprecedented opportunity to make a decision on whether to go to war on a substantive motion. Despite all the points in the debate on which I disagree with him, I do not disagree with him about that. It was a good initiative and rightly something of which to be proud. However, if the House is to be called upon to make such a fundamental decision, surely the unavoidable conclusion is that the House, on behalf of the people whom it represents, should be given all possible advice on which to base its decision. The Attorney-General's advice has been described as a summary or a précis, and the Foreign Secretary earlier described it as a digest. If the House makes a decision, it is entitled to full information. If the public are called on to support a decision, we are entitled to full information.
  As we have heard, there are several precedents for releasing an Attorney-General's advice: the Factortame judgment, the situation regarding the Commonwealth

  1451
  Immigration Act 1962 and the Scott inquiry. The precedents go right back to 1865 and Lord Palmerston and the Belfast riots. However, even if there were not a single precedent, it would be right fully to publish the Attorney-General's advice on this occasion because of the unprecedented and correct decision to allow the House a substantive vote on peace or war. It is a question of ownership. Just as the United Nations should own the right to decide whether to sanction action on its behalf, the House, on behalf of the people, should have ownership of any legal advice that informs a decision on whether to go to war.
  The Prime Minister has set out his case, and I re-read the Foreign Secretary's comments from last year's debate in which he said that if we agreed to the motion the world would become a safer place and the authority of the United Nations would be upheld. As the Prime Minister pointed out on Friday, the world is still in deadly peril. Is Iraq a safer place? The Foreign Secretary was right to say that the removal of the dictator was a major gain. The passing of a draft constitution is a major gain, but it has not yet beer put into effect. The gains are immense, but it can hardly be said that they were a bargain given that 10,000 people are dead—British and American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.
  Even more tragically and importantly, the authority of the United Nations has not been upheld to consolidate its position. We have moved from the situation on 12 September 2001 when 100 countries came behind the United States of America in its moment of extremity to back an international war against terrorism, to a position in which the international community and the United Nations have been fractured to such an extent that the Prime Minister believes that there must be a new world order to reflect current realities.
  The war in Iraq is haunting the Prime Minister and it will haunt the Government. The ghost will not be exorcised by telling journalists to write about something else or by saying that the solution is reform of the United Nations to make it conform to what he wants it to do. I honestly do not think that it will be exorcised by refusing to publish—by keeping secret—advice and information to which the House, which was asked to vote on a war, and the people of this country, who were asked to support a war, are entitled.
  5.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): This debate has been useful in reviewing many important issues surrounding the conflict with Iraq, but I am honestly not sure that it has been about the legality of going to war and whether it was right or wrong to do so. Hon. Members rehearsed arguments made in the Chamber before about whether we were right in principle to go to war, which is a separate issue.
  Let me deal with the issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the non-disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice. He said that it was impossible to be dogmatic, and that there might be circumstances in which everything is to be gained from disclosure. That is an arguable case, but it is not justified in the circumstances. If he looks at the precedents, such advice from an
  1452
  Attorney-General has never been disclosed in circumstances of military conflict—not once has that happened, and he should reflect on that. He went on to level accusations at the Government, asking whether we can support the rule of law in Iraq when we ignore it here. I would argue emphatically that we are not ignoring the rule of law, and I would maintain equally emphatically that we would not have gone to war unless it was lawful under international law to do so.
  Mr. Salmond: Reflecting on the Minister's first argument, a number of precedents for the full disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice have been raised in the debate, including, for example, the case of the Spanish fishing boats. Does the Minister maintain that it was more important to reveal advice on such an issue than to do so on the most fundamental issue of all?
  Mr. Rammell: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I was making the point that when Members cite selective examples of precedent, they must be able to sustain their argument, and I do not believe that they have done so this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that we went to war solely on the basis of intelligence in the possession of the UK Government. That is emphatically not the case. We went to war because resolution 1441, which was passed unanimously, gave Iraq a last chance verifiably to disarm, which it manifestly did not take. Hans Blix's report consists of 173 pages of unanswered questions, which also led us to our conclusion. The hon. Gentleman threw in for good measure the 45-minute claim. Nothing in our debate has frustrated me more than the focus after the event on that claim, which in retrospect has grown in importance compared with its relevance in the run-up to conflict. The record shows that the 45-minute claim was raised only twice in the 40,000 parliamentary questions tabled between the publication of the dossier and the decision to go to war on 18 March 2003. Not once was it raised in oral questions, and not once was it raised in the debate on 18 March. It is all very well to make such claims in retrospect, but we need to look at what happened in fact in the run-up to the war.
  The hon. Gentleman lamented the fact that he was not in a position to make a judgment without seeing the Attorney-General's advice. I contend that he does not need to do so—the Attorney-General's statement to Parliament makes the legal position clear—unless he is saying that the Attorney-General said one thing to Parliament in his published response and another privately to the Government. Unless that is his contention, I do not understand the case that he is making.
  Mr. Llwyd: I have already gone out of my way to say that I am not impugning the credibility of the Attorney-General or the veracity of what he said. I repeat: the facts on which he based his conclusion are the key to the whole debate.
  Mr. Rammell: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman did impugn the integrity of the Attorney-General— [Interruption.] Let me finish the point. He said clearly that he was not impugning the Attorney-General's integrity, but he went on to argue that the

  1453
  Attorney-General had been gagged yet had remained in office, which is fundamentally to question his integrity. I hope that in the cold light of day the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his comments and withdraw them.
  We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that although advice from the Attorney-General should ordinarily remain confidential, he disagreed with that in these particular circumstances. I find it difficult to reconcile his comments with those made by his right hon and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in a debate in the House on 22 October, when he said, explicitly referring to the Attorney-General's advice:
  "I accept that that is a sensitive area that might not necessarily benefit from the sharp spotlight of public scrutiny."— [Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 670.]
  The House needs to know what, in the view of the Opposition, has changed between then and now.
  Mr. Grieve: First, there is no incompatibility between what my right hon. and learned Friend said and what I said. Secondly, the major change that has taken place since then is that information has come to light that has led to public disquiet about what information the Government had on weapons of mass destruction and how they used it. That is why the Government set up the Butler inquiry.
  Mr. Rammell: I wholly refute what the hon. Gentleman says. If the public disquiet to which he refers exists now, it existed then. That is why the shadow Foreign Secretary called for an independent judicial inquiry. There is a significant difference between what the hon. Gentleman said today and what his right hon. and learned Friend said as recently as October last year. That demonstrates yet again that nobody knows more about opportunism than Conservative Front Benchers.
  I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who is no longer in the Chamber. He said that the House needs to know whether Ministers deliberately distorted evidence to justify the case for war, and implied that we could well have done. I shall choose my words carefully, because I have the greatest respect for hon. Members who, in opposing the decision to go to war, reached a conclusion that differed from mine. However, they do not have a monopoly on conviction or sincerity in this regard. I respect their right to put forward their views, but I wish that they would respect the right of Government Front Benchers similarly to argue from the position of conviction and sincerity.
  As for the allegation that we distorted and fabricated evidence and misled the House, that has been refuted on three separate occasions. The cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee, the cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee and the Hutton inquiry all concluded in terms that we did not distort—to use the jargon, "sex up"—the dossier and that we took reasonable decisions based on the evidence before us. I wish that hon. Members who disagree with our decision to go to war would at least concede that point to us.
  1454
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of Jeremy Greenstock's comments and the argument that the first Security Council resolution had no "automaticity" in terms of deciding to go to war. That is a key argument that needs to be addressed. I stress that Security Council resolution 1441 did not revive the 678 authorisation immediately on its adoption. In that very significant sense, there was no "automaticity". The resolution rightly afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply and provided for any failure by Iraq to be "considered" by the Security Council. However—this is the key point—that paragraph in the resolution does not mean that no further action could be taken without a new resolution by the Security Council. Had that explicitly been the intention, it would have provided that the Security Council would decide what needed to be done to restore international peace and security, not, as the resolution actually stated, to consider the matter. The choice of words was explicit and deliberate. A proposal that there should be a requirement for a decision by the Security Council—a position that was initially maintained by several of its members—was not adopted. Instead, rightly in my view, the Security Council opted for the formula that it must consider the matter before any action was taken. That is fundamentally what happened.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) knows from many of the issues with which we have been involved that I have the greatest respect for him. This afternoon, however, he questioned the legal basis for going to war. Yet on 24 September 2002, in the run-up to war, he made it clear that he believed that there was a legal basis. He said:
  "It may well be true that, legally, no new resolution is required for the use of force to implement resolution 687." — [Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 43.]
  He was right then and I wish that he had followed the thrust of his argument. His words in September 2002 do not sit easily with his comments today.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister concede that I consistently said that military action must be seen as a last resort when all other diplomatic and political alternatives have been exhausted, and that the source of international law is to be found not only in the United Nations and its charter or resolutions but in customary international law?
  Mr. Rammell: All hon. Members viewed military conflict as a last resort. I simply point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman questioned the legality of our decision today, but did not do so in September 2002.
  Mr. Salmond: The question of last resort affects legality. However, what does the Minister say to Hans Blix's comment that ownership of Security Council resolutions should lie with the Security Council, not with any individual country within it?
  Mr. Rammell: There was a unanimous view on resolution 1441, but a disagreement on the method of enforcing it. We are entirely clear that we acted in accordance with international law at all times.
  Authority to use force against Iraq derived explicitly from the combined effect of United Nations Security

  1455
  Council resolutions 687, 678 and 1441. They were all adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security. The debate has centred on the disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice and the long-standing convention, which both parties have observed when in government, of not normally revealing that advice. The reasons for the convention of non-disclosure are compelling. Its purpose is to enable the Government, like everyone else, to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. It is manifestly in the public interest for all Governments to act in that way and in accordance with the rule of law.
  As Ministers have said on innumerable occasions, the Attorney-General's advice was not to be disclosed. Nevertheless, in view of the amount of public interest, the Attorney-General exceptionally set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq in response to a written parliamentary question on 17 March 2003. The Government are therefore confident that their actions in Iraq were right and consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations. Again, I make it clear that the Government would not have engaged in military action unless they were satisfied that it was legal under international law.
  Let me deal briefly with precedent. As I said earlier, I am not aware that Law Officers' advice on any previous military conflict has ever been disclosed at the time of conflict. Even on less serious issues there has never been a general policy of disclosure. Given the position of Conservative Front-Bench Members now, it is interesting to recall the then Government's position on the Maastricht treaty in 1993. Although the Foreign Secretary had made a statement that included a summary of the Law Officers' conclusions, the Attorney-General was asked, and explicitly refused, to disclose his full advice. It was right then and it is right now. Those points need to be made clearly.
  This Government, like others before them, will not reveal advice that the Attorney-General has given them. That is, rightly, the long-standing convention, which allows the Government, like everyone else, to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. However, hon. Members should be in no doubt that the conflict was legal. The Government would not have engaged in military action had they not been satisfied that such action was legal under international law.
  Just as importantly, we should return to the central reason why we took military action. The removal of Saddam Hussein has made the world a much safer place. The conflict that we undertook was right and just; now, however, we should focus on our priority of reconstruction and the creation of a safe and stable democratic Iraq. Yesterday's signing of the transitional administrative law was a significant historic achievement. We are now committed to helping the Iraqis to achieve the prosperity, freedom and democracy that Saddam Hussein denied them for decades. That is the significant point in the debate, and I urge hon. Members to support the amendment and reject the main motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided:Ayes 192, Noes 283.

  Division No. 80]

  [5:35

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grayling, Chris

  Allan, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Amess, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Greenway, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gummer, rh John

  Bacon, Richard

  Hague, rh William

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hancock, Mike

  Barrett, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Abingdon)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Harvey, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hendry, Charles

  Brady, Graham

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Holmes, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Cameron, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Fife)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Lansley, Andrew

  Barnet)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  McDonnell, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Stamford)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Howden)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Doughty, Sue

  Atcham)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Coldfield)

  Westminister)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, rh Eric

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Francois, Mark

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gamier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gidley, Sandra

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Goodman, Paul

  Dinefwr)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  1457

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Reld, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Teather, Sarah

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trend, Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Salmond Alex

  Watkinson, Angela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Weir, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Selous, Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Kincardine)

  Willis, Phil

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  (Macclesfield)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Pete Wishart and

  Syms, Robert

  Hywel Williams

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Challen, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Barnes, Harry

  Chryston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Coleman, Iain

  Bennett, Andrew

  Colman, Tony

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cruddas, Jon

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (Copeland)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Wallsend)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Browne, Desmond

  David, Wayne

  Bryant, Chris

  Davidson, Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, rh John

  Burnham, Andy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Cairns, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  1458

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lepper, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Foulkes, rh George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacDonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, rh Peter

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Heyes, David

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miliband, David

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mole, Chris

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, rh John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Organ, Diana

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Owen, Albert

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  1459

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner,Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemprown)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)- r

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wicks Malcolm

  Williams, Betty (Conwy) Wills, Mchael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &Lochaber)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony;

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Gillian Merron and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the long-standing convention, followed by successive governments, that the advice of the Law Officers is given in confidence and is not disclosed publicly; notes, however, the Answer given in the House of Lords by the Attorney General on 17 th March 2003 which set out his view of the legal basis of the use of force against Iraq, and the letter of the same date from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee giving more detail of the legal position; and believes that the priority now for the Government is to help the Iraqi people rebuild Iraq.

  Young People and Democracy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr.Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5.52 pm
  Angus Robertson: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the concern shared by all political parties at the lack of participation in the political process by young people and the decreasing turnout in elections throughout the country; welcomes the work of many charities, political experts, young people and organisations representing them, who have worked together in their belief that lowering the voting age would improve the quality of politics in the United Kingdom; and calls on the Government to legislate to lower the voting age for all public elections to 16 years.
  This is an issue whose time has come—the enhancing of the role of young people and democracy. Either we deal with that issue and change the way in which politics works, or we as politicians shall be damned to ever-falling turnouts and rocketing disengagement, especially among the recently enfranchised and society, or even both. That is clearly damaging to democracy, and unsustainable for the legitimate and important work of political parties. Unless we buck up our ideas and respond to the problem, it will be very difficult to fix.
  There is a range of general measures that we should support to boost younger people's interest in democracy. I believe that Members in all parts of the House support measures such as enhanced and attractive policies for younger people, improved use of the internet and information technology, and better outreach to schools and colleges by politicians and interest groups.
  One recent and overwhelmingly positive development in my constituency has been the establishment of a parliamentary youth internship programme in conjunction with local high schools. A victim of our own success, we now have a considerable backlog of students seeking to gain a few days' or weeks' experience in the holidays of how an MP's office works, and a better understanding of the parliamentary process. I strongly recommend the programme to other Members.
  Lembit Őpik: Does that not show that young people are not necessary uninterested in politics, and that when given the chance and not patronised they are very willing to become involved? Do not the tremendous success and the growth of UK youth parliaments provide further evidence of that?
  Angus Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's supportive comments, and I shall come to that issue a little later.
  The general measures that I enunciated a moment ago are no substitute for dealing with the biggest outstanding issue that disconnects younger people from active democracy: the right to vote. In this Chamber in 1947, Winston Churchill famously said:
  "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"— [Official Repor t, 11 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 206–07.]
  But what happens when there is a fundamental generational breakdown in democratic participation? That is the challenge we need to address today.

  1461
  I want to begin with a perhaps surprising word of congratulation to the Minister for what must go down in parliamentary history as the smallest ever Government amendment to a Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru motion. Some people have uncharitably suggested that if Thomas Edison had been an SNP member, he would have been described by the UK parties as a dangerous anti-candle activist. I am glad that Government Front Benchers have dispelled that myth today, at least for a short while, and I hope that the Minister will use his youthful zeal, as the second youngest Labour Member in the House, to withdraw the amendment—perhaps I am being a bit optimistic—and that he will not be sent over the top to defend the indefensible by the fuddy-duddies, wherever they may be.
  The Minister has a tremendous chance to be on the right side of history this evening by helping to lead a change to the inevitable—a lowering of the voting age to 16. Parliament should take a lead on this issue, despite the impending Electoral Commission report, to which the SNP and I have made submissions.
  My strong views on this subject have been long held, and the same is true of my party. My maiden speech in this House, in 2001, was on the subject of young people and democracy. Indeed, my predecessor, Dr. Winnie Ewing, the current SNP president, made her maiden speech in this House, in 1967, on the subject of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. Of course, that came about, thereby allowing 81 current Members of this House to benefit directly from the last lowering of the voting age, which occurred in 1970. They include the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes); and the former shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Who is to say that the next crop of leading politicians are not being turned off such a career path by their inability to have their say? Why should we not enfranchise the 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK?
  Rosemary McKenna: In the light of the Government's amendment, which makes it clear that all the issues are being addressed, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why he chose this subject for a key Opposition day debate?
  Angus Robertson: I am delighted that the hon. Lady raises this issue. The commitment of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to youth issues is demonstrated by the fact that, on the one day available to us to choose the subjects for debate, we have chosen that of young people and democracy. We have done so because it is our keenly held belief that it is an important issue, but I am not claiming that those in other parties do not also consider it important. Indeed, perhaps the hon. Lady will contribute to this debate later on.
  The lowering of the voting age has been the subject of much deliberation in the House of Commons. There was a private Member's Bill on the issue, which was sponsored by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who will be speaking for the Liberal Democrats. There were some early-day motions, including early-day
  1462
  motion 746 from the last Session, entitled "Votes at Sixteen", which I co-sponsored. The wording of that early-day motion and of today's motion is almost exactly the same. That early-day motion had the support of 37 Labour Members, most Liberal Democrats, and almost all SNP and Plaid Cymru Members—as well as Conservative and Ulster Unionist Members. I hope that we can depend on the votes of all those signatories tonight. This is and should be a cross-party, non-partisan subject for agreement.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Welsh Affairs Committee reported on children and young people in Wales, one of its recommendations was; to lower the voting age to 16? That was by no means supported by 100 per cent. of the evidence that we took, and even some young people said that they did not want it, but, on balance, the Committee decided that we should have it. However, I cannot see the point in going for it now, while the Electoral Commission is preparing its report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say why we have to do it this minute when the commission is to report very shortly
  Angus Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the subject and welcome the findings of the Welsh Affairs Committee and those of the Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Transport Committee, which also found that lowering the voting age to 16 would be welcomed. I believe that Parliament should be leading on this issue and I will come to that point later.
  This issue should unite hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House Intellectually and ideologically we can all make the case for change. The nationalist perspective recognises the growing independence and self-determination of younger people. The Conservative perspective perhaps recognises initiative and entrepreneurship among younger people. The Labour perspective might recognise social inclusion and justice, whereas the Liberal perspective represents individual freedom of choice and social responsibility.
  Government Members, if not persuaded by my arguments, may be convinced by the English Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who recently told an audience of A-level students that lowering the voting age would be a "logical" reform:
  "If it is right that you can get married at 16, pay taxes, join the Army, there is no case for saying you can't vote until you are 18."
  If that is good enough for the Minister, it is good enough for me. I certainly hope that it is good enough for Labour Members and that they will choose to support the motion in the Lobby.
  Prime Minister Tony Blair has signalled that he no longer opposes the lowering of the voting age to 16, so there is at least—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have realised his error He should refer to hon. and right hon. Members in the normal way.
  Angus Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing out my youthful error.
  The Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has signalled that he no longer opposes lowering the voting age to 16, so there is at least some consensus with Ken Livingston, Mayor of London, who strongly supports reform.
  Tony Wright: One of the weaknesses of the hon. Gentleman's motion is that it does

  1463
  not include the question of candidacy, which is covered by the amendment. The Electoral Commission is studying both issues. Rather than approach the matter piecemeal, would it not be better to examine both aspects by supporting the amendment? What is the hon. Gentleman's position on the age of candidacy?
  Angus Robertson: I am entirely open to equalisation of the right to vote and candidacy. It should be for electors to decide whether an individual is mature enough to represent them at any level of government. That does not negate my point that Parliament should take the lead in sending a signal to young people that their role in democracy is as important as that of anyone else.
  There is a long list of important organisations outside the House that support the proposed initiative. They include Article 12 in England and Scotland, Barnardo's, the British Youth Council, the Care Leavers Association, the Carnegie Young People Initiative, Charter 88, the Children's Rights Alliance for England and the Electoral Reform Society. The list goes on and on. Before today's debate, the SNP and Plaid Cymru approached several of those organisations. The British Youth Council was specifically mentioned earlier, and I am pleased to say that its vice-chairman, Richard Angell, released a statement in advance of our debate, stating:
  "The British Youth Council supports the debate in parliament in trying to enfranchise more young people to vote, reduce the democratic deficit and empower more young people as citizens. The motion that will be debated on Tuesday shows from its sponsors that young people and adults alike, from all parts of the United Kingdom support modernisation of our democracy in this way. We call, as the national youth council in the UK, for the Government and all other Opposition parties to support this call and look to eradicate the inequalities that young people feel when it comes to the political process and let young people vote at 16."
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) mentioned some of the reasons why it is right to lower the voting age, but Richard Angell widens the list in his submission by saying:
  "Young people have a right to be able to vote from 16; they can get married, have sex, become a parent, smoke, drive and join the army before they can currently vote; this needs to be rectified."
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has twice repeated the interesting list of things that one can do at 16, but as almost without exception they are all manifestly painful and grave mistakes, why is there any reason to expand the list on that basis?
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The most significant reason for having the right to vote—some might say that it is also painful—is the necessity when earning to pay tax to the Government. I have always been brought up to believe in no taxation without representation. Many of the items on the list might be painful or unwelcome to people of any age, but I believe that those who have obligations to society should also have the right, especially in a democracy, to take a decision about who governs. I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that.
  1464
  It was not only the British Youth Council that responded with a message in advance of this evening's debate. Penny Hollings, the national secretary of the National Union of Students, said:
  "NUS believes that people at 16 should be able to exercise their democratic right to vote. Many decisions that directly affect them are being taken and they have no chance to influence these decisions. This is particularly unfair when we consider these 16year-olds are allowed to get married, join the armed forces and pay income tax"—
  the point I made a few moments ago—
  "but not decide whether they agree with where that money is being spent."
  Richard Younger-Ross: Are not some of the interventions from Labour Members rather curious, coming from a party that prides itself on extending the franchise and the rights of individuals? They seem to question the hon. Gentleman's purpose in seeking to extend the franchise to those who are currently disfranchised, but I cannot think of many issues more important than that.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I would rather not go down the partisan route this evening because I am trying to persuade right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote with the SNP and Plaid Cymru on this important motion. I will not therefore be diverted down the hon. Gentleman's route.
  We should reflect on clear examples of what has happened when the voting age has been lowered, to see what advantages it has brought It applies to several of Germany's Lander, which reduced the voting age for participation in municipal elections. In Hanover, for example, the turnout of 16 and 17-year-olds was higher than that of those aged between 18 and 35. Admittedly with limited evidence, I believe that lowering the voting age can bring about the bonus of dealing with the disconnection that I warned about in my introductory remarks.
  Enthusiasm for supporting democracy among 16 and 17-year-olds is evident wherever one chooses to look—from participation in, and support for, single issue campaigns to the recent demonstrations on Iraq. That has been recognised even by Downing street, with the Prime Minister making a special appearance on MTV to justify the decision to go to war with Iraq. I note with interest that the closing date has just passed in the competition by the Electoral Commission and MTV entitled "Votes are Action". The competition was open to people aged between 14 and 24, and it challenged participants to come up with a creative response to the phrase "Turn Opinion into Action". Perhaps MPs should tune into MTV and get inspiration from the competition entries. I suppose that I should declare that that is not a covert attempt to wangle a free ticket to next year's MTV music awards.
  My experience in my constituency bears out the theory that 16 and 17-year-olds are interested in democracy. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have also had that positive experience. I regularly seek the views of modern studies pupils in the senior schools in my constituency—the Buckie, Elgin, Forres, Lossiemouth, Milnes and Spayside high schools, as well as Elgin Academy and Gordonstoun.

  1465
  The replies from students are detailed and convincing. On the question of lowering the voting age to 16, the responses have been overwhelming—and overwhelmingly in favour. That is the case elsewhere in the country: 80 per cent. of correspondents on the "Young Scot" website are in favour, and the comments to be found there are also instructive.
  Mojo writes:
  "I am 16 and think that I should be allowed to vote, because I probably care more about politics than some people that can vote. I think that if the law treats you as an adult you, as an adult, should be able to have your say in the country—young people are the future!"
  As was noted earlier, that view is not universal. JonnyG writes:
  "But do you think that everybody who is 16 is responsible enough to use their vote—I mean—do we really want the monster raving loony party voted into parliament? (or conservatives for that matter)"
  There are mixed opinions, but I note with interest the summary of the big conversation forum. Apparently, it is a big conversation on voting age and youth apathy, and the biggest single group among those sampled supports lowering the voting age to 16.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I pledge my support to the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I firmly believe that the voting age should be lowered. People aged between 16 and 18 are often criticised for not being mature enough to vote, yet the same could be said about people who are much older. It is not so much a question of age as of maturity, and whether people look seriously at the political climate.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has come as close as he dare to endorsing the views of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru without getting into difficulty with his Whips. I welcome wholeheartedly the logic of the case that he makes.
  I am not in favour of limiting the franchise to any group above the age of 16, but I certainly do not think that 16 and 17-year-olds should be excluded.
  I do not want to leave the big conversation website just yet, as I want to refer to an interesting contribution from a person named Andy Bannister. He writes:
  "A better step would be to consider why turnouts are falling—a general lack of respect in politics. When one watches the performance of politicians of all stripes in the House, is there any wonder? You act like a bunch of year-7s, cheering and booing, trying to score cheap points and refusing to accept anybody on the other side of the house might have a valid point. Grow up and act like the elected representatives you are, and respect might begin to return."
  With so much consensus so far this evening, I think that we will be able to offer a good example and show that Mr. Bannister's concerns are unfounded. That is the opportunity presented to the House this evening. We must lead the debate about young people and democracy in a consensual way. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru strongly support imaginative ways to encourage younger people's interest in democracy.
  There is no substitute for addressing the real and substantive issue of the voting age. Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members believe, along with
  1466
  many other hon. Members, that the voting age needs to be reformed. Parliament should lead, and it has the chance to do so tonight. I hope that, in the spirit of non-partisanship, hon. Members from all parties will vote with us and send a strong signal to younger citizens that their views really count.
  6.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move, To leave out from "Kingdom" to end and add
  "but notes that the independent Electoral Commission's review of voting age and candidacy age is soon to be published and that the Government will carefully consider its conclusions, alongside the work of other organisations".
  As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) says, the participation of all people in our democracy is one of the most important issues that we can possibly discuss, and the participation of young people is especially important. The debate transcends party politics and crosses the political divide. All hon. Members have a collective responsibility to capture the imagination of our constituents, engage their interest and have an ongoing dialogue with all parts of society, young and old.
  The Government, and many other organisations, are working hard in a variety of ways to focus on engaging younger people in our political process. However, there is no quick-fix solution, and that is where we disagree with the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Moray, and in particular with the suggestion that lowering the voting age is the definite solution to low turnout by young people in elections. Our concise but perfectly formed amendment suggests that we should continue to examine the issue while bearing it in mind that the Electoral Commission is studying the impact of any such changes alongside the potential impact of other steps that we could take.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: To row back rapidly, although I agree firmly in principle with lowering the voting age, we should not prejudge the issue. Like most hon. Members, I would never want to be accused of premature extrapolation.
  Mr. Leslie: I am not sure about the allusion made by my hon. Friend, but I am glad that he has rowed back. The Electoral Commission is examining voting at 16, and it is prudent to wait for its report.
  Matthew Green: The Government amendment mentions the Electoral Commission, but it does not say whether the Government will accept the commission's findings If it comes out in favour of votes at 16, will the Government implement the policy?
  Mr. Leslie: It is probably better not to be premature about the matter and to wait for the Electoral Commission's report to be published. At that point, we can decide whether we accept its advice and recommendation. Ultimately, the commission provides advice, but it is for Ministers, Parliament and the House of Commons to make final decisions, and I am sure that the debate will continue.
  We should remember why the issue is important in the first place. This point may be obvious, but good governance and high- quality future decision making

  1467
  depend on young people participating in elections and taking part in decision making and government. The situation is not a complete disaster. Some younger people are interested and even active in politics. Believe it or not, I was once a young Member of Parliament. In May, I will have been in continuous elected office for 10 years--I was elected as a councillor in Bradford at 21, which was an honour and a privilege. I am glad that younger politicians are entering the political arena in all political parties, but especially in the Labour party.
  It is not possible to claim that all young people are apathetic and disengaged. Although we cannot generalise, people aged between 18 and 24 are comparatively less likely to vote than those from older age groups. As MPs, we hear time and again that many younger people are not interested in our political institutions and are not impressed by traditional forms of communication between candidates and electors. What are the solutions to those problems? The hon. Member for Moray and many of my hon. Friends suggest that lowering the voting age to 16 may be one solution. The suggestion is interesting and has been made by individuals in several parties, including the Labour party, over the years. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs said as recently as December that we must be open-minded and listen to the arguments, and we have posed the question in our current big conversation.
  Voting at 16 might be an option but although we are happy to encourage the debate, we must also recognise that there are problems. The House declined to support votes at 16 by 434 votes to 36 when the matter was last debated in 1999. Consequential questions about the wider age of majority might flow from a decision to allow voting at 16. We are open-minded on the issue, and the Electoral Commission will publish its report shortly.
  The commission is also looking closely at the age of candidacy, as not just voting but active participation in the political process matters. On candidacy, the minimum age for standing for election to Parliament was fixed—I assure the House till this is true—by the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695, and the age of candidacy for local elections was set in the Local Government Act 1972. They do, therefore, seem overdue for review. In the meantime, the Scottish Parliament is considering the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, which proposes reducing the age for standing in local elections from 21 to 18. Local elections are devolved matters, but we will follow the passage of that Scottish proposal very closely.
  Nevertheless, the Government believe that the challenge of voter engagement and poor turnout requires more than changes to the franchise or the age of candidacy. The key to increasing turnout among younger people is to stimulate their interest in politics and to demonstrate that participation is a worthwhile and effective use of their time. The issues and policy options offered by political parties are therefore crucial, and all Members of Parliament have a responsibility to persuade younger constituents that their voices count. I am pleased that the Labour Government are playing their part in focusing on that issue and taking action in several different ways.
  1468
  For example, we have the "Yvote?/Ynot?" campaign, under the auspices of the children and young people's unit, which has sought to gauge the views of younger people about the political process and how interest in it could be improved. We have had a tour of regional meetings involving hundreds of young people in discussion with 17 Ministers in total. A website funded by the Department for Education and Skills and the Hansard Society has been designed as an interactive resource for teaching. The UK Youth Parliament, which has already been mentioned and with which many hon. Members will be familiar, has received £165,000 of Government support this year. We have many other initiatives, including the very successful Scottish Youth Parliament, to which I know the First Minister has given his close support. That shows great promise, and we are happy to continue to encourage such projects.
  At local government level, in Scotland and in England and Wales, I know that councillors and council officials are working with schools and colleges to bring younger people into the decision-making process. In my own city, the council has supported the Bradford Youth Parliament, which involved elections of non-party candidates in secondary schools across the district. Young people were not only the candidates, but got involved in scrutineering and running the polling stations and the ballot. That was a worthwhile exercise.
  The Electoral Commission has also taken a lead in advising on policy. Since its creation in 2000, it has initiated a wide array of policy mechanisms, including the "Votes are Power" campaign, which sent birthday cards to those reaching 18, encouraging them to use their vote. A publication targeted at first-time voters, entitled "An Easy Guide to Voting" has been widely distributed. Another initiative has been a team of outreach workers, which has travelled across the country to raise awareness of the voting process with young people outside the school environment. The Electoral Commission is to be commended for that work.
  Perhaps the most significant change is in school education. In England, citizenship education is now part of the curriculum in both primary and secondary schools. Since September 2002, it has been a compulsory subject for 11 to 14-year-olds. Citizenship education has three interrelated elements—community involvement, political literacy, and social and moral responsibilities. We believe that citizenship education in England empowers young people to discuss and debate issues affecting them and helps to stimulate their active participation in society.
  In Scotland, while there is no statutory curriculum, I understand that the Scottish Executive have produced guidance that seeks to ensure breadth in the curriculum, so that teaching can touch on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic society. In Wales, citizenship education forms part of the personal and social education framework implemented in September 2000. In Northern Ireland, I understand, my ministerial colleagues are considering proposals on citizenship education for school curriculums.
  Encouraging participation for all ages is not just about informing the electorate. There are also ways in which we can make voting easier, simpler and more convenient. We should continue to look at new ways of making the process and mechanics of casting a ballot

  1469
  more appropriate to modern lifestyles and try out ideas for taking the vote to the citizen, rather than requiring the citizen to overcome obstacles in order to voice his or her opinion.
  We debated all-postal voting pilots only yesterday. We should recognise the beneficial impact that that method may well have on turnout. It is also important to explore the possibilities offered by new technology, whether voting by telephone, internet, e-mail or even digital television, which might reach out to electors who might otherwise not go to the polling station. In short, electors should have as much choice as possible to decide how they cast their vote and which option is the most convenient for them. We aim to provide that greater choice, and piloting is a prelude to that.
  Whether in the political or the social realm, active citizenship by all in society is clearly a desirable goal from which we all benefit. Taking an interest in our communities, looking after our neighbours, reporting crimes to the police, volunteering for good causes, and activism in civic affairs and politics, even if it is simply voting or writing to councillors or MPs, or joining political parties, are the glue that helps our society stick together.
  Pete Wishart: All that is fair enough, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do more in this debating Chamber to engage young people? We have to start discussing issues that interest and excite them. Can the Minister think of anything that has been brought to the Floor of the House in the past year that has been of great interest to young people and has been a matter that they could positively engage in?
  Mr. Leslie: I can think of many examples of such issues. It would be wrong to pigeonhole young people as supposedly interested only in particular niche issues. I think that young people are as interested in the quality of public services, the level of taxation, the nature of the constitution, international poverty and so on as any other member of society. It is how we engage with young people that makes the difference. It is clear that there is widespread support across all parties for engaging younger people in our democratic process, even if there is a slightly different emphasis among the parties on the precise way of doing it.
  Angus Robertson: For the record, will the Minister say whether he agrees with his colleague the Minister for School Standards that, if someone can get married at 16, pay taxes and join the Army, there is no case for saying that that person cannot vote until he or she is 18?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in effect suggested that one does not have to be married or pay taxes in order to vote. These matters are not all interrelated; thankfully, they are mutually exclusive. We should look simply at the voting age.
  We are open-minded about the matter. I have not formed my own conclusions, and nor have the Government. We want to look at the debate that is taking place. In particular, it would be wrong to pre-
  1470
  empt the Electoral Commission's views and study. It would be sensible to proceed by looking at what it says. We shall no doubt return to the matter after that.
  With that in mind, I urge the House to decline the motion and support the Government's amendment.
  6.28 pm
  Charles Hendry: I congratulate the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru on securing this debate, which is on an extremely important issue. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on the way in which he introduced it, very constructively and eloquently. I think he was genuinely trying to work for a cross-party consensus. Whether he will manage to achieve it is, of course, another matter entirely.
  It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the Minister, who, in his normal, charming, Radio 2 easy-listening voice, can talk eloquently about virtually everything. I agreed with a great deal of what he said about the measures the Government have taken. I think there is genuine cross-party consensus that more must be done to address this issue.
  I was surprised that the Minister did not have a view on the main issue in the motion. The Electoral Commission asked all parties to submit their views and it is most peculiar that the Government—or the Labour party—do not appear to have submitted an opinion. For the Government not to react until the commission produces its findings seems a peculiar way to proceed.
  I have no doubt as to the seriousness of young people's disaffection with politics—or, more accurately their disaffection with the political process. In general, as the Minister said, young people are extraordinarily interested in the issues; their dissatisfaction is with the way in which politicians, and especially the House, deal with many of those issues. Fewer than 40 per cent. of first-time voters voted in the last general election, and turnout is likely to be even lower in the European and local elections later his year. Pensioners are almost twice as likely as first -time voters to vote in a general election.
  I believe that, although the nationalists have correctly identified a problem, they have come to the wrong conclusion. Of course. some 16-year-olds are very ready to vote. Many Members—especially the Minister—were probably ready to vote when we were 10, 11 or 12 and we would have been delighted if the voting age had been reduced when we were young, but we had to wait. However, my experience of talking to youth groups and students throughout the country and from the straw polls that I have taken in schools and colleges shows that there is no clear majority in favour of change. Those who are politically involved and aware are certainly keen to see the voting age reduced, but that is not the case for the majority of younger people.
  Moreover, a voting age of 16 is not an international symbol of democracy. There are only nine countries where one can vote in general elections at the age of 16 or 17; they include Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Sudan, so the message is that people can vote at 16 as long as they vote for the one candidate on offer.
  Angus Robertson: Perhaps the reduction of the voting age in German Lander is a new factor. Is the hon.

  1471
  Gentleman saying that the democracy of Germany is comparable with dictatorships? Surely, democracies, too, can change and give 16 or 17-year-olds the option to vote.
  Charles Hendry: Of the nine countries that allow voting at that age in general elections, four are dictatorships of one type or another and five are democracies. However, no European country allows it in general elections, although Germany allows it in local elections. The hon. Gentleman said in his opening comments that the voting age was the outstanding issue affecting young people, but that is riot felt to be the case almost anywhere else in the democratic world.
  Matthew Green: When we rightly gave women the vote almost a century ago, we were among the first countries to do so. Following the hon. Gentleman's logic, we should never have given women the vote on the basis that other countries have not done so. Why can we not lead the world on the reduction of the voting age?
  Charles Hendry: In a moment, I want to discuss why that is a bogus argument and distracts us from the key issues that lead to young people being disaffected with politics and politicians.
  There is no common age of majority. One can do many things at the age of 18; for example, one can buy alcohol and obtain credit. In effect, people cannot drive until they are almost 18: most have almost reached that age before they pass their test. However, I want to take head-on the bogus arguments that have already been mentioned; for example, that one can join the Army at the age of 16. A 16-year-old can join the Army with their parents' permission, but they cannot be put on front-line duty until they are 17, or 18 for international duties. The reality is that most young people cannot freely join the Army until they are 18.
  The point has been made that people pay tax at the age of 16. My five-year-old pays VAT on the sweeties he buys with his weekly pocket money— [Interruption.] He gets far too much pocket money. However, no one is suggesting that because he and other children pay VAT they should be entitled to vote although he would probably think it was a good idea.
  Adam Price: European Union visitors to the UK also pay VAT, but that is not an argument for them being given a vote. The distinction relates to income tax, which is based on being domiciled in the UK.
  Charles Hendry: I understand the distinction that is being drawn, but the reality is that 90 per cent. of 16year-olds do not pay income tax—only a small proportion of them do so. Those who have put the case for change to the Electoral Commission may want to consider the argument about no taxation without representation. If people pay tax, hey should be entitled to vote, but that does not justify giving the vote to the overwhelming majority of that age group, to whom that does not apply.
  Mr. Peter Luff: The historians in the House may correct me, but I believe
  1472
  that the original cry of no taxation without representation was applied to tea duties—an indirect tax, not a direct tax.
  Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is, as ever, wise and well informed, and I am grateful to him for his support in these matters.
  Reference has also been made to the age at which people are allowed to get married. The situation is different in Scotland, but certainly in England and Wales, people can marry at the age of 16 only if they have their parents' consent. No one would suggest that people should be allowed to vote at the age of 16 only if they have their parents' consent. Such arguments do not apply generally. One in 500 girls and one in 1,000 boys get married at the age of 16. To trot out such things as though they were the norm is decidedly misleading, but we are finding that they are being used to try to turn our minds away from the real reasons why young people are not getting involved in politics and not taking an interest in what is going on.
  My belief is that young people are not voting because they do not see politics as being relevant or addressing the issues that concern them, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) was saying just now. Rather than considering an extension of the voting age, our priority should be to motivate the 60 per cent. of those who could vote for the first time but do not bother to do so to get out and use their votes.
  Charter 88 and the YMCA found in a survey in 2002 that 90 per cent. of 16 to 22-year-olds would be more likely to vote if the parties addressed the issues that matter most to young people. Even though a survey carried out by the children and young people's unit in 2002 showed that just 40 per cent. of 14 to 19-year-olds had some or a great interest in politics, it also showed that 76 per cent. of that age group thought that they should be taught more about politics while in school. So young people clearly have a great desire to have a better understanding of the way in which such issues are addressed.
  Rosemary McKenna: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument that lowering the voting age increases participation is not sustained by the figures for those aged between 18 and 25? Participation is lower in that age group than in any other.
  Charles Hendry: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. No one has ever told me that they did not vote when they were 18 because they were not allowed to do so when they were 16. There is no connection between the two.
  We need to consider the issues that are of greatest concern to young people themselves. Many people say that young people are primarily concerned with the environment and international affairs, particularly in developing countries. That is of passionate importance to a few, but not to the majority of young people, who are concerned most about issues that are closer to home. such as their safety on the street. They are profoundly concerned about crime. One of the things that politicians so often get wrong is the language that we use in addressing those issues. Too often, the words that young people hear used in the House or that they read in the newspapers refer to young offenders, as though

  1473
  young people are constantly waiting behind the bus shelter for the next elderly lady to come along so that they can hit her over the head and steal her purse while they are waiting to daub the next bit of graffiti on the back of the wall.
  The reality is that young people are much more likely to be the victims of crime than any other section of the community, and we need to talk in a way that reflects that problem and their anxieties and that delivers the solutions that they view as realistic. That involves putting more police on the beat and, to an extent, a different attitude to policing, so that, when young people say that they have been attacked or that they have a problem, the response is not, "Well, what were you doing wrong. then?" We must address those issues constructively.
  The second issue that comes up consistently is that of facilities and transport. It is no wonder that young people have little faith in politicians when they see the youth clubs and youth organisations that they attend at risk of closing because of a complete lack of funds, when other departments round the corner are awash with funds.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is on to something. Does he agree that we have almost developed an "us and them" culture distinguishing between what we view as general society and young people, who are sometimes identified as a problem that must be dealt with and addressed? Cannot we do more to include them and to ensure that they are part of our political process? If we do not do so, we stand a good chance of alienating more and more people from the political process.
  Charles Hendry: I could not agree more. We have to try to challenge the media perception that the majority of young people are inherently bad. The overwhelming majority of young people whom I meet in all places are inherently good and enthusiastic people who work hard for their communities. We have to change the language that we and newspapers use by showing a much more positive approach toward young people. After all, it is hard to understand why they should have much faith in the work that we do if we appear to have little faith in what they do in their lives.
  The third issue that comes up time and time again is education, which is not surprising. However, it is also not surprising that the young people who disproportionately voted for the election of a Labour Government in 1997 and 2001 are now disproportionately more disaffected with that Government than other voters as they see the Government breaking their manifesto commitments and wanting to charge students tens of thousands of pounds to go to university. [Interruption.] Labour Members may tut-tut, but three years ago the Conservative party was the third largest party on campus. This year, it is bigger than any other party, and probably bigger than the other two major parties combined. That has happened because of the education
  1474
  issue in particular, so for Ministers and Labour Back Benchers to brush it aside shows a lack of understanding about how young people feel.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman talks about support on campuses. I am sure he is aware that the most recent MORI poll on the matter—it conducts a yearly poll—shows that the Conservatives have the third highest support with about 20 per cent of students' support. The Labour party is down at 34 per cent. and the Liberal Democrats have 38 per cent. support among students.
  Charles Hendry: That is yet another example of why one should never believe opinion polls, although I understand that the Liberals have been working hard in universities as well.
  On education, young people are frustrated that great emphasis is put on universities and that not enough attention is paid to technical and vocational training, which many believe to be a more appropriate route to take. They want politicians to address those issues more seriously than they believe to be the case at present.
  We must consider not only those issues, but the way in which we relate to young people. I commend to hon. Members the work of the UK Youth Parliament, of which I am a trustee, as is the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). Anyone who attended the meeting that it held here last week will have been immensely impressed by the way in which the young people spoke, the coherence of their arguments and their positive approach to tackling the issues. I urge all hon. Members to engage more closely with the UK Youth Parliament.
  I also urge hon. Members to engage more closely with youth forums and Councils in their constituencies. However, I emphasise that those forums and councils too often make presentations to local politicians—councillors or otherwise—who listen patiently but go away and do nothing If we want the bodies to take us seriously, they must see that there is genuine action as a result of such presentations.
  Angus Robertson: Bearing in mind the fact that the British Youth Council has issued a call for as many hon. Members as possible to vote in favour of the voting age being lowered, will he and other Conservative Members do that?
  Charles Hendry: I have already set out the reasons why it would not be right to lower the voting age at this time. Taking someone seriously does not mean automatically agreeing with everything they say. It means taking part in a constructive dialogue and debate. At the end of the day, young people will be more attracted to people who argue genuinely and sincerely from a given point of view than to those who they think will support them irrespective of what they say in the belief that that will win their votes.
  Pete Wishart: We are all aware of the Electoral Commission report that is due to be published soon. If it states clearly that it believes that there is a case for giving the vote to 16 and l7-year-olds, will the Conservative party back that?
  Charles Hendry: We will wait to find out the nature of the report. We produced a submission in which we said

  1475
  we would not reduce the voting age to 16, but that we would support a reduction in the age of candidature to 18. We will want to know about the nature of the report and the submissions that other bodies made before reaching our final conclusion, but at present we are not persuaded of the case for reducing the voting age.
  We need to listen constantly to young people if we want to be taken seriously, which is one of the reasons why we have set up a database of 4,000 voluntary organisations that work with young people. We e-mail the organisations every month to consult on matters that the party is considering. We are extending that practice to secondary schools, as it shows a willingness to use the communication methods that young people are using more and more. Most Members, with the possible exception of the Minister, grew up at a time when there were three channels on television. The Minister probably cannot remember the age when it was not possible to watch an evening's television without seeing some current affairs. There was news on every channel and one could not avoid it. Many young people growing up today watch television channels with no current affairs or news content. The most popular channels are E4 and Sky One, which have no current affairs presentation whatsoever, which makes it much more difficult for politicians to reach and communicate with young people. We must therefore make sure that we understand new technology and use it in a way that is not condescending.
  Above all, we must have face-to-face contact with young people. People's attitudes to politics and politicians is often changed when they have the chance to come to Westminster, look round Parliament and see how it works. They have a chance to meet their Member of Parliament and talk to them face-to-face about the issues that most concern them.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the importance of members of the public coming here. Does he accept that a downside of the new sitting hours is that they have substantially reduced the opportunities for school parties, certainly from outside London, to come and visit the House of Commons?
  Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. From the perspective of my own constituency, we have to wait many months to get people in for school visits, if we can get them in at all, because of the problems caused by he new hours. I hope that the House will address that, but it is obviously a separate issue, so I shall return to the subject of our debate.
  I congratulate the nationalists on raising the issue, but lowering the voting age is a sideshow. Young people want politicians to listen to them and act on their concerns. If we can introduce policies that will make our communities safer for young people; provide more facilities for them and improve transport so that they can access those facilities; provide open access to higher education and improved vocational training; and show that young people's views are genuinely important to us and that we will act on them, they will give us an opportunity to be heard and we will find that they are willing to use their vote and express their political views.
  6.47 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I am a little hesitant, because according to the latest count I am the 17th oldest Member of Parliament, although I was encouraged when an hon. Member who is considerably older than me made an intervention.
  The Minister said that we should stimulate an early interest in politics. I could not agree more, but we are missing the point—that the people who stimulate that interest are parents, relatives and teachers. I should therefore like to spend a few minutes discussing some of the things that put those people off politics, preventing them from transmitting an interest to children.
  The first factor—the lack of openness—was discussed at great length in the previous debate and was one of the many things that contributed to my election to Parliament. Yesterday, The Times leader advocated "Honest politics" and the front page of The Independent said, "Scientist was 'gagged' by No. 10 after warning of global warming threat". Allegations of gagging, if true, work against openness and honesty.
  The second factor that puts people off politics was exposed last week in the debate on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. The Government refuse to consider logical or reasonable amendments before a Bill goes to the House of Lords in order to leave themselves bargaining space for Lords amendments. That is like a second-hand car salesman who sets a high asking price that he can later reduce, and Labour Members clearly alluded to such conduct in that debate.
  Another example would be that of a debate on a very difficult issue that is derailed by being taken into the fields of party politics, of which the foundation hospitals Bill was an absolute classic. When this House considered Lords amendments to the Bill, we spent little time debating foundation hospitals; instead, it became an issue of party loyalty, and then of the supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. Politicians find it extremely hard to apologise or to make U-turns. During one of last Saturday's rugby matches, the commentator congratulated a referee on apologising for getting something wrong. It would be good to see politicians apologising sometimes, as we are not always right.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) mentioned the factors that specifically affect and interest the young. In that context, I would stress the importance of schoolteachers. When we visit schools in our constituencies, we encounter staggering differences. In those where the teachers do not take much interest, the kids are apathetic and uninterested. On my first visit, I could not get a spark out of them, and thought that that must be down to me. Then, I went to two more where they had a huge, spontaneous supply of questions on local and national issues, some of which I had to answer afterwards in writing. They ranged from what we actually do, my view of the war in Iraq and, of course, why the voting age is 18.
  At the end of the summer recess, the parliamentary education unit made a series of visits to Parliament, two of which I took part in because I was in London. The first involved a livewire group of kids, mainly from Sunderland, who had got up at the crack of dawn and got home late that night. They asked questions that

  1477
  demonstrated their interest in, for example, the involvement of women and ethnic minorities and why MPs have posh accents. Those in the second group were very different. For a start, they all had posh accents and were not interested in anything. The influence of teachers is crucial. If their interest can be rekindled, that will rub off on children. Lowering the voting age would help, because such issues would have relevance sooner in life.
  In 1944, Lord Beveridge wrote:
  "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
  I would take that even further. Education in politics and democracy is absolutely essential for the maintenance of democracy.
  6.53 pm
  Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the Scottish and Welsh nationalists on choosing this topic for debate on one of their rare Opposition days. I commend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for his excellent attempt to avoid partisan politics and to win some consensus across the House.
  I was slightly bemused by the Minister's response. I am aware that many of his colleagues are firmly in favour of votes at 16, but having become Ministers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries they are forbidden to say so. I will refrain from naming them.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that although the Minister for School Standards can enunciate clear support for lowering the voting age to 16 or 17, the Minister cannot?
  Matthew Green: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's example and not be cynical, but I am tempted a little down that route. It could be said that the Government have enough voices expressing both opinions and that, therefore, whatever the Electoral Commission's conclusion, they can say that they were of that view, but perhaps that is too cynical.
  There have been some welcome signs. The Prime Minister has moved from opposition to agnosticism, and I hope that he takes the next step. However, it was incumbent on the Minister to make it clear that if the Electoral Commission recommends reducing the voting age to 16—I hope it will, because the arguments for so doing are overwhelming—the Government will accept the recommendation. After all, they have asked the Electoral Commission to consider the matter and I presume that they are therefore sufficiently interested to take note of its conclusions. They pray the Electoral Commission in aid so often that I would expect the Minister to accept its recommendations.
  There is broad consensus that, whatever our views on voting age, it is logical that someone who is old enough to vote is also old enough to stand as a candidate. The electorate should be able to judge whether a candidate is sufficiently mature to be elected. I am glad that there is consensus on that and that Conservative Members, even if they do not support reducing the voting age to 16, agree that voting age and candidacy age should be the
  1478
  same. The Government did not make even that commitment although I suspect that the Minister probably agrees with the proposition. He has probably made up his mind and simply will not give us his conclusions.
  It is worth emphasising some of the reasons that have been expressed for reducing the voting age to 16, the most important of which is fairness. We regard citizens as old enough to pay direct taxation at 16 if they are in work. I would not go as far as Conservative Front Benchers, who suggested that people who pay taxes should have the vote, because the logical conclusion of their argument is that those who do not pay taxes should not have the vote. That would mean that many pensioners were taken off the voting registers.
  Sixteen-year-olds who are in work may have left home and may pay council tax. We judge them to be mature enough to play such a part in the state's life, yet we do not appear to believe that they are old enough to decide about the politicians who set their council and income taxes. Those who are old enough to contribute to the state if they are earning sufficient money are old enough to elect the politicians who determine the rates.
  Much has been said about turnout. The Electoral Commission's document cites some interesting studies, which show that 16 and 17-year-olds are more likely to use the vote than 18 to 25-year-olds. Evidence shows that those who start to vote continue to do so. There is therefore good evidence that reducing the voting age to 16 would increase the turnout in elections. However, we should not reduce the voting age simply to improve turnout. If we judge people to be old enough to pay taxes, they should have a right to vote.
  The Minister rightly mentioned citizenship education, to which several Members referred. It ends at 16 in Scotland and will end at that age in England. It is compulsory up to the age to 14 and can be continued until a person is 16, but a two-year gap follows. The Government should either provide for teaching citizenship until the age of 18 or reduce the voting age to 16. Teaching citizenship until the age of 16 and asking people to forget about it for the next couple of years before they get an opportunity to vote does not make sense. The turnout in general elections is considerably higher than that in local elections. Many people vote in general elections and no other elections. Some people who become 18 just after a general election are 22 before they exercise their vote for the first time. Bringing down the voting age so that it is nearer the age at which young people receive citizenship education would help to encourage people to vote and play an active part in society.
  A more philosophical point is that young people tend to behave well if they are given responsibility. If we try to make young people do something by bashing them over the head until they do it, they rebel and recoil against it. When they are given responsibility, however, they generally act very responsibly.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman joined the Liberals.
  Matthew Green: Actually, I did not join any political party until I was 23, so the Minister was already a councillor at the age at which I entered politics.

  1479
  Giving young people the vote at 16 would send a strong signal that we regard them as full members of society, and would encourage them to behave more responsibly. It would be a signal, not a panacea, but it would help. That chimes with what he hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said—I agree with much that he said, apart from his comments on the voting age—about the "them and us" situation and the language that we use. Reducing the voting age to 16 would be a sign that we respect young people, and we can send that powerful message to help to draw different groups together.
  One argument that is used against giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is that they are not ready. However, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested in an intervention, it is difficult to argue that someone cannot have the vote because they are not mature enough. That would take us down the dangerous and dodgy road of suggesting that people should take a test before being given the vote. Before the days of universal franchise, which the Conservatives did much to try to prevent, the amount of money people owned, or the value of their property, were used as voting thresholds, and, of course, only men could vote. The argument about not being matture enough was used against giving women the vote—it was said that women could not possibly understand what they were doing. Those who use that argument about young people now would do well to read the Hansard report of debates that took place at the time when women were given the vote. They might find an uncanny resemblance between their arguments and those used in opposition to giving women the vote.
  Angus Robertson: Were not almost exactly the same arguments used against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18? No one in their right mind would now advocate that people should not have the vote until they are 21.
  Matthew Green: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's excellent point.
  Mr. Roger Williams: My hon. Friend might be aware of he work of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which interviewed several young people. Some of them said that they wanted to vote, but some said that they did not feel able to make a judgment. Surely, people who feel that they are confident enough to vote should be allowed to, while the others would not have to do so, be cause it would not be compulsory for them to vote.
  Matthew Green: My hon. Friend makes an excellent and pertinent point.
  The Welsh and the Scots have been a little more prepared than the Government to engage in this process, although I shall not detract from what the Government have done. The fact that the Electoral Commission is carrying out its review is a welcome development, especially given the situation 18 months ago. At that time, I received a dismissive answer from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions, suggesting that young people should not even be going the things that I said they were, and he would not even meet a group of young people to discuss the matter. We must welcome the movement that the Government have made and I, for one, do not want to belittle that.
  1480
  I have seen another argument against lowering the voting age in—believe it or not—academic submissions to the Electoral Commission, which were also sent to me. It is that 16 and 17-year-olds would automatically copy their parents. Perhaps the way to deal with that argument is to turn it on its head. If we carried out a poll among parents and asked them whether they thought that their 16 and 17-year-olds would automatically copy them, I think that we would be told very firmly that they would be more likely to do exactly the opposite. It is patronising to suggest that young people cannot think for themselves, and that all they can do is what their parents tell them to. Fortunately, no one used that argument in the debate today, probably because even those in the Chamber who oppose the lowering of the voting age to 16 are sensible enough to see the flaws in it.
  I am delighted that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists used their Opposition day debate for this subject. It is an important matter, and we have had only a few opportunities to discuss it before. I think that its time is coming, but I am sorry that the Government are still sitting firmly on the fence. I had hoped that the Minister would at least say that, if the Electoral Commission recommended a reduction in the voting age, the Government would pursue the issue. Clearly, however, that would be a step too far for this Minister, even if it is not a step too far for the Minister for schools standards, who has clearly made up his mind on this already—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: He is leading the debate.
  Matthew Green: Indeed, he is leading the debate on this issue in the Government.
  This has been a timely debate and, even if the Government numbers win tonight, I suspect that with the publication of the Electoral Commission's report on 26 March we shall see votes at 16 recommended. Such a recommendation is long overdue; it is about time that we began to bring our political system into the 21st century.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: Before I was elected to the House, I worked for the youth service in Wales, particularly the voluntary youth service. One of the initiatives with which I was involved was the Young Voice/Llais Ifanc initiative, which I helped to establish for the National Assembly for Wales. That initiative has now become Funky Dragon—the Children and Young People's Assembly. It was an important initiative because it was, and still is, peer-led. It is about facilitating the young people of Wales to get together and express their views and priorities to the decision makers in Wales, building on the excellent work that has been done by the local authority youth forums there.
  Among the things that impressed me about the initiative was that, contrary to what many people think, young people have plenty of opinions and ideas. What annoys them most is the fact that older people do not credit them with having those views, which are often not taken seriously or acted upon as a result. Those young people wanted not a grandiose debating society, but a facility in which they could express their views and then see action being taken.

  1481
  One of the consequences of this ongoing initiative is that the National Assembly for Wales now has to consider how it relates to young people when it makes decisions. Its elected Members recognise that it can be counter-productive if young people are provided with a means to express their views and nothing happens as a result. What is required is a change of culture, so that young people's views—along with the views of other people in society—are taken into account and can become part of the policy-making process. That is beginning to happen in the Welsh Assembly.
  The same needs to happen in other parts of the United Kingdom and in relation to central Government. Great strides have been made throughout Britain with the UK Youth Parliament, but that is not enough—well financed and well structured though that forum is. We need a mechanism to ensure that when the Government's policy-making structures consider the issues concerned, the views expressed by young people are taken into account.
  One surprising discovery that I made in working closely with young people was that many of them did not think it at all important to have the voting age reduced to 16. Some did, of course, but many saw it as irrelevant. Indeed, some young people saw it as some kind of sop and a means to incorporate them into the current political structures. They considered more important the introduction of genuine mechanisms that allowed their views to become part of the broader decision-making process.
  Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one genuine way of involving children and young people related to the appointment of the Children's Commission for Wales, as they took part in the whole of the appointment system and had an equal voice in choosing the person for the job?
  Mr. David: Indeed. That is a good practical example of how young people can be genuinely empowered. Young people greatly appreciate the fact that they were part of that process and that their views were taken into account. That is one reason why the Children's Commissioner is proving to be extremely successful. Other parts of the United Kingdom can learn from the example in Wales.
  There is a strong case for reducing the voting age to 16. I simply point out, however, that we should not assume that all young people regard that as of central importance. Many young people are concerned about a far broader range of issues and want their views taken into account. Therefore, while it is important that the issue is considered, it is not the be-all and end-all of demands from young people. It must not be used as an easy way out for decision makers. The view that reducing the voting age is the end of the debate, at which point we can go away contented that we have done something to help young people, is very patronising. It could also be counter-productive, as young people will see through it. We need a broader and more fundamental debate on this issue; above all, our starting point must be to respect the views of young people and to ensure that their views are always taken seriously.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the nationalist parties for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of participation in our democracy. We take a large amount for granted in that respect, and I am grateful to my constituent, the Bishop of Worcester, for drawing to my attention the participation of criminals in the democratic process. Perhaps we need to challenge and examine much more carefully the assumption that criminals should be denied the vote.
  I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to discuss the involvement of younger people in the democratic process. All Members know that one of the single most dangerous issues facing British democracy is young people's apparently declining enthusiasm—I say "apparently" for good reasons—for the British democratic system. That should worry us all greatly. We must look for ways of re-engaging young people in the process.
  I am reluctantly coming to the view that perhaps I am getting old. I watched a Question Time last week with a group of younger British politicians—younger even than the Minister, if such a thing can be imagined—and I was struck by the very different tone of voice that they were using to discuss political issues: a much more relaxed, informal and inclusive style, from which the House could learn something.
  To leap from the various views expressed in the Chamber today about the importance of involving younger people to the, idea that they must be given the vote is a dangerous conclusion, however, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) implied in his remarks. Certainly, all the soundings that I have taken in the many schools that I have visited in my constituency do not indicate great enthusiasm for it. The soundings that my district council has taken, probably as part of the response to the Electoral Commission's work at present, suggest no enthusiasm for it either. What people want is to be listened to, engaged and involved, and not necessarily to have the vote, which, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, could be seen as a sop or a patronising approach to the problems that we agree exist in relation to engaging people in the process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) rightly drew Mention to our problems with the media. Most of the media to which young people now listen tend to ignore us, while the rest trivialise us. The national broadsheets are a scandal in this regard. When I, like my hon. Friend, was an enthusiastic young political anorak aged 12, 13 and 14, I used to buy The Times and The Daily Telegraph and read a whole page about Parliament on a regular basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know, I know; it is sad but true.
  There were some interesting and important debates to read about at that time. It was a great period in British politics. It is not possible to read about such things now, because the media either ignore us or, when they do report us, trivialise is. It must be said, though—a number of Members have said it today—that we give the media quite a lot of ammunition with which to trivialise us. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), made some important remarks about the

  1483
  seriousness with which we, and the Government, take political debate. If we listened to more of those lessons, young people might take us more seriously.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when young people look at this place, what they mostly see are middle-aged, middle-class, grey-suited men? I say that as someone who is 42 today.
  Mr. Luff: As one who turned 49 a couple of weeks ago, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday. Even ageing rock stars grow old, as Bill Nighy has reminded us. But enough of this, given the time available. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way in which we behave here is often inappropriate.
  I deeply regret the fact that Prime Minister's Question Time is the only parliamentary programme that most people watch, because it is the least edifying part of our proceedings. Watching a broadcast of this debate would probably be more edifying for most young people than what will happen here tomorrow, in a few hours' time.
  I agree about the importance of youth parliaments, but I must tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly that I do not think they have enough resources. I hope that they will attract more sponsorship. I find engaging with a youth parliament surprisingly difficult in practical terms. I am notified of events much too late, and I do not receive replies to letters. Because of the annual election cycle for young people in my constituency, I find it difficult to establish a relationship with them. Such arrangements need much more support, both financially and from Members of Parliament.
  We have a crucial role to play as ambassadors for politics through our involvement with schools. I believe that every Member takes that role very seriously. I can honestly say that some of the challenging questions posed to me by young people aged 15 and 16 are among the best and most perceptive that I am ever asked. They are not tainted by the prejudice and experience of years. This morning, a young man called Tom, from Prince Henry's high school, interviewed me on the telephone for a newspaper competition in which his school is participating. His questions were worthy of Jeremy Paxman. I was subjected to an exceptionally intelligent grilling from someone aged only 15.
  The Minister pointed out that there were all sorts of ways for us to engage with young people. He described what I regard as the gimmicks involved in that process: e-mails, text messaging and digital television voting. I do not think that that deals with the fundamental issue, which is what we say to young people and how we say it, rather than the means we use to communicate with them. Although I approve of the fact that, typically, young people are involved with the same issues as the rest of society, inevitably the emphasis is sometimes a bit different. The current debate about university education is one example of something in which young people take an interest; other examples are environmental, third-world and animal-welfare issues. If we could only talk to them about those subjects in language that they understand and in a non-partisan way, we would gain their respect.
  I do not believe that it is right to reduce the voting age to 16, but I think that we must engage young people much more in the political process—not just 16-years
  1484
  olds but those aged 12, 13, 14 and 15. They all have views that are worth listening to. What we must do is make the prospect of voting at 18 exciting. So many good things in this life are worth waiting for; the tragedy is that most young people in Britain today do not think that engagement in the political process is worth waiting for.
  7.19 pm
  Adam Price: We have had a thoughtful, considered and mature debate, which is perhaps uncharacteristic of this place, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) suggests. I am sure that normal service will be resumed in time for Prime Minister's questions tomorrow.
  It is 35 years since Parliament last voted to lower the voting age, and as the Minister said, it is more than 300 years since we examined the question of candidacy age. Even at the grindingly slow place of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, the issue is certainly overdue for revisiting.
  It is certainly a pleasure for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party to be able to divide the House on this issue for the first time in five years, and it will be interesting to see whether there has been a shift in opinion. Disgracefully, last time, the motion was lost by a ratio of 10 votes to one. We have witnessed a sea change in some quarters, and it will be interesting to see how that is reflected in both the spirit and the letter of tonight's vote. Three independent studies have supported a reduction in the voting age in the past five years: the Kerley report in Scotland; the Sunderland Commission in Wales; and the Local Government Commission for England. Two Select Committees in this place have supported such a reduction, as have subject committees in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and the human rights committee of the legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland.
  Even Government Members have been falling over themselves to embrace the radical, new and progressive idea of reducing the voting age. Sadly, they do not include the Minister, as we have heard tonight. He seems to be taking his lead from the Prime Minister. In January 2002, the Prime Minister opposed the idea with a characteristic shrug, saying that he was not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things that they are capable of doing. However, a few months ago he said that people grow up a lot more quickly now, and that there are many things that 16-year-olds can do, so why should they not be able to vote? The Prime Minister's volts face seems to have led to agnosticism, at least on this issue.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on introducing the debate with his customary panache and good humour, which was welcomed on both sides of the House, and I thank the Minister for his response. There was certainly consensus on the importance of engaging with young people. The problem with participation in politics is not confined to young people. We accept that there is no panacea or quick-fix solution to the entire problem, but today's debate is an important step in the right direction in terms of re-engaging young people with politics.
  The Minister said that it would be prudent to wait for the Electoral Commission report, but we have been waiting for it for some time. The consultation ended in

  1485
  October and the publication date has been moved three times. I should be magnanimous and point out that it was a Labour Government who reduced the voting age the last time, with Plaid Cymru and SNP support. If the Government are to act on the Electoral Commission's recommendations on voting age or on candidacy, will they ensure that such changes are in place in time for the next UK general election? The then Labour Government ensured, through the Representation of the People Act 1969, that such changes were in place for the 1970 general election. We do not want simply a manifesto pledge; we want action, so that the current generation of 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote.
  Perhaps the natural generosity of spirit of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) was slightly hemmed in by Conservative policy on this issue, but there was some agreement. He was being a little mischievous in pointing out that the voting age is lower in Cuba, North Korea and Iran, where turnout is indeed higher, although perhaps not for reasons that we would like to support. However, there is evidence that the lower voting age of 15 in Brazil—a high proportion of whose population is below the age of 18—has an invigorating effect on that country's democracy.
  I thank the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and for Mid-Worcestershire for turning the question around. Politicians, political parties and the House should address the culture of our democratic institutions. Reducing the voting age is only one step among a panoply of measures to make democratic politics more inclusive. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has long led the charge for the Liberal Democrats. His point was well made that—ithout meaning any disrespect to hon. and right hon. Members who take a different view—similar arguments were made against extending the franchise to the working class in the 19th century and to women in the last century: it was doubted whether individuals were mature enough to cast their votes wisely.
  The arguments in favour of lowering the voting age, which are supported by many youth organisations and are well understood, include consistency. Many 16-yearolds sleep together, marry without parental consent in Scotland and have children. Sixteen-year-olds can become company directors, be tried by jury in a Crown court and be locked up. They can even change their name by deed poll.
  Thirty-two per cent. of 17-year-olds pay income tax—a not insignificant proportion. If it is proper that they should do so, surely they should have a stake in society and the right to decide how their taxes are spent. Some young people may not have wanted their taxes spent on the war in Iraq or for other purposes. The Government should be congratulated on creating so much anger and a new enthusiasm for politics among some young people. There is a broad consensus that we all need to engage and to examine the culture of our political parties. Now is the time to consider reducing the voting age, because we need to crystallise the energy, passion and enthusiasm that young people have for political issues.
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): As someone who was not allowed to vote until the age of 21—I know that I do not look it—and remembers only one television channel rather than the three mentioned by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), I found this an enjoyable debate in many respects. Contributions from all parts of the House have been thoughtful in addressing an issue that ought to concern us all, regardless of our age or political party.
  However, in concentrating on lowering the voting age, perhaps the House has lost focus on an issue that I hoped it would debate—the abysmal turnout by the current cohort of young people between the ages of 18 and 24. I would have welcomed significantly more emphasis on that aspect. The hon. Member for Wealden pointed out that only 39 per cent. of those aged 18 to 24 voted in the 2001 general election, whereas 70 per cent. of 65-year-olds did so.
  Other issues were worthy of exploration. Of all age groups, young people are least likely to register to vote. There are a variety of reasons for non-registration. Without being too party political, I think that we are still reaping the legacy of the poll tax and the registration issues that it posed. We have heard about some of the many reasons why people will not register—alienation from the political system, deliberate avoidance and so forth.
  Mr. Salmond: I agree with the Minister, but one reason why we lost so many people, particularly young people, from the register stems from the fact that in most Scottish constituencies there is no longer a personal canvass. If the franchise were lowered to 16, when people are mainly still at school and can be readily identified, it would assist in the process of getting people registered.
  Mrs. McGuire: I am i not sure that that would solve the long-term problem, because people move around and there are all sorts of reasons why people come off the register. There is a danger of those who support the reduction of the voting age to 16 undermining their own case by using such arguments: it must be right because it is right, not because it will increase turnout or make registration easier. Electoral returning officers can canvass personally, and many do. Certainly the Scotland Office, working with the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers, is examining some of the concerns expressed in the House and elsewhere about the perception of under-registration.
  Angus Robertson: Briefly, for the record, we now know that the Prime Minister is agnostic on the issue of lowering the voting age; that the Minister for Schools Standards is in favour; and that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who opened the debate for the Government, has not yet made up his mind. May I therefore ask the Minister about her position? Is she in favour of lowering the voting age to 16—yes or no?
  Mrs. McGuire: The Labour party has specifically highlighted the reduction of the voting age in the big

  1487
  conversation: we are a listening party on the issue. My one criticism of today's debate is that it is unfortunate that our discussions are so close to the Electoral Commission's report on its findings and analysis. I look forward to having a full and frank debate on the reduction of the voting age after the Electoral Commission has reported.
  I should like to deal with a few of the issues raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), among others, mentioned taxation. I am certainly pleased that, in this country, individuals' right to vote is not determined by whether they are married, sleeping with someone, receiving benefits or paying taxation. I believe that it is an intrinsic right, albeit at a threshold in respect of age, that is unrelated to any other aspect of being citizens of this country. We confuse the issues when we start to make those linkages. It is not about the Boston tea party or whether young people in Scotland—but not in England—can get married at 16 without parental consent. It is all about whether the case for voting at a certain age is worthy in its own right. I hope that we will properly debate that when—
  Adam Price Adam Price rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I have only a few minutes left, so it must be a very short intervention, which might be difficult for a Welshman— [Interruption]
  Adam Price: When the Minister says that we should have a full debate following the publication of the Electoral Commission report, is she committing the Government to a debate on the Floor of the House?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman, charming though he is—I think that all Welshmen are charming—will not seduce me into predetermining what Government business will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It was a nice try, nevertheless.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) brought the wealth of his own experience in youth work to our debate. Those who have worked with young people—I include myself in hat category—know that many issues affect their lives and that they are interested not so much in whether they should be allowed to vote at 16 or 17, but in a whole plethora of issues, which we, as the Government, have addressed.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worestershire (Mr. Lull) made a thoughtful contribution, although the terrible image of him at the age of six sitting by his fireside and reading Hansard does not sit well with his current politics. Generally, though, the House has agreed that we must focus on issues that are important to young people. We must go beyond the mechanics of democracy and deal with the outcomes of the democratic process.
  I want to go on record as saying that the Government have dealt with some of the great issues affecting young people. In my experience, one of the most debilitating problems faced by young people was long-term youth unemployment. The new deal and other aspects of the Government's employment policy have almost obliterated youth unemployment, and we have established modern apprenticeships in Scotland. We need to talk about young people's issues, and not just mouth the platitudes for which so many of them criticise us.
  1488
  I want to comment on some of the initiatives that have been taken in Scotland, some of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs mentioned when he opened the debate. Currently, the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament. It will reduce the required age for local government candidates in Scotland. I think that that is a step forward.
  Pete Wishart rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 346.

  Division No. 81

  [7:36 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Baker, Norman

  Barrett, John

  Opik, Lembit

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Breed, Colin

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Rendel, David

  Bruce Malcolm

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Burstow,Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Salmond, Alex

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Stunell, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Teather, Sarah

  Doughty, Sue

  Thurso, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Weir, Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Mr. Simon Thomas and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Pete Wishart

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Best, Harold

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Austin, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Burnham, Andy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burns, Simon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Berry, Roger

  Caborn, rh Richard

  1489

  Cairns, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Caton, Martin

  Grayling, Chris

  Challen, Colin

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chope, Christopher

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gummer, rh John

  Clappison, James

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendry, Charles

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Collins, Tim

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heyes, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmstron)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hutton, rh John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jamieson, David

  Doran, Frank

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fabricant, Michael

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flight, Howard

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flook, Adrian

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Foster, rh Derek

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Francois, Mark

  Lammy, David

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lepper, David

  1490

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Purnell, James

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lidington, David

  Randall, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Loughton, Tim

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  McCafferty, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Ruffley, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Maclean, rh David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Short, rh Clare

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Michael, rh Alun

  Steen, Anthony

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Julie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Morley, Elliot

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Mountford, Kali

  Syms, Robert

  Mudie, George

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Timms, Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Tipping, Paddy

  Paice, James

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Paterson, Owen

  Trickett, Jon

  Perham, Linda

  Truswell, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  1491

  Watkinson, Angela

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Worthingtton, Tony

  Whittingdale, John

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt.Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Charlotte Atkins and Mr. Jim Murphy

  (Macclesfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  question, That the proposed words be there added, put, foirthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendements): —
  The house divided: Ayes 310, Noes 10.

  Division No. 82]

  [7:49pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chaytor, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs; Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Baker, Norman

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barrett, John

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cotter, Brian

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cranston Ross

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cruddas Jon

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Best, Harold

  Cummings, John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  David, Wayne

  Breed, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denhani, rh John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dhanda Parmjit

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson rh Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Burnham, Andy

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Burstow, Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Doughty, Sue

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Cairns, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Farrelly Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Challen, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, rh Derek

  1492

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Linton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Chris

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacDougall, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harvey, Nick

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Holmes, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mole, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mudie, George

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hutton, rh John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Opik, Lembit

  lllsley, Eric

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Picking, Anne

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rendel, David

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lammy, David

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Lepper, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  1493

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Salmond, Alex

  Sanders, Adrian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Singh, Marsha

  Ward, Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Weir, Michael

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

  White, Brian Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wishart, Pete

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Teather, Sarah

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Charlotte Atkins and Mr. Jim Murphy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  NOES

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Steen, Anthony

  Flook, Adrian

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Gummer, rh John

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Eric Forth and Ann Winterton

  Robathan, Andrew

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the concern shared by all political parties at the lack of participation in the political process by young people and the decreasing turnout in elections throughout the country; welcomes the work of many charities, political experts, young people and organisations representing them, who have worked together in their belief that lowering the voting age would improve the quality of politics in the United Kingdom; but notes that the independent Electoral Commission's review of voting age and candidacy age is soon to be published and that the Government will carefully consider its conclusions, alongside the work of other organisations.

  DELEG ATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): For the convenience of the House, I propose to take together motions 3 to 12.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEG ATED LEGISLATION

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Election 2004) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
    That the draft Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
    That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.— [Vernon Cooker.]

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.— [Vernon Coaker]

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
    That the draft Children (Leaving Care) Social Security Benefits (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.— [Vernon Cooker.]

    EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
    That the draft Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.— [Vernon Cooker.]
    POLICE
    That the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 12th February, he approved.— [Vernon Cooker.]

    LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
    That the draft Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved. [Vernon Coaker]
    Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (a) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
  (b) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 24th March between ten minutes to Nine o'clock and twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))— [Vernon Coaker.]

  PETITIONS

    Streethouse School
    8.1 pm
    Jon Trickett: I present a petition of almost 400 parents and friends of Streethouse school, the number of pupils at which has grown rapidly over recent years, which has led to concerns over health and safety owing to a lack of space.
    The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Education and Skills to consider proposals to either expand the school or build an additional one to cope with rising pupil numbers.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Weymouth Transmitter Upgrade
    8.2 pm
    Jim Knight: I have pleasure in presenting a petition initiated by Mark Probin of Weymouth HiFi and signed by more than 1,100 of my constituents. Indeed, many continue; to sign it online by visiting www.wewantdigital.co.uk.
    The petition
    Declares that access to the licence fee-funded Freeview service is non-existent in the Weymouth area. Constituents are left with no choice but to purchase a Sky box if they want to receive digital channels. Constituents in South Dorset only get four channels for the licence fee, whereas elsewhere they get a myriad of others.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to prioritise getting the Weymouth transmitter upgraded and eliminate the digital divide in this part of Dorset. The petitioners further request that the Government take action to upgrade the transmitter and complete the digital `switchover' well before its deadline of 2010 and that the Secretary of State, in reviewing the BBC Charter, should stipulate that all services should be made available to all licence payers within a reasonable period.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Rugby Union
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Vernon Coaker.]
    8.4 pm
    Mr. John Randall: I welcome the opportunity to speak on rugby, although many eminent parliamentarians with rugby careers might be better suited to speak on it. There are internationals in the House, and I believe that there is even a Cambridge blue. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) once telling me how Vaseline saved his ear in a match against the All Blacks, but it would perhaps be wise not to go further down that line.
    I am not guilty of opportunism and am not exploiting the popularity and success of the English team in the World cup. In my time, I played rugby, and I reached the pinnacle of my career as captain of the third XV at school, although injury prevented me from playing very much that season. In those days, I was a sleek three-quarter, although I could now be an honorary member of the front row club. Latterly, I have become a keen supporter and spectator of the game, but I try not to be an expert, as many people do when they grow grumpier and older. I am proud to be a vice-president of Uxbridge rugby football club and a member of Saracens rugby football club. I am a keen supporter of Saracens as well and acquired a season ticket as a direct result of the club's involvement in a community programme for schools, including my son's school.
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism will be aware that all Zurich Premiership clubs share a strong commitment to community involvement. That involvement is not just domestic, and I pay tribute to John Broadfoot of IRB SOS Kit Aid, which accepts old kit from players of all ages and sends it overseas, originally to Romania, but now to Georgia, Moldova and Bulgaria as well. That project deserves immense support.
    A great deal of the English team's success in recent years has been put down to the professional era. Many people regret the passing of the amateur era, but as long as we do not lose the spirit of rugby, I do not share that regret. I pay tribute to all the club owners who have invested in their clubs and poured money into them. They have built up the sport, and deserve a great deal of credit for the national team's current success. I shall concentrate on English rugby, mainly because I have discovered that sport is a devolved matter, but I hope that the Government will do whatever they can to encourage rugby in Scotland and Wales. Rugby is a religion in Wales, and I am sorry that it has not enjoyed the success in the past few years that it once had. I hope that it has more success, but not necessarily in the next fortnight.
    There is some regret, as I said, about the transition to the professional era. I am talking about rugby union, but my comments apply equally to rugby league. I have become more interested in rugby league as a result of the association between Brunel university and the London Broncos, and have been impressed by the Broncos' community involvement. In many respects, therefore, my remarks apply to rugby league as well. An essential part of rugby is the spirit in which it is played. At all levels, teams applaud one another off the field, whereas

    1497
    there is less sportsmanlike behaviour in other sports. As a supporter, I appreciate the facts that supporters can mix freely and that alcohol is allowed in the ground. Indeed, one might almost say that it is encouraged, and it does not seem to have an ill effect on people's behaviour. All sport is important for young people. I have become fed up hearing about Government initiatives on obesity, for obvious reasons, but when I was young I did not have the problem that I have now—I blame that on sitting in this place for long hours.
    The great thing about rugby, or any team game, is the team spirit. When watching my son play, I have noted the amazing amount of energy that can be burned up. He is thereby reduced to an almost passive state by the end of the afternoon, which is important for young people, particularly in our household.
    As we continue to bathe in the glow of the recent wonderful victory, now is the time to tap into renewed enthusiasm for the game. Much must be generated by the sport itself, but there is a role for the Government, and I want to outline some ways in which they could help. On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) had the Second Reading of his Promotion of Volunteering Bill. I listened avidly to his excellent speech and discovered that the Bill contains measures that would help many sports and activities. Principally, it might ease the litigation culture by introducing a statement of inherent risk. Without repeating the arguments—I am sure that the Minister will have a look at them if he has not yet had time to do so—I urge the Government seriously to consider that. It is about time that we as a society recognised that accidents can and do happen, and that if we constantly try to get rid of them we will have a bad effect on some of our sports and outdoor activities.
    The Government can play a role in encouraging schools to take up rugby instead of giving it up, as some have for the reasons that I mentioned. All sports should be encouraged, and, without making a party political point, we know that facilities and playing fields are a key theme in that. Those facilities are as important for the top-flight clubs as they are for schools. That is why I commend the concept of a rugby trust, which is being modelled on the very successful Football Trust—now known as the Football Foundation.
    Premier Rugby Ltd., the umbrella organisation for 12 professional clubs, is seeking funding over the next 10 years to build rugby stadiums and improve facilities at existing professional clubs. That funding would create a virtuous circle whereby better stadiums would encourage more spectators, derive more promotional revenue from sponsorship and hospitality, create improved community sporting facilities and infrastructure, encourage bigger and better community programmes, increase participation, and further enhance the professional playing and coaching pool that underpins England's future international success. It would also allow clubs to expand their existing facilities and commitments to community sports and to health and social inclusion programmes.
    Over the past seven years, Premier Rugby has privately invested £120 million in developing and growing the sport, and it is prepared to invest the equivalent investment that is being sought by the
    1498
    Government if the Government are prepared to support the launch of a trust or an alternative funding solution. Premier Rugby has spoken to all the game's stakeholders who are keen to work together on the proposed trust, including the Rugby Football League.
    In recent years, rugby union has not had its fair share of the funding cake, although I certainly do not begrudge other sports the funding that they have received. The following figures cover the period 1995 to 2003: football—I had better say association football in this context—received well over £230 million, athletics more than £190 million, hockey £109 million, and basketball more than £50 million. Rugby union has received only £46 million.
    The Government have been helping. Only today, I received news of Sport England's £1 million boost for the "Sweet Chariot' programme. I do not want to give the Minister a hospital pass by asking him to have a chat with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but the Rugby Football Union has raised with me a taxation issue that applies to governing bodies generally. The RFU feels that it is penalised in two areas: first, costs relating to supporting community clubs, either directly or via the resources of community rugby facilities, are not wholly tax deductible; and secondly, the majority of costs relating to the construction of, and structural modifications to, the stadium are not eligible for capital allowances. The RFU therefore believes that it pays disproportionately high tax, and that that is especially absurd, given the benefits of the game to the community. It believes that there is an overwhelming argument for allowing national governing bodies in general, and especially the RFU, to be fully exempt from taxation. I expect that to go down as well at the Treasury as a Jonny Wilkinson drop goal in certain bars in Earl's Court.
    The top clubs have financed most of the great steps forward in the game and the high-quality community programmes. Now is the time to capitalise on the game's success. The premiership clubs alone cannot meet the costs; they need and deserve Government support.
    8.15 pm
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. He has shown that he is no Johnny-come-lately on the subject of rugby. He has graced many a park with his rugby union skills. Although my rugby career is not as illustrious as his, I played a little rugby at scrum half for Hurlfield comprehensive school and had a few trials with a Sheffield club, but soccer took over and I went on to play the beautiful game.
    The hon. Gentleman's support for rugby is welcome. I know that he is a keen Saracens supporter. I go to see Rotherham play occasionally. Both our teams languish in the bottom half of the league—indeed, my team is probably a little below Saracens. We need a few points to stay there, but we must wait and see what the rest of the season brings.
    The hon. Gentleman widened the debate to include participation in sport. Any opportunity for the House to debate sport is welcome.
    There have been a few upsets. I believe that Ryanair's latest marketing ploy is to run a trip to Dublin for £19.13. The mighty fell but I have no doubt that they will

    1499
    come back. I hope that that will happen in Paris when I shall watch the match with the French Minister for Sport.
    Let us consider the world cup. It is interesting to reflect that we last believed that there would be a great renaissance in rugby union in 1991 when Will Carling's team showed what England could do and dominated world rugby. It was arguably one of the best sides around at the time. Unfortunately, we did not beat the Australians in 1991 and we were therefore unable to capitalise on that fantastic side. We beat the Australians in the final in 2003, and that has done a considerable amount for rugby.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he also liked rugby league. I believe that the oval ball generally gained from the tremendous win in Australia. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is a great rugby league fan and he told me that participation has increased in rugby league on the back of events in Australia. It was the first English win in a world championship of a major team sport since 1966, when we won the World cup. We can capitalise on that.
    Rugby union became a professional game in 1995 and there is no doubt that that has enabled us to take on the southern hemisphere in a way that we could not have done without professionalising the game. The Rugby Football Union was mindful of the probable surge of interest in the game and it knew that it had to be prepared. Nearly 18 months or two years ago, representatives of Zurich, which sponsors rugby union, sat down with the RFU to consider what to do in the event of an enormous increase in interest in the game and how to capitalise on that to strengthen it from the grass roots. I compliment Zurich on the way in which it has supported rugby union and been proactive in ensuring that the game is sustainable from the grass roots upwards.
    Zurich, the RFU and MORI came together to produce a document, "Rugby—Making an Impact", a MORI research report. It did not tell us anything that we did not know—it definitely did not tell the RFU anything it did not know—but it quantified various matters. One of its most disappointing findings was that, even though we had such a fantastic win in Australia and the England team had been developed over the years before that, during the late 1990s and early 21st century, the number of clubs had declined. In 1998, there were 1,537 clubs, but by last year there were only 1,480. It was also disappointing to learn that the number of sides per club went down from 2.9 to 2.7 between the 1997–98 season and last year. While the game was flourishing at international level, there was a deterioration in the club structure and in the number of young people coming into the game.
    The RFU, Zurich and others, including Terry Burwell, the RFU's director of community rugby—who has played a central part in putting the RFU back on the map at the grass roots, through his work with my Department and Sport England—have been able to analyse the problem and are now investing in rugby in a very focused way. That is to be welcomed.
    Participation in rugby union involves about 500,000 regular players across the nation. There are also about 8,000 registered women and girls playing at 420 clubs, compared with only five clubs in 1983. So, while
    1500
    numbers have declined in the men's game, the women's and girls' game has developed. The premiership's development scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has reached 2,500 schools in the last couple of years, which is quite remarkable. The premiership could perhaps be described as limited, but it does commit itself to the development of the game through the schools sports co-ordinators and the specialist sports colleges linked to primary and secondary schools. That provides a structure whereby sports such as rugby union can plug into the school structure. I hope that we shall be able to respond to what the hon. Gentleman has said by continuing to get that development into schools. It is crucial, if rugby is to flourish, to get it right into the school structure.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about volunteering, litigation and insurance is an important one not just for rugby but across the whole spectrum of sport. If anything now acts as an impediment against volunteering and against new people coming into the sport, it is the issue of insurance—so much so that I had a number of insurance companies in to meet me a couple of weeks ago. We are working with them—work is also being done in the Home Office—to see how we can get insurance to amateur sports clubs, and a number of ideas are now being explored. That issue is an impediment to the continued development of some of our sports, which is very disappointing. I said to the representatives of the insurance companies that if we continue to make it difficult for young people to come into sport, and if we are not prepared to insure them, they will get into worse and probably more dangerous activities such as drugs and related issues. We are taking up that important issue, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will pursue it.
    In terms of capitalising on what the RFU has done, and on what the team did in Australia, the hon. Gentleman referred to the £1 million for the "Sweet Chariot" tour linking the world cup with national and local development initiatives. I was present when 2,000 school kids in Rotherham had their photographs taken with the cup. The two Members representing the Rotherham area and I also had our photographs taken with the cup. As someone who had to return early from Australia, I did not get the opportunity to have my photograph taken with the cup down under—[Laughter.] Duty called, and I had to return. Seriously, however, I understand that the tour will arrive in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on 27 May, so he will be able to have his photograph taken in Middlesex.
    The RFU has also held more than 90 sessions of "Come and Try It", which is another taster for young people between the ages of 13 and 16. Each of those sessions has introduced 40 youngsters to rugby, which is another means of development. It is paying off, because most of the sport's 1,480 amateur clubs have reported an upsurge in interest from new players. Pleasingly, 2,870 new coaches have obtained the tag rugby certificate in the last six months, and 2,270 new referees have been trained since last summer. That infrastructure is necessary to respond to the upsurge in interest, which we want to be sustainable—we do not want it just to last a year or two. That is why coaching, development and linking the club structure to schools are so important.
    On the hon. Gentleman's points about the professional game, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) had a meeting

    1501
    in the House only yesterday with the premiership clubs to discuss how we could assist them in taking forward their role. I hope that the RFU and the premiership will work together. We do not want divisions in the game, which we have seen in some other games. I hope that they can work together, and if they can do so I am sure that it will be for the betterment of the game in the round.
    In terms of stadiums, the premiership clubs have made strong representations, particularly since the world cup. While it is accepted that there was investment in football stadiums, which to some extent was a result of the tragedy at Hillsborough, I have said clearly to rugby union clubs that developing their stadiums is a matter for them. If such development can extend into the community so that they become multi-sports clubs, for example, whereby the amateur game can also be developed, the Government will give serious consideration to helping them. The straight commercial aspects are for the clubs to develop, but we will try to help them with the community side. In terms of community work, I am sure that the game will benefit from players going into schools, in which the hon. Gentleman said that all premiership clubs are involved. All premiership players are contracted to work with local schools and clubs for a minimum of 35 hours a month, which is to be welcomed, and I am sure that there will be some spin-off from that.
    Nothing is stopping the RFU or the premiership coming together to create a rugby foundation. The moneys that go into the Football Foundation from the football premiership are ostensibly from television rights—5 per cent. of the television money goes into it. That is roughly £20 million a year, which is matched by the FA, and we then match it through Sport England, so there is a three-way partnership. If rugby union wants to develop a foundation, there is nothing to stop it doing so.
    The hon. Gentleman raised tax issues. At the request of those representing a number of sports, we have introduced community amateur sports clubs, which can claim a number of breaks, including gift aid. That has been very useful to many clubs. Woodford rugby football club, for instance, had a major debt to finance a new clubhouse in 1994, and was in financial trouble by 2002. This year SportsAid raised £200,000, and a crucial
    1502
    £45,000 was claimed back in gift aid by means of the CASC package introduced in 2002. Moreover—I think that rugby, tennis and cricket will gain from this considerably—there is the monetary rate relief that we shall introduce this April, having announced it at the end of last year.
    Amateur clubs now get pretty well what any club would get with charitable status. There are about 110,000 sports clubs in this country, of which an estimated 40,000 could gain by registering as CASCs and gaining monetary rate relief. At the last count, towards the end of last month, only 2,300 had applied. The information takes a little time to filter through, but I know that the RFU, along with other governing bodies, wants to ensure that the message is sent to clubs. We have now established a one-stop shop in every region, organised by Sport England. Anyone who telephones the Sport England office will be given the information, and every effort will be made to make the process as simple as possible. Last week, a group addressed by a Treasury colleague and me complimented us on the simplicity of the forms—not something for which the Treasury is usually commended.
    Rugby union is experiencing a renaissance in this country, and is pulling rugby league in its wake. As a sports Minister, I welcome that. I want us to do all that we can to capitalise on it, which is why we have been engaged in discussions with the RFU. We want to ensure that the club structure is linked with schools, and we are using the wider development of rugby for the benefit of other sports. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, obesity and the health of the nation are probably the subject of more reports than they have been for many years. The role of sport and other physical activity now features much more on the political agenda. If sport does not capitalise on that, it will miss a golden opportunity. The way in which the RFU—along with Zurich and, indeed, MORI—have approached this is commendable, and I am sure it will pay dividends in the future. I hope we shall see many more clubs, much more participation in the playing of the game, and many more spectators. I think—
    The motion having been made after Seven 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 Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

International Role of Women
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr Kemp.]
9.30 am
Helen Jackson:It gives me great pleasure to have secured the debate for international women's week. I attended last night's international women's day celebration in Congress house—the TUC headquarters. Of the messages that we received from other trade unions throughout the world, the one from Georgia really hit home: "I hope that your day will be as bright as a spring morning."
It struck me that there are two ways of looking at the world. History has been written through the eyes of men, and is about wars, power struggles and politics. However, there has always been the other story on which history concentrates less—the story of families, mothers and children, and sad stories of violence and the struggle against male prejudice and wife beating. The Amnesty International report, published last week, reminded us that 70 per cent. of female murder victims are killed by their partners. There is also female genital mutilation. The other week, I saw the play "The Crucible" at the Crucible theatre in Sheffield, and remembered how it used to be the wise and undeferential women who were dubbed witches.
There are also stories of community, showing how we survive if we work together and share, and how people in communities often understand that they have a common interest in preventing conflict. There is also the story of work—usually unpaid—growing crops in the fields for survival and to sell at the local market, and caring for the young, the sick and the old. It is the story of the world told through women's eyes and women's experience. One of the greatest stories of the last century may be the start of the awareness of the economic and political liberation of women who have done most of the world's work for generations. They will no longer do so without financial reward, and they will take their proper place in society.
The purpose of the debate is to focus on the international aspect of gender policy. The poignancy of the message lies with the developing world, and I am delighted that it is an International Development Minister who will respond to the debate today. However, I remind hon. Members that I originally asked for a cross-cutting debate in Westminster Hall, because this issue demands awareness across Departments, including that of the Minister for Women, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office with its refugees policy, the Treasury with its influence in the World Bank, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
356WH
There is always a connection between how we work to change the culture in the United Kingdom, our commitment to girls' education and women's policies, and how effectively we deliver our development policies overseas. I hope that through the Minister and his Department we can encourage the entire Government to take a more concerted approach. Education is the starting point. The United Nations led this debate when they held the Beijing conference in 1995. It was interesting to see that the delegates were unanimous in putting the education of girls and women at the forefront of the work to make a difference to development throughout the world. The millennium development goals have followed up that important UN leadership. That is important. The third millennium goal is to
"promote gender equality and the empowerment of women"
and to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005—preferably—nd at all levels by 2015. Even if we do not meet those targets, many countries in the developing world will be well on the way to meeting them, and certainly to an awareness that free education is necessary to achieve them.
It is still true that two thirds of the world's illiterate are women. We cannot ignore the interrelationship between education and other development goals. When there is little food available, the women in a family often eat last and least. If that happens during pregnancy, it can have disastrous consequences such as maternal mortality and low birth weight. The Global Campaign for Education, which has done some superb work, showed that in Bangladesh, for example, women who have even a fifth grade of education are more likely to eat more. I know that that sounds ridiculous, but simply having that education makes them realise that they must eat. That puts them in a better position to take decisions in their families and communities, and has a knock-on effect on their health, on the health of the community, and on how they take their places in society. The contribution that education can make is as clear as that.
When I visited Malawi, I saw that there is a huge uptake when primary education is free. However, there are insufficient buildings and teachers to accommodate that, so a key strategy that we in the developed world must adopt to achieve the millennium development goal is to help provide those resources in developing countries that accept the need for free education to make that equality happen. I pay tribute to the work of our Departments and bodies such as the Open university, which is trying to make its input into teacher training a priority, as it has crucial access to radio across the world.
We must recognise the link between education and health, and focus on women there. The differential levels of mortality in the world should be a source of shame. Here, where we have a life expectancy of 80 years, we express policy worries that life expectancy may rise, and ask what we will do with all those old people who remain healthy for longer. In Zambia and so many other countries, the life expectancy is half that in this country: the differential is huge. That is not just because of HIV/ AIDS, but other causes including malaria, child diseases such as measles, water-borne diseases and maternal mortality—all of which are easily preventable. However, for the purposes of the debate, I will focus on HIV/AIDS and how women are the key to fighting that

357WH
threat. More than 60 per cent. of those infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are women. The problem is not just that statistic, but the stigma that goes along with it. In many countries, women risk violence if they press their partner to use a condom. They cannot do anything about it, even with education, because of the pressures of violence in their communities.
I was impressed by the conference that was held by the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Southern Africa, AWEPA. in Botswana last year, where we enabled African parliamentarians, men and women, to address the issue of HIV/AIDS. I was also impressed by the intensity with which that debate is starting to happen among those parliamentarians.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and his all-party Africa group, which is undertaking its own study on AIDS in Africa. At the hearing last week, we heard from Asunta Wagura of the Kenya Network of Women with AIDS. That network began with just three or four women trying to pool resources to help one another, but it now has members in their thousands and is making a difference. This health issue is one example of how we can make progress if we work through women.
As HIV/AIDS is addressed by the developed world through increased resources for treatment, we have to be clear that the treatment goes not only to the wealthy men and those people with a bit of power who can take it up, but to the women in their communities, where it will not only make a difference to them but have an impact on stigma and on the whole community.
Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because she knows that I cannot stay for the whole debate. I want to bring to her attention the position of women in Afghanistan. The maternal mortality rate is 1,600 women for every 100,000 live births—a shocking statistic. Women are particularly prone to malaria and they represent 70 per cent. of tuberculosis cases in that country. We now know those statistics for the first time. It is important to note that steps have been taken by the transitional authority, and particularly by the United Nations and others, with the safe motherhood initiative, seeking to resolve the problems for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated.
Helen Jackson:I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I was going to go on to pay tribute to her work with women in Afghanistan. She has shown how focusing on the need for women to be at the forefront of rebuilding their community is not merely an option but is absolutely crucial to bringing that country out of the horrors of the wars of the past decades into a more secure future.
It is often said that, although education and health matter, economic development and financial necessity will drive forward success in development work. It is worth recognising that even in that field women play a crucial part.
We often hear that there is a major problem with governance and the culture of corruption. On a visit to Sierra Leone last year by the Commonwealth
358WH
Parliamentary Association, of which I was a member, we were fascinated to see how the country's Administration had decided in their programme of micro-finance and micro-credit initiatives to give 97 per cent. of all those resources to projects led or run by women. They were perfectly open about their reasons. We know that those are the projects where the money will be used for the stated purpose. They will have a better awareness that the money is a loan; they will develop a business plan to pay it back and it will therefore be recycled. That is a small way to address the culture of corruption, but I believe that working in such a way, through small-scale initiatives and letting women lead, is the only way of building a change in that culture in those countries that are emerging from great poverty and, in Sierra Leone's case, a nasty civil war.
I am also reminded of South African women's day last year, when we heard from Nomsa Nhlebeya, a wonderful woman farmer. She was a sugar cane farmer who started by being given a few fields in Mpumalanga when her former husband died. She now employs 35 workers, including her current husband, and owns one of the leading small businesses in the sugar industry. She spoke with authority about what needed to be done on fair trade.
My views on all those issues were sharpened in the five years in which I worked in Northern Ireland, where I was given a role that involved listening and talking to women. I am now moving on from economic development to mention the impact that war and conflict have on the work of the Department for International Development and the tragedy that they cause in so many countries that are poor already.
It was clear to me over those years that it was partly the vision of Mo Mowlam, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that started to make a difference. According to her vision, we must listen to the voices of women in Northern Ireland to get the wholehearted agreement that there should be a peaceful way forward. I pay tribute to the contribution made by Senator Hillary Clinton, then First Lady of the United States, who promoted a "vital voices" campaign across a range of countries, where she raised the issue of putting women at the forefront of small business development and education, to raise their self-awareness and self-expectation, and to make it clear that they had a role to play in public life and politics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has been working in respect of Afghanistan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for example, is working in Iraq to build the need for women into the post-conflict reconstruction. I am delighted that the new constitution established a 25 per cent. quota, and I was interested to read last week that Senator Hillary Clinton also raised the issue in a speech to the Senate in Washington. In such a way, international networks are brought together and, because of the pressure that they bring to bear, are effective as time goes on.
Mrs. Betty Williams:Does my hon. Friend agree that confidence building is key, whether we are discussing women in this country, the middle east, Afghanistan or wherever, because women have felt undervalued for many years? I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister will say. I have

359WH
personal experience of the issue. I remember fighting an election when my second child was due within three weeks. Some of the electorate—sadly, some of them women—thought. "How dare she stand for the council in that state," not thinking that my condition was temporary, the baby would be born one day and I would be active again. The miners' strike was a prime example of women feeling that they were needed, and they had the confidence to get involved in active politics. Does my lion. Friend agree that confidence building is terribly important wherever we live?
Helen Jackson:I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I acknowledge that point. Most women who have struggled to get into public life and move into politics will recognise it from their own experience, in a way that only they can express. I shall come on to how to pull that into the central area of politics, decision making and public life.
In Africa, I heard some of the experiences and struggles of female African parliamentarians. When I mentioned the subject of family, a typical response was, "Yes, well I have 10 children and I have the constituency to look after. It is difficult to get the family fed and to get the money together." There are difficulties and pressures on such women, and they naturally wonder whether it is their role to make a difference in public life and policy making, or whether they should stay with their families.
We are making the transition to recognising the crucial contribution that women's experiences in life make to their opinions and wider decision making in public life. The most important overall lesson is to share what we have learned across the world, and to learn from others, about how to bring more women into politics and public life, because that goes hand in hand with improving democracy.
We are not perfect: we are still only 50th in the table of the percentage of women in Parliament, and many developing countries are ahead of us. In that context, we must pay tribute to the ANC. Its struggles in South Africa led it to decide to use a quota system when the democratic process started. That has been a beacon for many other developing countries, because it had the courage to do it at a provincial as well as a national level, and we must not forget that.
I want to pay tribute to the British Council. Through its programme of interaction it makes a huge difference. I know that other colleagues in the Chamber have been part of its programme of twinning female parliamentarians in this country with those in central and eastern Africa. It decided to undertake the programme following research, entitled "Just big cars and leaking roofs?", which showed that public perception of politicians in those African countries was low, but that the public perception of female politicians was higher. There was a feeling among the electorate that female politicians would pay less attention to big cars, and more attention to the leaking roofs and rotten roads in their constituencies. There was growing recognition that a vote for a woman would make more difference. The British Council picked up on that research and worked out ways to promote it. Part of its work in Africa, which I totally support, is to emphasise the link between women in positions in civil society and those in politics.
360WH
I was twinned with the hon. Martha Nasho, the Member of Parliament for Ntcheu, South in Malawi. During my week in Malawi, I attended two seminars that were held by the Young Women Leaders network and sponsored by the British Council. They brought together bright, up and coming young women who were making their way in the media, business, the legal profession, teaching and non-governmental organisations with women parliamentarians, who were often older and who make up only 9 per cent. of Members of Parliament. It was impressive to see those women parliamentarians starting to recognise that they could make a bigger impact in their struggle, which we discussed a moment ago, by using those bright young women to put together business plans for their constituency projects, to help with legal issues and to help raise their media profiles. At the same time, the civil society people started to recognise that not all politicians were a waste of time or corrupt and that it was worth working with them. The work done at those seminars was very important, and we came across something similar, but less developed, on last year's CPA visit to Sierra Leone. I pay tribute to those involved, and I know that the Government value their work highly.
I also pay tribute to AWEPA, which I mentioned. The organisation brings European parliamentarians together with African parliamentarians. Sometimes, we as parliamentarians underrate our relevance to such issues. I know that we are not Ministers, but the links between parliamentarians are often those that matter when it comes to developing a concept of democracy and the international context.
I have given a flavour of the issues involved. They include education, health, economic development, conflict resolution and a bigger part for women in public life, and they stretch across Government. To conclude, however, I want to suggest how we might strengthen our approach to such issues.
Much is going on, and achieving our goals will make a tremendous difference to societies around the world. With more co-ordination, we can be more effective. That is true not only of this Government's activities but of activities across Governments. There is a wealth of good will in the Government, NGOs, Europe, the United Nations, the World Bank and other international bodies. Will the Minister and other colleagues therefore consider setting up an interdepartmental committee to bring together know-how and policy across all the relevant Departments? It would have the time-limited task of pulling together a report setting out Government guidelines on international gender policy and taking the issue into every area of discussion.
When I read the Prime Minister's very welcome announcement that he was going to set up a Commission for Africa, I felt that we had an opportunity to do something. When I read the names of the commission's 10 members, however, I found that there was only one woman and that there was nothing about gender in the terms of reference. We have a job to do to ensure that such guidelines become part of every initiative. We could also do more to inject a gender dimension into the NEPAD—New Partnership for Africa's Development—initiative.

361WH
The joint committee should have careful, limited terms of reference, particular tasks and a time within which to work. It should focus strongly on education; it should garner examples of good practice from within Government, outside organisations and the developing world; and it should, I suggest, involve parliamentarians as well as officials. The Minister may wonder whether we need another all-party parliamentary group, but the argument is undeniable: we should press Government to undertake such projects, and to strengthen the focus as we move into the presidency of the G8 and the European Community.
There is urgency to this matter, because the public and the Government want delivery. The debate is not simply a matter of international women's week at the beginning of March; it is taking place because tackling development through the empowerment of women is what works.
10.1 am
Valerie Davey:I am delighted to follow the significant contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and endorse the excellent idea that she put to the Minister.
In Bristol yesterday we began our celebration of international women's day by unveiling a plaque on the house where Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence was born in 1867. She was one of the leading suffragettes and was particularly known for co-editing "Votes for Women". That influential publication was published initially on behalf of the Women's Social and Political Union and later independently of that group. She was a remarkable woman, and not just in her leading role as a suffragette. Before that time, she had spoken out against the Boer war and organised a women's co-operative dressmaking group in London and children's holidays in Littlehampton. In later life she worked actively for peace.
As I left the ceremony and walked down the road to where women were gathering for a discussion, I wondered why more people were not aware of her individual contribution, the work of the suffragette movement generally, and the international links that so many of the women involved in it had. I immediately found myself involved in a discussion with Bristol women whose project for the coming year is the publication of a manifesto for women's health. Instinctively and immediately, as they had begun to talk about improving the health of women in Bristol, they talked about international matters—their concern about HIV/AIDS and female genital mutilation. They wondered what contribution they could make in those contexts.
I left that meeting reflecting on the courage, determination and sheer hard work that women have demonstrated over the decades in this country. I reflected, too, on the international link between women, which they instinctively express and work for while calling for urgent action in this country. It was salutary to be reminded that it is only 75 years since all women in this country have had the vote, and of the importance of that in underpinning everything that women want to do.
362WH
As has been mentioned, the interim governing group in Iraq yesterday announced that there will be 25 per cent. women's representation in the new constitution. That is welcome news. Obviously we want things to develop further, but when we reflect on the situation in this country, we realise what an enormous step forward it is. We trust—indeed, we know—that it will be hugely beneficial for the people of Iraq.
Another area that concerns me, and for which I have been holding my breath, is the island of Cyprus, which is not too far from Iraq. I hope that eventually that divided island will be brought together on entry to the EU. I have been thinking about what led to the new situation there and of the bi-communal vision held by so many for so long, in particular by those who have crossed the divide, either by e-mail, as it developed as a useful connection for people north and south, or by meeting out of the country. The women have taken the lead in that bi-communal vision. Of course there have been business people, ecologists and trade unionists as well, but right from the start the women have been a strong group.
Those women have, I think, called themselves "women across the divide", but I have not been able to confirm that. That is appropriate because those women in the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot groups have kept up their links, have worked with the women of Northern Ireland and the women of Palestine and Israel, and have sought a way forward to heal divides. It is rather invidious to name people, but I shall mention Katie Clerides, for her bold steps as an elected Member to break the conformity, which women have so often done, and reach out a hand of friendship across that divide to her Turkish Cypriot sisters. We hope and trust that the foundation that those women have laid and the work that they have implanted to bring about understanding will come to fruition in the near future.
I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a Ugandan woman, Angelina Acheng Atyam. I met her for the first time only last month, when she came with a delegation from northern Uganda. I find it hard to believe that a conflict has been taking place in northern Uganda over the past 17 to 18 years which is essentially a war against children. It is a conflict in which the Lord's Resistance Army has abducted and used children as either child fighters or sex slaves. In that time, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 22,000 children have been abducted and used in that way. It is estimated that at least 75 per cent. of the Lord's Resistance Army are 11 to 15-year-olds. Until recently, when I looked into the matter more clearly in preparation for another Adjournment debate in this Chamber, I had not realised that children who are abducted from a community in that way and used on the front line of battles are fighting their own people, while those attacking them back, when the battle ensues, are killing their own children. That is the most horrific war situation that I have come across.
Angelina was part of a delegation of community leaders and church leaders. She came because she was a co-founder of the Concerned Parents Association, of which she is now chairperson. There are 5,000 parents in that organisation, working to secure and release their sons and daughters. Angelina lost her daughter, who was abducted in 1996 and remains in captivity. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and horror that those parents

363WH
suffer. However, Angelina presented herself here with the great dignity, patience and forbearing of that delegation. I looked into her eyes and I saw a woman of great courage, bravery and determination. Those are exactly the qualities of the suffragette movement that I have talked about. Those qualities are to be found in all the references that my hon. Friend made to women struggling for justice for women, children and families. Those families in northern Uganda have been torn apart. The children are often made to kill their own family members before being taken away.
The healing that is needed in that community will depend on people such as Angelina. She deserves our utmost support. She is asking for a peaceful resolution and says that additional conflict and war will never bring that about. She is asking for our help, the Government's help and the United Nations' help to initiate further discussions among her Government, our Government, the United Nations and even those people—although she says it reluctantly—who are responsible for the horror in her community. I ask for support for Angelina and the Concerned Parents Association. That is my special plea today.
I cannot finish, however, without also referring to the British Council and the work that it does to bring more women in central and east Africa into roles of responsibility and effective leadership in local and national communities, and to my political twin in Tanzania, Ruth Msafiri of Muleba North. She is working in that same tradition by prioritising education, in particular by trying to gain more secondary schools in her constituency, and by setting up a credit union for women's groups. I honour her for the energy that she puts into her role as a Member of Parliament in Tanzania.
This week, we pay tribute to and celebrate what women have done, but we also ponder how best we can promote those qualities of concern, commitment and hard work. In particular, I urge the Commission for Africa to take on more women members and to take more seriously the role that women play, and should be encouraged to play, in Africa.
10.11 am
Ms Dari Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the many roles that women play in our national and international communities.
Some women, such as my mother, define themselves as very ordinary, but are actually extraordinary. I always thought that it was near miraculous that my mother, with great fortitude and energy, managed to organise our family and keep us going on almost no money, so that we all achieved a place at university and did things that she did not have the chance to do.
However, we celebrate not just the many ordinary women such as my mother—who are not ordinary at all—but the women who, against all odds, achieve the opportunity to represent their communities in Parliament. For example, I should like to talk about the Delhi Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit, who is an extraordinary woman with amazing grace and a delightful, quiet personality, but a sheer tenacity that
364WH
would make her capable of organising the Welsh rugby team—who perhaps need a bit of help in that quarter. However, I also wish to talk about the many women who, from small beginnings in Gujarat, set up the Self Employed Women's Association and have given women, families and the community a belief that they have a positive future.
Recently, I had the privilege of leading a group of 10 elected Labour women parliamentarians on a visit to India. That was a pleasure, but also a privilege, because of the way in which we were greeted, spoken with and involved in the communities that we visited. We met Sonia Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition; Dr. Purnima Advani, the president of the National Commission for Women; Ms Mehbooba Mufti, the president of the People's Democratic Party in Jammu and Kashmir; and Sheila Dikshit, the Chief Minister of Delhi. It was a serious pleasure to meet those women, many of whom had startling levels of responsibility, but who had an enormous focus on what they wanted to achieve for their communities.
While in Calcutta, we visited a DFID project—what a serious pleasure that was, too. I am not talking about the enthusiasm that many people, including my community in Stockton, feel when a Minister or someone from outside visits them. The sheer enthusiasm of the people we visited went further than that. The children did not want us to go. They wanted to shake all our hands and tell us what had gone on in their community. We could not speak their language and they could not understand ours, but a big smile and a shake of the hand do not half cross the barriers effortlessly.
That project spent £3 million. That is not big money in anyone else's budget, but to those people it meant a transformation of their slum dwellings. We sank drains—actually, we provided the money and they sank drains. They created concrete pathways between the houses, so that when the rains came they would not be sliding around on mud. It is a considerable settlement of 3,000 people. They decided where the taps and lavatories should go and how all the other workings should be, and we provided the money. The strength that one could see in that community because it was given that opportunity was profoundly valuable.
Again, I have to say that, on the whole, it was men in DFID who held the purse strings. They were there dealing with the money, but it was the women who spoke to the people, pulled them all together and got them to map out their community, so that they knew where the community centres, taps and so on should be. It was the women who said that if the people of the community took possession of the project, they would feel that it was what they wanted, secure the results permanently and respect it. I was so pleased.
There is so much to say about that small community. It was very important to see the difference that paths and sunk drains meant for one small home. The woman in that home now has a sewing machine. She now reads, as do her children—they have to learn to read so that they can use the equipment to its fullest extent. What a pleasure it was to see that. It was even more of a pleasure for me because, as is the case for many women, one of my jobs in life is to keep my family going and to cook, and the women in India seem to be the only cooks—

365WH
except, of course, in the fancy hotels, where, somewhere along the line, women are not quite seen as competent enough to be chefs. I totally deprecate that.
One young woman was thrilled to show me her home in that small settlement outside Calcutta. There she was on her haunches before an open fire, cooking. She wanted me to see that a chimney had been put in, which was taking away the smoke from the fire. She told me in her own way that her children's chests had improved, their breathing was infinitely better, the house did not smell of smoke, and they felt that that was such an achievement. When I went away from there, I was so thrilled that she was thrilled, but I was so depressed that, in the 21st century, we are still seeing people celebrate the fact that a chimney has been put into their home to take out the smoke.
I say with great warmth to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need many more practical women to define and operationalise the way in which DFID should deliver its projects. In the 21st century, we should not be organising where taps and chimneys should go. Most of us would have thought that that happened without the need for much consideration. For the moment, however, let us go on, because the visit was positive and Calcutta was positive.
Speaking with the National Commission for Women was, again, an important moment for all the women in the delegation, because there was a commonality of hope and of problems. As people spoke around the table, we heard about how we can deliver within homes the opportunity to maximise a family's income and the achievements that flow from that. Once again, however, it left a feeling of disappointment, although we knew that it was going to happen.
Every time I speak with women in different groups, I have the same conversations again and again, including one about women confidently challenging domestic violence. The marker was that it was not just men who were abusing women and their families, but that mothers-in-law were supporting it because they were supporting their sons. There is a nasty sense of lack of control. I believe that with twinning and support from British women, and women of other nationalities, Indian women will become as confident as ours are about challenging it. Inevitably, we had a discussion about the glass ceiling, with so many women of quality and serious talent finding it impossibly difficult to move up the greasy pole.
In Jammu and Kashmir, discussion centred more on migrant groups. The war between Pakistan and India has cost ordinary folks very dearly, as war always does throughout the world. We spoke to a community of 300,000 displaced people, who had moved out of the valley of Kashmir. away from their farms and homes, who were too frightened to return. It is sometimes difficult in debates to get the balance right, but my balance now has to be to say it as it is. Within that community, everyone who spoke formally to our delegation was a man; everyone who was delivering, whether in education or looking after the elderly, was a woman. We must recognise that wherever we are, women find it so much more difficult to achieve positions that they deserve. Their skills in schooling and supporting the rest of the community were very evident.
366WH
The depression, the sense of absolute concern, the feeling of anger and the desire not to be displaced were so evident, to put it mildly. They want, as anyone would, to go home and to believe that the peace between Indian and Pakistan is now set on course. I ask the Minister to ensure that our contribution to the discussion on India and Pakistan refers to that community's need to maintain the peace.
I should like to make, quickly but importantly, a brief comment about the Chief Minister of Delhi. As I said earlier, Sheila Dikshit was quiet and gently spoken; one could have believed that she was a woman who would have been pushed around, but one would have been totally wrong. She was a very focused and tough female. We spoke about water, space and people living on the streets. She carefully told us, "I am organising the water companies, because they do not manage water. I am speaking to the state Government to ensure that the management of what we have can actually ensure sufficient water for this community There isn't a problem about amount. There is a problem about the way that it is used.'" She cited the management of a number of areas. We spoke about people on the streets: it is quite the most unpalatable sight to see communities living under a tarpaulin, or less, on the streets. She told me that she was speaking with the Governments of surrounding states because the migrant population coming into Delhi is enormous, with more than a million people moving in every year. It is impossible to handle in terms of housing. She said that employment opportunities in rural communities must be built up, so that people do not feel that they have to move to Delhi. They can live where they were born, as most of them want. Over her six years, to great acclaim, she has seen the amount of green space in Delhi available for public access increase significantly, such that everybody wanted to claim it.
I want to end not on Sheila Dikshit, who is a robust woman with a total command of the situation and total determination to achieve, but on Gujarat. I did not visit Gujarat this time; I went there on my previous visit to India. When I was there, I saw many different Government offices, but the one group that stood out was the Self Employed Women's Association. SEWA is a group of women who have put practical projects together and used the skills of their community to maximum effect. They have ensured that the needlework or soft-furnishing competence of an Indian community translates to a retail business, and the community is benefiting enormously.
The group has ensured that., because people want to eat, the women have become farmers. They manage the land with great care, and they have a retail outlet so that they can sell what they grow. They set themselves up with a small grant from the Government, which they have paid back, because—this is the dignity of SEWA—they set up a credit union bank. The group is exclusively for women, and ordinary women who may have only 10 rupees can save them secure in the knowledge that the money will be used only for their benefit and that of their families and community. The group's work is astounding. It is creative and practical, and it has changed the sense of what future can be available for the ordinary people of Gujarat.
My final point is something that all my sisters—hon. Members of this Parliament—have spoken about. Indian political parties made a commitment to ensuring

367WH
that 33 per cent. of their Parliament will be made up of women, but that policy has been shamefully shelved. We spoke to all the chief Ministers, from Sonia Gandhi to anyone else we could, to find out the details of the policy. All the political parties agreed it, but not one Government have been prepared to put it into practice. We must persuade them that capturing the quality of mind, tenacity and energy of women in the political world ensures unquantifiable benefits.
The Confederation of Indian industry, the high commission in London and many other generous bodies from the Indian community sponsored the visit that the 10 Labour parliamentarians took to India. I thank them publicly. As has been said, the more we speak, network and twin with each other, the more we benefit. Women's lives are creative and a focus in all our communities; they should always be a focus in our political community.
10.29 am
Sandra Gidley:I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. I do not want to be too churlish, but it is a shame that in the debates last Friday and today, only women have taken part. My party is as guilty in that as any.[Interruption.] I apologise, as the Minister is clearly not a woman. However, he has to he here—he is not here from choice.
Last week's debate focused on the post-conflict work in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I will not rehearse it today. However, I was pleased that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised that vital subject. At some stage in the future, I would like us to debate what women are doing in that regard. I have submitted many requests for a debate on United Nations Security Council resolution 1325, and other hon. Members would be welcome to join me. As women, we should be particularly interested in the issue. Today, however, I shall focus on two issues: HIV/AIDS and the Amnesty International report "It's in our hands", which is part of a campaign to stop violence against women.
I make no apology for talking about a subject as specific as HIV/AIDS. It is one of the biggest problems facing women today, although it is not recognised as a women's issue. Some people take an interest in that aspect of HIV/AIDS, but much of the general public still regard it as something that affects only gay men. That is clearly not the case. Since HIV/AIDS was first discovered 20 years ago, more people have died from it than died of the black death in the middle ages. In sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 12.2 million women and 10.1 million men carry the virus, so its prevalence seems to be greater in the female population.
In South Africa, one in 10 people are HIV-positive. The country has been described as the rape capital of the world, and violence is fuelling the epidemic. In such an atmosphere, people feel that no one is safe and that no one can be trusted. Speaking to the New Internationalist in 2002–1 suspect that the same comments could still be made today—a 30-year old Johannesburg activist described how she was infected:
"I was walking home from work when he drove up to me. He was dressed as a priest, soft-spoken and sweet. There was even a bible on the seat of his car. I said: 'Father, how can I help you?"
368WH
He asked directions to a church. It was close to my place. I thought to myself, why shouldn't I help this priest, only to find later, he was going to be my rapist."
Everyone has mentioned women they have met who have had an impact on them. I met Princess Zulu—she is not a real princess—who came to talk to DFID about securing more money for children, who are, so to speak, the second-hand victims of HIV/AIDS. She was very healthy and very attractive, and she had developed the rather bizarre practice of waving down lorry drivers, jumping into their cabs, pretending to offer sex and then saying, "Well, actually, I am HIV-positive." They are all shocked because she looks so healthy and normal. That is one of the issues with AIDS. In the past, there were lots of pictures of people who had clearly been ravaged by some sort of disease. Increasingly, however, those with access to anti-retroviral therapy do not look ill.
Someone said that marriage was the answer, but it is not, because many women contract the virus from their husbands, who may have multiple partners. It is difficult for a woman to insist that her husband should wear a condom, because he will assume that she is sleeping around, and the issue of violence is also intertwined with that. He will think that she does not trust him. We have all heard of such cases.
When a woman contracts AIDS or dies from it, the consequences for her children can be stark. In many cases, they may no longer be able to access education. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough spoke movingly about the need for education and about some of its unforeseen benefits. If young women have no education or skills, however, they may be forced to go to the cities or elsewhere and become sex workers, and so the cycle continues. We must find a way of breaking that cycle.
Much work is being done to develop vaccines and microbicides. For those who do not know what microbicides are, they are an exciting development. A woman can protect herself from HIV by using one, and the man does not have to know that she has used it. She can protect herself without risking his anger. Much work has also been done to promote awareness programmes, the most common of which is the ABC programme—"Abstain, be faithful, use a condom".They are not, however, the complete answer. A similar campaign that was introduced in Cambodia managed to reduce quite significantly the number of HIV-positive women who attended the local hospital to have their babies. It sometimes seems as if all these efforts are a drop in the ocean, but it is well worth making them.
Sadly, a large part of the problem is still gender equality. The good news, however, is that there is a growing number of programmes that focus on the empowerment of women—I hate the word "empowerment", but I cannot think of another one—human rights education and raising self-esteem. Poverty does not cause HIV/AIDS, but it is the ideal incubator. Gender and poverty are inextricably linked. Some 70 per cent. of the world's poor are women, and poor women are the most susceptible to HIV/AIDS. I could talk about that all day. I pay tribute to the latest Amnesty International campaign. What is great about it is that Amnesty International is not a feminist organisation, which is almost a first. I hope that the campaign will be supported equally by men and by women.

369WH
Amnesty International has some horrifying statistics on violence. One out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, usually by someone known to her. The Council of Europe stated that domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability among women aged 16 to 44, and accounts for more death and ill health than cancer or traffic accidents. Why on earth are we not doing more about it? By asking that question, I am not dismissing what the Government are doing to tackle the problem by introducing the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill.

It is also estimated that more than 60 million women are missing from the world as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. The Amnesty International campaign deals with many of the key areas that, sadly, I do not have time to discuss. I was particularly struck by a small section of the campaign literature on the Dalit community of untouchables—the lowest caste—in India. Dalit women are treated worse than animals, and are made to do menial jobs such as removing night soil. Their poverty, although caste-based, is forced on them. It struck me that this is not a women's issue, because women from the higher castes do not do anything to help them. We must try to get the message across that it is not right to discriminate against people in this way. The talk of sisterhood in Westminster last Thursday does not work everywhere; it is more of a dream than a reality.
I end by paying tribute to the British Council. I have been taking part in this year's scheme and hope to visit my counterpart. Ultimately, however, we must get men more involved if these issues are to be taken more seriously.
10.39 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman:I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. We had a debate on women in Government time in the House, and I chose to focus on domestic issues and the pay gap suffered by women in this country, because we already knew that the hon. Lady had secured today's debate. This allows us two bites of the cherry.
There have been many events relating to international women's day yesterday, and it is right to record the women's world day of prayer last Friday. We have an opportunity to discuss domestic and international issues. What saddens me is that, in both those contexts, the focus has returned to violence against women. Hon. Members may know that 25 November is the international day against violence against women. However, it is hard to get away from the fact that when considering the issues facing women around the world and in this country, violence remains one of the main problems. I support Amnesty International's campaign against violence against women. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made the valid point that Amnesty International is not specifically a women's organisation, so it is good that it has taken up the cause on domestic violence.
I recently saw shocking figures—official Russian Government figures—that claim that 14,000 women a year are killed by their partners or relatives in Russia.
370WH
However, the Russian Government acknowledge that no legislation is in place to prevent such appalling acts. The sheer numbers are horrifying. In this country, two women and two children die each week as a result of domestic violence. No one could argue that the problem is not serious. Together with the oppression and denial of equal rights in scores of countries around the globe, it is clear that the international role of women is in desperate need of affirmative action.
I want to focus on two countries in particular, about which I denied myself the opportunity to speak last Thursday. I shall talk about women in Afghanistan, as have other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), and women in Iraq. Both countries present a test case for the future of women's rights. As a nation, we are part of an occupying force in one of those countries and a multinational peacekeeping force in the other, so we have a role to play.
Despite the relatively enlightened historical position of women in Iraq compared with those in neighbouring countries, I am concerned about whether women's representation and their position in Iraqi society will advance or regress. There is no room for complacency. I am delighted that the Governing Council has set a quota that a quarter of National Assembly members should be female, but culturally that has encountered stiff resistance. Despite the coalition's moves to bring democracy to the country, the influence of hard-line leaders presents a serious obstacle to securing equal treatment in the institutions of the newly liberated Iraq. It would be wrong to skate over that reality. The importance of setting a precedent in such a formative period in the country is history is paramount if the long-term future of women in Iraq is to be secured.
In Afghanistan, where the electoral process is more advanced, similar difficulties are being encountered in the registration of women for the June elections. Aside from the general problems of preparing for the poll, registration of women is standing at about 2 per cent. of the eligible electorate, which is well below even the 10 per cent. figure of the total eligible population. When I was in Afghanistan in August 2003, I met the UN representative responsible for enfranchising those women and making it possible for them to vote, and I realised how practical the problems of achieving that are. For a start, the country is still insecure. A military cordon is provided by, among others, our soldiers to keep the peace, but even within the cordon the situation cannot be described as entirely secure. Beyond it, the country is highly insecure. That makes seeking out the women whom the UN representatives want to register to vote a particularly difficult task. There is also the problem of identification in a country where female modesty is taken to lengths that are quite hard for us to imagine. There is a practical problem, which is that it is difficult for a woman under the burqa to be positively identified. The cultural issues attached to that are again not to be underestimated.
Given our role in the country, it is important that hon. Members should not miss the irony that Afghanistan is a deeply traditional country. In enfranchising the women, there is a considerable chance that some of those deeply conservative attitudes will become further entrenched. The women are not used to exercising their views free from their husbands. Enfranchising them may

371WH
lead to a more conservative election result than otherwise. I had not spotted that irony until I went there and talked to the women and the UN representatives who are enfranchising them. It is important to bear that in mind. There is work to be clone not only in enfranchising women but in educating them about empowerment and their freedom to think and do as they please. We seem to take those freedoms entirely for granted in our countries; indeed, some even choose not to vote.
There is one another thing about which I should like to speak, again because there is an opportunity to do something about it in the legislation that is completing its course in another place and will shortly come to our House. The topic is also not unrelated to international development. The position on the legal status of women asylum seekers who are subject to domestic violence has been opaque, and at worst discriminatory. Many women who come to this country to join their partners or spouses or who are resident here are subjected to violence before they are granted citizenship or leave to remain. At present they face the choice of either staying in that violent relationship or pulling out and risking being forced to return to the country from which they came. The latter is not an easy option, with the loss of face involved in retreating from a relationship that the family back home might have thought to be a way up for the individual concerned.
The Government's concession on domestic violence in 1999 went some way to addressing that concern. A probationary period was to be granted to allow victims to apply for indefinite leave to stay in the UK if clear evidence of violence could be shown. However, that still left significant gaps, leading to the perpetrators of violence going unpunished and failing to provide the victims with the necessary support that they rightfully deserve. I invite hon. Members to think about the difficulty for a woman in that position who may not speak English, may be frightened and will perhaps be behind closed doors when the violence is inflicted. It is difficult for us to conceive how hard it must be to surmount that obstacle, to leave the home where the violence is occurring, to know where to turn and to find someone who understands the problem. Those who work with women in that position advise me that it remains a significant problem.
To many of us, domestic violence is one of the unseen tragedies of this country. A quarter of the female population experience it at some time in their lives. We welcome the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill and shall support the Government by seeking to refine it and make it the best possible piece of legislation to tackle the problem. However, I am anxious that we should not overlook the plight of female asylum seekers who experience domestic violence With the backing of Southall Black Sisters, an organisation working to highlight the problems of violence against female immigrants and minorities, Baroness Anelay, Baroness Walmsley and Lord Dubs moved an amendment in the Lords to extend the provisions of the 1999 legislation to include all victims of domestic violence and, most importantly, to allow them access to public funds to help them with their problems. The persistence of such problems indicates that even within the supposedly civilised western world the unequal treatment of women is real and current. It is an issue for every Government, not least our own.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. We have had an excellent debate with strong contributions from Opposition Members and from my Back-Bench colleagues as well.
Almost three decades have passed since 1975, when the UN General Assembly confirmed international women's year. During that period, considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of gender inequality. It is recognised now that not only do women and girls bear the brunt of poverty, but that the empowerment of women is an essential precondition for eliminating poverty more generally and for upholding human rights.
In Africa, we know that for a whole series of cultural, social, economic and political reasons women do not enjoy anything like equal access to opportunity in terms of ownership of assets or access to education, health care and financial services. Indeed, in many African countries they are still considered legally to be minors. Against such a backdrop, the under-representation of women in Government structures locally, regionally and nationally is hardly surprising.
Similar problems are faced in Asia, too. In south and south-east Asia, women account for some 60 per cent. of young people infected with HIV/AIDS and the sexual exploitation of women, as a number of contributions emphasised, is widespread. My hon. Friend made a point about education. In Asia, we know that the highest number of girls are out of school.
My hon. Friend touched on issues of governance and was supported in that by a number of other speakers. There has been positive progress in many parts of Africa. The Southern African Development Community has sought to ensure a minimum of 30 per cent. representation in member states' national Parliaments by 2005. That has been achieved in South Africa and Mozambique. To be blunt, we know that it is not likely to be achieved across the rest of the SADC member states, but it has sparked off a debate across the region, which has been productive.
Helen Jackson:Does my hon. Friend agree that the SADC region has made more progress in a decade in establishing that aspect of democracy than we have managed in several hundred years?
Mr. Thomas:Yes, the statistics can only bring out the accuracy of my hon. Friend's comment. One other example that will give encouragement in terms of the progress that has been made in the institutions that serve the needs of Africa is that the African Union has ensured that half its Commissioners are women. That is a first for what is a new, Africa-wide organisation and it can only help to tackle some issues that hon. Members have referred to.
We heard yesterday that the Bangladeshi Government have committed to appoint a series of new women MPs to the Parliament. In Afghanistan and Iraq—the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Sheffield,

373WH
Hillsborough alluded to this—the progress that has been made on the constitutional position of women is clearly extremely welcome.
The hon. Member for Meriden was absolutely right to warn us that we cannot sit back and assume that simply because quotas have been set and progress has been made on the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq the education and empowerment issues beneath the question of constitutional parlance have been resolved. I hope that she and others will welcome the fact that my Department has contributed some £500.000 to support UNIFEM's work in Iraq—supporting the development of women's groups at Government level and working with the governing council more generally to take proper account of the needs of women. I accept absolutely that more needs to be done in that area.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made their representations about the Commission for Africa at an opportune moment. One woman commissioner has been confirmed, as they acknowledged. Full membership in general has not yet been confirmed and we are still seeking other possible women commissioners.
Similarly, with respect to the terms of reference, we hope to ensure that gender will continue to be a major focus in the work of the Commission for Africa. There will be an opportunity for women Members of Parliament to contribute. Indeed, we want to ensure that parliamentarians can contribute to the work of the commission generally. I look forward to the day when my hon. Friends are perhaps among those who lead on such contributions, and other women Members of the House might do so as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned NEPAD, and she will know that several eminent African women parliamentarians, such as Graca Machel, will be involved in the peer review mechanism, for example, as part of that work. I shall reflect further on my hon. Friend's comments on the Commission for Africa and the need for more work in this area.
Another matter rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend is the importance of education and the work of the Global Campaign for Education to highlight the fact that two thirds of the world's illiterate are women. That issue is considerably important to the work of my Department. We are, internationally, planning to increase our investment in education by up to £1 billion over the next five years. An example of that investment is the £2.2 million being given to UNICEF in support of
374WH
its accelerated girls' education strategy, which is aimed at ending gender disparities in 25 of the countries that have the poorest access to education for girls.
Mrs. Williams:Will my hon. Friend join us in paying tribute to Soroptimist International and Business and Professional Women, which have worked tirelessly on the issues that he is raising?
Gareth Thomas:I of course join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those organisations. Indeed, I pay tribute to her for continuing to support and advocate their work.
We have just announced an extra £100 million over seven years for a programme of improvement in education in Bangladesh. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned Bangladesh, where the overall literacy rate is just 43 per cent., whereas for women it is 26 per cent. That shows the scale of the challenge that remains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) flagged up the importance of progress on HIV/AIDS. I am sure that they will welcome the fact that UNAIDS has initiated a global coalition on women and AIDS. It seeks, first, to prevent new HIV infections among women and girls and, secondly, to ensure equal access to HIV care and treatment. That is particularly important in the context of the World Health Organisation's three-by-five initiative. We are committed, along with the WHO, to ensuring that that leads to equal access to treatment for women as well as for men, and we have just announced a contribution of £3 million to its work.
The coalition aims, thirdly, to accelerate research into microbicides. Yesterday, I was delighted to attend St. Mary's hospital to see some clinical trials, which we are funding, involving microbicides. Fourthly, the protection of women's inheritance and property rights is a relevant issue.
Violence against women has also been highlighted as an issue of particular importance. A day has been earmarked for debating that issue, and that will offer a welcome opportunity to return to it. I add my praise to that which has been given to Amnesty. It does important work in challenging us to go further as parliamentarians and as Ministers in our work in this area. Internationally, our work on it is done with the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation. We also fund work bilaterally.
I recognise that I have probably not been able to do justice to the quality of the contributions from all Members, but I will reflect further on them and write to those Members whose points I have not replied to.

Rossgate School
11 am
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am going to go at a gallop, as I have a lot to say. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise the matter.

It was 22 September 2003. The man who had the reputation as the best head teacher in Hemel Hempstead, Mr. Chris Pratt, was welcoming a team from Ofsted led by Mrs. Sue Walker. The school was Rossgate school in Hemel Hempstead, a town just designated by the Halifax building society as the place in which those wishing to get on the housing ladder have the most difficult task in the country. Wages are so much on the low side, and house prices so much on the high side, that one would need 11.6 times the average wage in the area to purchase a starter home The next town in the Halifax survey was a considerable distance behind.
Rossgate school in Gadebridge is in an area in which many of those who will never be able to afford to buy a house live. They are often in accommodation from which they would like to escape. Single parents live in second-floor flats and would love their children to have access to a garden. There are elderly pensioners in council houses who are desperately worried about the imminent closure of the local post office and how much it will cost them out of their minimal income just to collect their entitlement. The school faces many challenges, but it has historically transcended them, taking in children at four who often have considerable problems with socialisation and language, and turning them out at age 11 with achievements at and above the national average. The school has, and deserves, a high reputation in the local and education community.
The school was to be inspected in a new way. As a school that was doing well, it was to be subjected to a "light-touch" Ofsted inspection, called at short notice and with a brief visit. I want to make it clear that that idea has my full support. If a school is doing well, it is not necessary constantly to subject it to full, rigorous and critical inspection. A light-touch Ofsted inspection could be a touch on the tiller—a check on something that has been going well to see whether it is still going well. However, those who are asked to carry out such an inspection have to leave behind them their normal views of what they are doing in an inspection. They need to be trained to carry out that new task in the same way as we now ask our police to deal not only with criminal behaviour but with antisocial behaviour. A change of role needs a change of attitude.
Rossgate was not subjected to a light-touch inspection in the way that I have described. Within three and a half days, the team led by Mrs. Walker claimed that those at the school and in the wider education and social community were subject to some sort of self-delusion. On the basis of the most fleeting observations, the inspection team used the full weight of its powers to bring about the resignation of the head teacher and to designate this successful school as having serious weaknesses.
I ask the Minster today to embrace one key idea. I suggest that if there is a light-touch inspection, there should be a restriction on the decisions that can be made as a result of it. In particular, if a team decides that a
376WH
school that is doing well enough to have a light-touch inspection is in fact not doing well, its powers should be limited to ordering that the school be subject to a full inspection. A team should not be allowed to make claims that can be justified only when a full inspection has been carried out.
In my experience, inspectors such as those on the Walker team carry out a light-touch inspection in the same way as they would a full Ofsted inspection, with one difference. The brevity of the process curtails the right of staff to present counter-arguments to suggestions that certain things are going wrong when they think that the inspectors are in error. The brevity also means that assumptions made by inspectors, which might be erroneous, as was the case for Rossgate, about what might count as "a similar school"—a phrase repeated several times in the report—cannot be challenged or corrected.
One specific assumption made by the inspectors in Rossgate was that Hemel Hempstead is a leafy Hertfordshire town that should have high levels of attainment. There are constant references in the inspectors' report to "a similar school", when it was not at all clear that they would know what a similar school was. They did not know my area the way I do. There is a high level of rented property in my area, from which families have no prospect of improvement. There are many single-parent families, and housing circumstances generate a poor level of social skills much of the time. There is a strong need to develop pupils' attention span. Most new towns have a relatively poorly developed set of cultural amenities, such as, for example, an abysmal library in Hemel Hempstead and no cultural amenities in the town centre.
It is agreed by everyone in the community that I represent that Rossgate school's achievements were extraordinarily good, given that background. The head was thought of as of the highest calibre by other head teachers in the area, to the point that he was regarded as a sort of super-head, who could be called in to help failing schools to overcome those deficiencies that a full Ofsted inspection had rightly identified. He did that at Leverstock Green school in my constituency, which has never looked back from the tremendous contribution made by Chris Pratt, whom the inspectors thought lacked leadership and vision.
A second assumption made was that the inspectors thought that the children in the nursery class that they saw were beginners, when in fact most of them had been in school some considerable time—six months or so. That caused the inspectors to think that the children had a higher level of attainment when entering the school, and it served to mask the fact that many of the children had and have great difficulties with concentration and self-discipline. Negative judgments were made about the nursery because it was thought of as not doing enough for children who already had considerable social skills, when in fact their attainment of those skills was a tribute to the work done in the nursery, which again many schools in Hemel Hempstead deemed a beacon of its type.
The general tenor of the inspectors' report was that the school was coasting, and that its management failed to give it a sense of direction, or a vision. In fact, the report itself is radically inconsistent, claiming for instance that classes in years 5 and I were unsatisfactory

377WH
when not a single unsatisfactory class in those years was witnessed. There was a distinct air of Alice's White Rabbit about the inspection: everywhere one looks in the report, the inspectors had too little time to get more than a most fleeting impression of the work of Rossgate school.
In their subsequent report, the governors complained that the inspectors broke the code of conduct that should have governed their behaviour. I would submit that in some ways it was impossible for them to have conformed to their code of conduct. They visited a school with an extraordinarily high reputation. and decided that there was some sort of self-delusion on the part of the staff, and in particular its head, but they had no time to obtain the evidence that might have led them to correct that initial judgment. They found that, of the 41 classes that they visited, four were unsatisfactory. Their judgments throughout were delivered in a confrontational and unco-operative way. For instance, a teacher who had a "very good" rating for a class, and who asked what could be done to achieve an "excellent" rating, was told by an inspector:
"The hairs did not stand up on the back of my neck."
Such a way of dealing with that question demonstrates incompetence of the worst sort. That judgment is ultra-subjective and offers no guidance or suggestion for improvement. In another case, a teacher was told that a class was "good", but that it could not be given a "very good" because the inspector had not been able to attend the whole of the class. The shortage of time did not prevent the inspection team from producing the most damning judgments on the school's character, but such a White Rabbit syndrome was invoked to avoid praising them.
There were four "unsatisfactory" classes out of 41. What of them? Two of the classes were taught by newly qualified teachers who were new to their posts when they were assessed—at the beginning of the autumn term, which is right at the beginning of the academic year. It is hardly managerial weakness not to have turned NQTs into perfect specimens of the didactic profession within three weeks. Two of the unsatisfactory classes were in the nursery.
One aspect of the inspection that I wish to highlight is the gross insensitivity of the inspection team. They arrived at the school on the next working day after the funeral of the much-loved head of the nursery, Rebecca Dickenson, who died of motor neurone disease at the age of 53. She was typical of the teachers at the school, and is one of the people who make me glad that I joined the Labour party. She was a Labour councillor who displayed the kind of love and considerateness for her fellow human beings that it is the greatest of joys to encounter. She was my friend. Her loss was a terrible blow, and the light that she spread around the school has been for ever extinguished.
Chris Pratt knew exactly how to handle that terrible event, but the inspection team, who decided entirely to overlook those circumstances, castigated him for his lack of leadership at the very time at which he displayed a quality of leadership that all who knew Rebecca and Chris would regard as typical of the man. He has resigned since those events because, I suspect, he
378WH
thought that the judgments of the inspection team were inconsistent, woolly, ill-informed, repetitively erroneous, entirely without a spark of the co-operative spirit that is so vital to the educational enterprise and, as a result, unimplementable. As a former teacher of logic, I must say that the 'improvements" suggested by the inspection team appear to be incapable of being made, because they refer to "weaknesses" that were mostly of the team's invention.
Following those events, Chris Pratt was hospitalised for six days because he suffered from heart palpitations. Those who are devoted to children and schooling take it badly when, in three days, a team of people who seem to be careless of how hard it is to build a successful school in a difficult area such as Gadebridge can utter judgments that have no right of appeal or scope to be countermanded. Of course, the governors tried to remedy the situation: they pointed to what they said were 92 errors of fact made by the inspection team. However, those who are unaccountable need not address their limitations.
Rossgate was not coasting. It had a vision: to do its best for children, many of whom must do a great deal to reach a point at which they are willing to engage in the educational process. Rossgate was not stagnating. It was providing a secure, stable learning environment, while embracing the changes faced by all education. For example, its information and communications technology suite was:1 mere 12 months old, but instead of praising the suite and the work that had gone into it, the inspection team chose to focus on the general disruption caused by the new suite: the fact that the school had not yet sorted out what to do with the computers that remained in the classrooms. A problem that was caused by dynamism was considered by the inspectors to be evidence of stagnation.
There appears to be no proper right of appeal for a school that is deemed to have serious weaknesses—except, perhaps, to this place. Such a judgment seems not to be changeable. The inspectors received the governors' objections and, it seems, were charged with responding to them. I believe that to be wrong for both light-touch Ofsted reports and full inspections. Usually, if a school is deemed to have a problem, that judgment is accepted and the school gets on with addressing the issue. Like most MPs, I have seen several schools get results from inspections that are negative but helpful, and education of the children has been improved once the recommendations have been implemented. However, the Rossgate inspection was not like that. I am astonished that a school that is located in a difficult area but achieves results that are above the national average at the end of year six, could be treated so brusquely and contemptuously. The children and parents of Rossgate school feel devastated by the outcome. Moreover every school head in my constituency has said tome, "If that can happen to Chris Pratt, it can happen to me."
Ofsted has spread the fear of arbitrary judgment throughout my constituency. No one who has seen what the inspectors say about the school recognises it as accurate. Mr. Pratt, a man who is regarded as a super-head, is now a data entry clerk on the local industrial estate. If teachers are treated like that, it is hardly surprising that we find it difficult to motivate people to join the profession.

379WH
I seek structural change as the outcome of this debate. As a supporter and advocate of light-touch Ofsted inspections, I did not think that they would be implemented in such a clumsy and irreversible way. If a school is deemed to be doing well, the effect of a light-touch inspection should be either to commend it further, or to judge that it is continuing 10 make good use of taxpayers' money. If a school seems to be slipping, it should be given guidance about what needs correction, and if it seems to be slipping badly, it should be subjected again to the full weight of a full Ofsted inspection.
I also seek an apology for Chris Pratt. He has been a distinguished head teacher for 17 years, but was judged a failure in three days. The supporting argument for the negative remarks about management at Rossgate School is weak in the extreme, but based on the judgment of those inspectors, Mr. Pratt was removed from doing what everyone in the community that I represent wants to see him doing—helping children to learn.
It is clear that such problems are not unique to Hemel Hempstead.The Times Educational Supplement of 13 February dealt with a similar problem at Seaford Head community college in East Sussex. The head teacher in that case was a sort of head teachers' expert, who answered questions in the TES about being a head. He resigned after the inspection, and was reported as being deeply critical of the harshness of the new inspections framework.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that she will give serious attention to the matters that I have raised, and that any structural weaknesses will be addressed and instructions to inspection teams revised as appropriate.
11.18 am
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. In his speech he demonstrated his close personal interest in the issue and his concern to represent the interests of his constituents.
All of us in the education team value and recognise the importance of the contribution that teachers make to raising standards and thereby improving the achievements of all our children. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the focus of everything that we do must be to ensure better outcomes for our children— that that must be our starting point. We must consider the job that Ofsted does in that context.
Ofsted has a critical job to do in inspecting, reporting and providing expert advice, underpinned by the evidence of its inspections. High standards are expected of Ofsted, as they are of teacher; in our schools. I am therefore always concerned when teachers or others feel that the inspection system has let them down.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about the inspection process at Rossgate school and about Mr. Pratt's subsequent decision to resign. As regulator of the contracted-out school inspection system, Ofsted is responsible for assuring the quahty of inspections, and for investigating complaints when they arise. As part of that quality assurance process Her Majesty'
380WH
inspectorate visits a sample of inspections and reviews reports and inspection evidence. In fact, Rossgate's inspection was subject to such a monitoring visit.
While the outcomes of those visits are confidential, I thought that it would be helpful to share with my hon. Friend, as the lead inspector has enabled me to do, the fact that the inspection met Ofsted's requirements. A quality assurance process has therefore been put in place through Ofsted itself. It is also worth putting this into perspective, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that Ofsted monitors how its customers view its processes. Nine out of 10 schools are satisfied with the quality of their inspection report. There is also a pretty thorough complaints procedure, with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar.
In the 2002–03 school year, the last year for which we have figures, Ofsted dealt with only 48 formal complaints about school inspections. Nearly 4,000 inspections were conducted, so that is about 5 per cent, which seems indicative of a relatively high satisfaction rate in a pretty contentious area where people are being held to account for their performance in their professional job.
Ofsted has, I understand, received eight letters of complaint about the inspection of Rossgate School. Of those, five came from parents, one from a former teacher at the school, one from a learning assistant at the school and one from a governor at another school. The letters have been referred to the inspection contractor for investigation, in line with Ofsted's procedures. However, no formal complaint has been received by Ofsted about the inspection at this stage, and no letter of any kind has been received from Mr. Pratt. My hon. Friend may want to consider pursuing that legitimate role, perhaps with others in his constituency.
There is however, no formal appeals mechanism against inspection judgments, nor are there any plans to introduce one. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the reasons why. Such a system could have a detrimental effect on the process, encouraging challenges that would divert time and energy away from the priority of developing and implementing post-inspection action plans. The Education and Employment Committee considered this issue in its detailed examination of the work of Ofsted in 1999, and decided that it would be wrong to reopen those inspection conclusions on anything other than questions of fact.
I turn now to the specific inspection findings at Rossgate school. First, there is no such thing as a light-touch inspection. There may be some misunderstanding and my hon. Friend may wish to talk to Ofsted in a general way about these issues. The inspections take place under the new framework of inspection that was established last year.
Secondly, my hon. Friend understands that the school was not compared with like schools. My understanding, which I can confirm in writing as well if that would help him, was that it was compared with similar schools. That is based on a whole range of data, including prior attainment, so it is possible to look at the school's value-added measure.
Rossgate school, as we have heard, was found to have serious weaknesses. Such a judgment is not taken lightly. It is arrived at, as a corporate decision, following comprehensive examination of evidence gathered both

381WH
before and during the inspection, from a variety of sources, including discussions with the head teacher, staff, pupils and governors. My hon. Friend talked about this being a surprise to everyone, so let me share with him the briefing that I have received.
In April 2001, concerns were expressed about the school development plan and the strategic direction of the school. In November 2002, issues were raised about the target-setting process. The assessment data were not used successfully. Governors' knowledge and understanding was also identified as an area of concern. In September 2003, the local education authority raised concerns about the quality of teaching at the school. Concerns have been raised about the very high level of staff turnover in recent years at the school. That was evidenced by the fact that my hon. Friend talked about two newly qualified teachers being there.
A programme of support had been put in place by the local education authority, although I understand that the head at the time was reluctant to accept that. It is worth sharing the LEA's view that there was complacency at the school and that it was coasting. This was not an in-out inspection that came out of nowhere. From what my hon. Friend said, it struck me that that was his perception. However, that is not confirmed by the reports that I have read or by the evidence that was around at the time.
Let us look at the positive side, however, because the inspectors did find some strengths at the school. They praised the head for the pastoral care that he gave pupils and staff, to which my hon. Friend drew attention. They found that final-year pupils attained high standards in science, and that pupils had made good progress in ICT. They also praised special educational needs provision, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and personal social and health education.
There were, however, some important weaknesses. Significant among them were the standards achieved in the core subjects of English, maths and science during much of the pupils' time at the school. The standards reached by pupils at the end of year six compared favourably with those at other schools, but they were achieved only after considerable effort by teachers and pupils in the pupils' final year. Years five and six apart, the inspectors thought that the quality of the teaching was, overall, unsatisfactory.
The inspectors also found that teachers' aspirations for their pupils were too low and that their behaviour management was sometimes unsatisfactory. Standards at the end of key stage 1, as measured against national standards, were found to have fallen since the last inspection. It is worth quoting the report to highlight some of those points:
"Teachers do not have high enough expectations of what pupils should do and do not manage behaviour well enough in some classes so that pupils can learn. Too many worksheets are used.….
382WH
Basic skills are not taught well enough and pupils are not given enough opportunities to practise and consolidate the things they have learnt in English, mathematics, science and other subjects."
The inspectors also criticised the school's leadership and management. They felt that the school lacked a clear vision for the future and that there were significant weaknesses in its planning and monitoring.
Mr. McWalter:I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but if she looks at page 10 of the report, she will see that the average results for year two in all the subjects that she mentioned went up, not down.
Margaret Hodge:The new framework—I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this, too—is intended to challenge schools to improve and achieve high standards rather than to coast. If he looks more generally at the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, he will see that more schools are being found not to provide a satisfactory education for their pupils. I hope that he accepts that we should take up that challenge to the system in our desire to raise standards.
The inspectors talked about complacency at the school, saying:
"the headteacher and senior staff are complacent about standards achieved…and do not try hard enough to raise pupils' achievement as they mow through the school."

We are particularly keen to tackle that issue within the inspection framework.
My hon. Friend suggested that the inspection's findings came as a surprise, but I should emphasise that I am advised that that is not the case. Hertfordshire LEA not only supports the findings as an accurate reflection of the school's performance but had identified the issues raised as concerns and communicated them to Mr. Pratt on many occasions. Indeed, it had put in place a programme of support for the school before the inspection.
The framework has been revised twice since 1998—once in 2000 and again in 2003. On both occasions, we tried to realign our understanding of what is and is not acceptable in the context of rising educational standards. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
My hon. Friend might find it useful to have a general discussion with Ofsted about the way in which it approaches inspections. If he has concerns about the school's inspection, he should pursue the formal complaints procedure to assure himself that everything was done in the proper and appropriate manner and that any decisions were properly taken.
To conclude, decisive progress in educational standards occurs where every child matters, and inspection is, above all else, about helping schools to improve children's education.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Zimbabwe
2 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making time this afternoon for this important debate.
The last time I spoke in a debate on Zimbabwe was on 15 July 2003. That was the day on which the all-party group on Zimbabwe was founded, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on setting it up, attracting interesting speakers and keeping the situation of Zimbabwe alive. In a small commercial plug for the group, I will say that at its meeting tomorrow, "Playing with Fire", a report from the Zimbabwe Institute—a South Africa-based think-tank—will be discussed. The report, which appeared in some of this morning's newspapers, reveals that Zimbabwe's Opposition MPs are among the most persecuted legislators in any so-called democracy in the world.
In July I said:
"However, while we debate the issue, the situation in Zimbabwe worsens by the day and by the hour. I wonder, somewhat sadly and forlornly, whether we will be here again in weeks and months to come to debate the matter for the fourteenth time and to repeat the same impassioned, frustrated and desperate pleas, as we watch what was once the grain basket of Africa rapidly become its basket case."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 9W H.]
Well. here we are again. This is the fifteenth time that we have held such a debate in Westminster Hall. Despite promises to the contrary, we are still waiting for the Government to initiate a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House to address the Zimbabwe question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us a definite date for that debate.
Government policy over the past two weeks or so has been to brand everything that the official Opposition do as opportunistic. However, the Minister cannot level that accusation on this occasion because it is the Conservative party that has spoken up time and again for the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe, who continue to suffer at the hands of the despotic tyrant Mugabe. Indeed, the last time that Zimbabwe was debated on the Floor of the House was as part of an Opposition day debate on 25 June 2002, which w is opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is perhaps worth remembering the motion, which was
"That this House deplores the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; condemns the continuing violations of basic human rights committed by the Mugabe regime; reaffirms the view that following the rigged presidential election in March the current Zimbabwean government lacks legitimacy; regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the EU to implement sanctions and exert effective pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and independently monitored presidential elections; recognises the growing politically-induced humanitarian suffering in Zimbabwe, and its effects on her neighbours; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take effective action to build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary, in line with the Harare Declaration, to restore democracy in Zimbabwe through fresh Presidential elections."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 803.]
Unfortunately, it would be possible to propose almost the same motion more than 20 months later.
384WH
I want to be as brief as possible, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Equally, I hope that we will leave enough time for the Minister to answer some of the questions that we raise. I shall not go over old ground, but it is worth repeating that many constituents and other people to whom I speak simply cannot understand why, when we were so decisive and swift in acting to help the people of Kosovo, our only response to some 6.5 million Zimbabweans facing starvation is a fierce condemnation of Mugabe and his regime, and the promise to exert international pressure on him. Do we honestly believe that Mugabe cares that we do not like him—that he will be brought to his knees by empty rhetoric? The Government continue to stand steadfastly by that approach. Meanwhile, the situation deteriorates.
Replying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes in a similar Westminster Hall debate on 17 December 2002, the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, claimed that such comparisons between the situations in Zimbabwe and Kosovo demonstrated "a loss of perspective". That raises the question whether one group of people is more important than others. Our moral conscience led us to intervene in Kosovo and to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, yet when it comes to Zimbabwe we appear lacklustre. Where is the consistency in the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy?
The then Under-Secretary also stated that
"Zimbabwe's regime needs to accept responsibility for its actions"—[Official Report, Westminster Hull, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 188WH.]
Should we infer from that that the Government believe that Robert Mugabe is likely to have an attack of conscience in the not-too-distant future? He is, after all, the same man who in March last year proudly proclaimed,
"I am still the Hitler of the time."
South Africa's quiet diplomacy, originally through the Southern African Development Community, has not worked. It is worth remembering the history of it. Following the collapse of the Abuja agreement in September 2001 the South African rand fell by 40 per cent. In all fairness there was then a hardening of the position against Zimbabwe in Government circles in South Africa. At an international investors fund meeting, a gathering of leading business figures and politicians spoke plainly of the damage that the situation in Zimbabwe was doing to the South African economy. However, one problem was that South African leverage over the Zimbabwean energy sector was thwarted by a $360 million deal between Colonel Gaddafi and Mugabe, over fuel.
It would be interesting, and would contribute much to the debate, if the Minister could tell us whether, in the recent discussions with Libya, and in the context of its rehabilitation into the civilised world, he or his colleagues have had any discussions about Colonel Gaddafi's relations with the Mugabe regime.
Following the Zimbabwe election results, a senior British official said that the Prime Minister was sympathetic to NEPAD—the New Partnership for

385WH
Africa's Development. However, if Mbeki rolls over on Zimbabwe, British domestic opinion may leave little room for manoeuvre. It was left to America to be firmer, with its Assistant Secretary for African Affairs stating that without South African condemnation of the election,
"NEPAD would be a dead animal".
Finally, as we all know, events led to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
It was surely right to build a consensus against Mugabe and his regime, but, as far as many African nations are concerned, the approach of quiet diplomacy has clearly failed. We were told by the Nigerian high commissioner last year that the issue is an African problem that needs an African solution, while the ANC in South Africa believes that it owes a debt to ZANUPF for its support against the apartheid regime.
Thabo Mbeki is culpable of appeasing Mugabe. Seeking his help is beginning to look fruitless. Referring to those countries that have openly advocated the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, President Mbeki has said:
"For them, it was important that this objective should be achieved, to maintain their credibility especially with the media".
Yet his indifferent approach has been roundly condemned. On 24 February the Kenya Times editorial proclaimed its opposition to Robert Mugabe and exasperation at Thabo Mbeki:
"Supporting Mugabe is tantamount to betraying the interests of the region. What is asked of Mbeki is not much. He is not asked to send troops across the Limpopo. What people want is for him to express his and this country's displeasure at what is happening in Zimbabwe."
The South African Council of Churches has also sought to bring pressure to bear on President Mugabe. The SACC general secretary, Dr. Molefe Tsese, said in a statement:
"The people of Zimbabwe, especially the churches, have repeatedly told us that they are counting on us to assist them in finding a resolution to their acute economic and political crisis.… We will be failing in our moral obligation to be with them in their hour of need."
The Democratic Alliance national chairman, Joe Seremane, stated that Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" on Zimbabwe had been exposed as an embarrassing and costly disaster.
The International Crisis Group report "Decision time in Zimbabwe", published on 8 July 2003, also recognised the importance of Mbeki if the crisis is to be resolved diplomatically. South Africa must be the primary foreign actor that sits down with the two sides, helps them find the necessary compromises and applies its considerable influence to get them to accept those compromises.
Job Sikhala, a Member of Parliament for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and a recent victim of torture by state police, is less diplomatic. He said:
"President Mbeki is a collaborator with Robert Mugabe in the crimes perpetrated against the people of this country. What `quietness' are they talking about? When we supported the African National Congress in their fight against apartheid, it wasn't 'quiet diplomacy'. And we are fighting a worse system than the apartheid regime."
386WH
Quite apart from Mbeki's ineffective political strategy, his country is being financially damaged by events in Zimbabwe. He may fear total anarchy in Zimbabwe and an even worse effect on South Africa, were he to come out against Mugabe. Nevertheless, in a Zimbabwe research Initiative published in May last year, it was estimated that a 9.9 per cent. decline in the rand over the past three years was directly attributable to Zimbabwe, and the economic impact has damaged economies across southern Africa, affecting interest rates, inflation, foreign direct investment and tourism. The Zimbabwe research initiative estimates the total cost to the combined Southern African Development Community countries to have been at least $1.88 billion by the end of 2002.
Mugabe's reaction to international pressure is worthy of Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". Today, we read of suspected mercenaries landing in unmarked planes, armed with bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, army boots, sleeping bags and walkie-talkie radios, but no weapons or ammunition. The situation would be worthy of Evelyn Waugh if it were not so tragic.
In the meantime, Mugabe has set up secret camps aimed at brainwashing and training youths to undertake violence and administer torture techniques to enemies of the ZANU-PF party. The revelations about those camps following the screening of the BBC's "Panorama" programme on Sunday 29 February were extremely disturbing. The indoctrination and brutality in the camps is masked by the Government's propaganda machine. It is estimated that about 50,000 people have passed through the camps, but expansion programmes are planned and camp budgets have doubled so that all youths may eventually undertake the training.
Those young people are being mentally broken and forced to think like Mugabe—how to kill and how to apply the technology of pain. They are even made to undertake tests of dedication and loyalty by attacking and beating members of their own family. Not only is Mugabe violating human rights accords, but the future prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for further action against Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Is he aware that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, is in London now and that he participated in the Commonwealth observance service at Westminster Abbey only yesterday? I was there and heard him speak. Dogs my hon. Friend believe that approaching Desmond Tutu, who played a constructive part in bringing about changes in South Africa, might be an effective way of increasing efforts around the world to bring about the end of Mugabe's tyranny?
Mr. Swire:My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I would welcome the intervention of anyone of the standing of Archbishop Tutu or ex-President Mandela, who could raise awareness of the tragedy and bring people to their senses so that they sought a solution rather than waiting for something to happen.
Mugabe is violating human rights accords, and the prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker. It is too serious a problem to ignore, because a

387WH
whole generation will grow up believing that inflicting rape and torture on their fellow citizens is not only acceptable but justified. As the documentary so aptly concluded, Mugabe is willing to convert a generation from innocence to evil.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for International Development for letting me know last week that it is now possible legally to exchange money at a more realistic rate, following the implementation of an auction system in Zimbabwe. People should now be able to get about 6,500 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, rather than the official rate of 1,500 Zimbabwe dollars. If the auction system works, it will be great news to constituents who have written to the about their wish to give money to charities in Zimbabwe but whose plans have been thwarted in the past.
On the subject of providing money to Zimbabwe, the Department for International Development has given the country £62 million in humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and it provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS. However, internal documents show that 89 per cent. of all EU aid to Zimbabwe disappears into the coffers of Mugabe's aides and his ruling ZANU-PF party. It is belated good news that the Secretary of State is to launch an investigation, as some of us have asked him to do for some time, but why is he doing so only now? What progress are he and his Department making in tracking down the misappropriated millions in aid that were given to Mugabe and his henchmen? What progress has the Secretary of State made on talks with the Governments of countries such as Malaysia? There is a strong feeling that much of the money might have gone to such countries to give Mugabe an escape route, should he need one.
We should welcome the imposition and, indeed, the widening of sanctions against the ZANU-PF leadership and the embargoes on the supply of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe. We should also welcome the EU statement that Ministers
"deplored the degradation of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the failure on the part of the government … to engage in meaningful dialogue with the opposition and civil society".
Will the Minister follow the lead taken by the United States in imposing sanctions on designated Zimbabwean entities, as announced by the US Department of the Treasury? Each of the seven entities that it has targeted is controlled by one or more key members of the Mugabe regime. Such action is not only effective but sends a welcome message to those who attempt to break the sanctions. That includes criminal penalties of up to $500,000 for organisations that do business with any of those entities. and the threat of up 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who violate the sanctions.
How much mo re persuasion do the British Government need to do something? It is simply no good adopting the Herod approach of washing one's hands of the situation, or, indeed, wringing one's hands and saying, "Anything we, as the ex-colonial power, do will only exacerbate the situation." How, exactly, can the situation be exacerbated? Mugabe already accuses the MDC of being dictated to from abroad, and of being a front for the former colonial power, Britain, and for white farmers who oppose land reform. So what we have got to lose?
388WH
Mugabe may go to Malaysia sooner rather than later, but we simply do not know. Although we want him to go, I hope the Minister will confirm that we will not be part of any deal that exonerates him or his henchmen of the blame for his corruption and human rights abuses. The Government must realise that, by not dealing with the mounting crisis in Zimbabwe, they are being irresponsible, and thus are partly responsible for the tragic situation continuing.
2.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), not only for initiating the debate, but for the quality of his contribution. I agreed with every word that he said, and he has added significantly to the wider debate.
Having said that, I put it gently to the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard and whom the whole House holds in affection because of his distinguished record on human rights, that it is a pity that we are having the debate in Westminster Hall, not on the Floor of the House. In fairness to the Leader of the House. I must point out that he indicated, in answer to a question from me following the business statement last Thursday, that he hoped that there could be a full-scale debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, and that he was in conversation with the Foreign Secretary accordingly. Perhaps this Minister will indicate when that debate will take place. It will send a clear message, not only to the people of Zimbabwe, but to others whom we want to hear it.
On 17 December 2002, I initiated a debate identical to that of my hon. Friend. The tragedy is that little has changed: indeed, nothing has changed for the better, but a lot has changed for the worse. I want to pick up on a couple of points from that debate. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote quite extensively from one aspect of my speech, because it is so relevant to what my hon. Friend said. I said to the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is now the Minister for Trade and Investment:
"I call for an expansion of the list of those targeted to cover the commercial supporters of the regime in Zimbabwe, who so far seem to have got off completely—the bankers and those who front ZANU-PF's economic interests, including safari operators. Many of those people are white and they benefit hugely from the regime. I hope that when the sanctions are reviewed their travel will be restricted…. The sanctions should be further expanded to include another layer of politicians and civil servants, including ZAN U-PF Members of Parliament and senior civil servants, who must be subject to the same restrictions as Ministers and Army leaders. I encourage the Minister also to ban their immediate families from travelling, including children and relatives who are being educated in the West. Some will say, `Ah, if we educate these people they will see that western democracy works, so they should be excluded from such a ban,' but I do not believe that that will happen. I am convinced that money looted from Zimbabwe, which should go into state education in that country, is instead going into private education in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere, and that is morally wrong. We should make it absolutely clear that no members of the family of anyone on the sanction list, including the commercial backers, will be allowed any form of education in this country."

389WH
The Minister's response was interesting. He said:
"The right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed concern about extending the various bans. I will consider that, and will write to him on that point."
He never did. The Minister went on to say that I
"also said that we should consider the possibility of extending the bans to civil servants and some of their families, as well as to bankers. That is a useful point, and I will consider the feasibility of doing that and how it would work. Again, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396. c. 173–90WH]
Again, he never did.
It is a great pity that sanctions have not been extended. Sharp sanctions work; mass sanctions affect only the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. I think that we all accept that—I see the Minister nodding. However, the extension of sharp sanctions, which I called for in some detail in the debate that I secured in December 2002, has not been followed through with the United Kingdom and its allies in Europe and America. I am convinced that such an extension would be effective. I ask the Minister to address that point in his summing up. An extension of sanctions is vital. It is one of the ways in which we can bring more pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime.
There is a second way, which my hon. Friend described effectively: putting more pressure on South Africa. Those of us who love South Africa and who believed that it had a great future under President Mandela and his successor, President Mbeki, are having second thoughts. One has to be a brave person to invest in South Africa today. Much of its falling reputation is due to the way in which the President has handled the AIDS problem—he has ignored it completely, which is a matter for another debate—andthe way in which he has handled Zimbabwe.
South Africa is rightly the regional superpower, and it must take the lead. The lead cannot be taken by Botswana, Mozambique, or Namibia under its current President. Many of us also believe that President Mbeki's role has been entirely counter-productive. He urged our Commonwealth colleagues to allow Mugabe to go to the last conference in Nigeria. Mbeki seemed to be the odd man out in the council of the three wise men on the renewal of sanctions. He also urged us to be patient, and talked about "quiet diplomacy". That is fine, but how long do we wait for that quiet diplomacy to work?
Nothing positive has come out of anything that President Mbeki has done. The United States, the UK and our European Union partners must put much more pressure on South Africa. A long-term settlement is very much in South Africa's interests. It will give the region stability and investment and will improve South Africa's reputation.
My last point is that Zimbabwe sometimes falls off the international agenda. A debate on Iraq is currently being held in Plaid Cymru time on the Floor of the House. International terrorism, the middle east problem, and the invasion of Iraq by the United
390WH
Kingdom and our allies, which I believe was right, occupy a great deal of time, but it would be disastrous if we did not push and prod and use sharp elbows to ensure that Zimbabwe is also at the top of the international agenda. I hope that the Minister will assure us that we are doing more to persuade our European partners to work together to increase sanctions, and that we are doing more to work closely with our American allies to the same end.
I should be fascinated to hear the Minister's answer to a point that my hon. Friend made about Libya, because the whole world has changed. One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the transformation in Libya, for reasons that we well understand. Surely Zimbabwe is an important by-product of that transformation, because the evil Mugabe regime has survived largely as a result of the cheap, perhaps even free, oil that has come from President Gaddafi.
Much more can he done, and I look forward to the Minister's positive response, followed by what I hope will be equally fine action.
2.29 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on raising the subject today, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on his comments.
It is appropriate that there should be a debate about Zimbabwe in the House, albeit in Westminster Hall rather than in the main Chamber, during the fifty-third Commonwealth seminar, which is currently taking place here in London. I have had the privilege of participating in that seminar and of meeting and talking to many parliamentarians, including some Speakers, a number of whom came from Africa. They all, from their different positions, expressed deep concern about the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe. Although clearly many of them are discreet in the remarks they make, and correctly so, I have not yet met one who does not believe that the salvation of Zimbabwe can occur only when Robert Mugabe steps down, in whatever w ay he does so—whether to a bolthole in Malaysia or to any other country.
I am, however, distressed because our own country, the United Kingdom, played a part in putting Mr. Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. I regret that what started as a country with huge good will—one might almost say that it started off with the good will that Nelson Mandela, as president of South Africa, engendered. It started off with forgiveness, reconciliation and all the peoples of Zimbabwe working together. We know what has happened since.
I appreciate that our country, our politicians and my hon. Friends who have spoken so powerfully in this debate must not endanger the fragile Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who is facing treason charges in his country. It is rubbish to say that the leader of the MDC is guilty of treason. No one is more committed to aiding his country and his people than the leader of the MDC.

391WH
However, we need to be cautious in what we advocate and in what we say, so that we do not in any way prejudice his position.
I hope that what remains of the independent judiciary in Zimbabwe will give Mr. Tsvangirai a fair trial and that he will be acquitted of all charges, because I do not believe that anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mugabe, believes that Mr. Tsvangirai is guilty of treason. He may have said a number of things about the current president but bearing in mind what occurred at the last presidential election, which in reality put Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai in the position of president, one can understand his frustration and concern about what is being done in the name of democracy.
I recently had a constructive and positive meeting with the Minister and I am grateful for the time he gave me and for his understanding of the serious problems of the country and of the sensitive nature of those problems. We need to look at new ways of bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration. How much longer can a country survive when half its population is on food aid? How long can it survive when inflation is raging at nearly 600 per cent? When will the basic stability of that country break down? Will it create civil war? Will the people lose their patience? There are many who hope that they will, because that is another way of toppling Mr. Mugabe.
As a friend of Zimbabwe, but no friend of Mr. Mugabe, as he will know, I say that we do not want that country to degenerate into chaos and disorder. We want it again to play a major role in the prosperity and economic growth of central southern Africa. Will the Minister respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon? Is there a way of bringing greater pressure? Is it possible to extend the ban on travel? Is there any way in which to put pressure on the few wealthy business men who are bankrolling Mr. Mugabe, in order to limit their ability to assist him and his regime financially?
My right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the position of President Gaddafi of Libya. I do not know how much he is helping Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration, but he has provided them with energy assistance, which is clearly beneficial. If my memory serves me correctly, President Gaddafi recently wanted to come in from the cold and join the world nations that seek to be responsible. What pressure, therefore, are Governments putting on him to minimise, or even to cut off, his assistance to Robert Mugabe?
People are dying daily in Zimbabwe. I know that because I have friends who live there and who are involved in business there—yes, there is still business and people are still doing their best to ensure the survival of the country, but with increasing difficulty. I ask the Minister what more we can responsibly do without undermining the position of Opposition parties, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change, to show the people of Zimbabwe that we are concerned for them and that we accept that we are partly responsible for Mr. Mugabe being their president. How can we help them to save their country from the further destructive actions of a brutal man?
Mr. Mugabe is over 80 years old. He must be aware that his time is short—if not in this world, then certainly as the president of his country. In one respect I do not
392WH
go along with my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon. If Mr. Mugabe could be persuaded to move elsewhere, I would neither stand in the way of that, nor suggest that we should seek to bring him before a criminal tribunal anywhere. My concern is for the people of Zimbabwe—a country that I have been visiting for over 30 years. My hon. Friend was right to say that it was the bread-basket of central southern Africa, as it used to supply many of its neighbouring countries with food. It had stability and an improving infrastructure, and its health and education were dramatically improving, thus providing increased quality of life. Let us say to the people of Zimbabwe, "We want to restore democracy to you. We want to help you. We will give you aid, but we can't give you aid under the tyrant that you currently have ruling in Harare."
I beg the Minister, when he responds to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, to indicate what further action can be taken, even if some of that action is ongoing, quiet diplomacy.
2.40 pm
Tam Brake: I commend the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for securing the debate and congratulate right hon. and hon. Members with a long-standing interest in and commitment to Zimbabwe on their contributions. It is entirely appropriate that we should have an opportunity to return to such an important subject.
There are not opportunities enough, however, to condemn the Zimbabwean regime and the way it arrived in power through unfair and corrupt elections. Those elections have clearly had a heavy impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in Zimbabwe. If confirmation of that were needed, I received it yesterday in a telephone conversation with a Zimbabwean who is living in the UK but returns regularly and is in contact with friends and family. He said, for instance, that the inflation rate of over 600 per cent. means that a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe now costs the equivalent of 5p. That might not sound like very much to us, but for Zimbabweans it is extremely expensive. The view of the Zimbabwean with whom I spoke is that the issue now is not so much the availability of goods as their affordability for the poorest in society.
Hon. Members have mentioned Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Zimbabwe's closest neighbour, and the quiet diplomacy on which South Africa has embarked. Unfortunately, for many people quiet diplomacy amounts to silent diplomacy or even silent inactivity. South Africa can enable positive change in Zimbabwe, but has so far used its clout insufficiently. The Mugabe regime has repeatedly stymied attempts at meaningful engagement and formal dialogue with the MDC. Like other hon. Members, I praise the president of the MDC, whose leaders continue to press for peaceful change, despite being put on trial for treason.
Shortly before the debate—literally, minutes before—I had a telephone conversation with the secretary-general of the MDC, Professor Ncube. I asked him what the Government could or should do to help the position in Zimbabwe. He made some comments to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Foreign Secretary and I had a meeting with Professor Ncube this morning.
Tom Brake:I am aware of that. No doubt the Minister will be able to respond to Professor Ncube's four key points. First, the UK should exert all possible leverage against South Africa. Secondly, the UK should mobilise support for a human rights commissioner, which the EU backs, but which I understand South Africa has blocked in the past. Thirdly, the UK should support, as far as possible, civil society in Zimbabwe, especially Mugabe's victims. Fourthly, the UK should introduce sanctions against the entities that the US has identified as companies or farms with close links with ZANU-PF.
Professor Ncube did not call for general sanctions, but felt that sanctions against those companies could perform an important function. The US has designated seven farms or companies as specially designated nationals. Any US organisation or individual violating the ban on doing business with a Zimbabwean organisation on the proscribed list faces severe criminal penalties—not only fines of up to $500,000, but imprisonment. In other words, there are heavy sanctions against US companies or individuals dealing with those organisations.
As may be the case with other companies on the list, M & S Syndicate, which was the first ZANU-PF holding company, has a joint venture with the UK-based firm Unicorn Import-Export, called Zidco Holdings. Is the Minister happy with that arrangement? If the Government are considering taking action against the seven entities identified by the US, what sort of action, if any, might be taken against companies that, according to www.zimbabwesituation.com, have clear links with companies on the list?
Hon. Members are aware of the UK's heavy role in Zimbabwe. We are the second largest foreign investor in southern Africa. Although I accept that the current relationship between the two countries means that the UK's economic leverage is limited, there must be a way of using investment on that scale to support measures to improve human rights in Zimbabwe.
Will the Minister comment on whether there is a discrepancy between the promotion of human rights and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and UK Trade and Investment? According to Zimbabwe's country profile on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's website, there is a
"chronic shortage of foreign exchange, which has led to shortages of fuel and other key inputs including power."
The profile notes that
"Zimbabwe imports 35 per cent. of its electricity needs from Mozambique and South Africa",
and I know that many people advocate South Africa turning off the power supply. Will the Minister comment on that way of exerting pressure?
While the FCO sets out its concerns, the UK Trade and Investment website, which apparently has a policy of not promoting a particular export market, includes statements that, although not actively promoting trade,
394WH
at least facilitate it in a way that the Minister may think inappropriate. Under the heading, "Key methods of doing business", the website suggests
"The best approach to doing business in Zimbabwe is by making a personal visit, either on a trade mission or attending a trade fair. It's not uncommon for correspondence particularly to Government Ministries or parastatals to go unanswered."
In other words, it is better to be there on the ground dealing with them.
The website points out that, although the prevailing political and economic climate has resulted in reduced volumes of trade between the UK and Zimbabwe,
"doing business is still relatively easy to do."
It continues:
"With the Government in Zimbabwe keen to empower the indigenous population, foreign companies who have established a presence here or who have engaged a local partner would probably have an edge especially when tendering for Government contracts."
It concludes:
"Advice on how to find an agent or details on how to set up a company in Zimbabwe is Available on the Zimbabwe Gateway."
At the very least, such comments facilitate trade in a way that the Minister might consider inappropriate, for instance with Zimbabwean partners that may be listed by the Americans as entities with which they do not want their nationals to trade.
On repression against politicians, other hon. Members have referred to the Zimbabwe Institute report, published today, which found that 50 of the Movement for Democratic Change's 59 MPs, and 28 of its parliamentary candidates, had personally experienced human rights abuses. Politicians are clearly under very heavy pressure there. Has the Minister had time to consider that report? He clearly has a copy, so perhaps he could provide some immediate feedback on what, if anything, the UK government propose to do about it.
There is also the problem of the attacks on the media.The Daily News was shut down, and pressure is now being applied to the Zimbabwe Independent. It would be useful to know what representations the Minister has received on that issue, what contacts there are with journalists operating in Zimbabwe—if any—and whether the UK Government and media can play a part in helping them.
I have taken up with the non-governmental organisations active in Zimbabwe the important issue of political interference affecting food aid. Their view is that the food aid that they are delivering is reaching the right people. They have checks and balances in place. However, there may be a question mark about the food aid that is being distributed by the Zimbabwean Government. Will the Minister comment on that, and more alarmingly, on any assessment that has been made about whether the NGOs working there or the Zimbabwean Government will be able to deliver the much higher level of food aid that is required? A posting on the UN website, ReliefWeb, states that the number of people going hungry in Zimbabwe has outstripped earlier projections, with 7.5 million of the country's estimated 11.65 million expected to require food aid in the next few months. Is there any evidence that organisations are gearing up to deliver that additional food aid?

395WH
Finally, it is clear that the policy of quiet diplomacy, whether on the part of the South African or the British Government, is not working. We know that Thabo Mbeki protested last month that a decision to prolong Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth was undemocratic and unhelpful, while at the same time he brushed off concerns about human rights abuses there. It is instructive and heartening to note that that view is not held by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu or the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Charles Snyder, who said that the jury is out on whether South Africa has done enough to help to resolve the crisis. The Americans' view is that Thabo Mbeki could become the point man on Zimbabwe if there were a desire to do that.
The situation in Zimbabwe is extremely grim. As the secretary-general of the MDC said, the UK must use its leverage to pressure South Africa to take a stand against Zimbabwe's repressive regime. South Africa must not block plans to appoint a human rights commissioner for Zimbabwe, and the UK Government must increase support to civil society there, particularly for those who have suffered at the hands of Mugabe. The UK must also consider whether introducing sanctions against firms that have been identified by the US Government as having close links with Zimbabwe's top ZANU-PF officials would be appropriate. Zimbabwe's killing fields are unrolling in front of our eyes. We can either wait and, in years to come, express dismay at the uncovering of massive human rights abuses, or we can take action now. The Minister needs to set out which course of action he intends to pursue.
2.55 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on his powerful and persuasive speech. It is not the first time that he has spoken so cogently on the subject of Zimbabwe. The speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) were also of the highest quality. They have both consistently spoken about the unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who probably has more experience and understanding of Zimbabwe than any other hon. Member in the House. I also applaud the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for his contribution to the debate.
Last December, in its annual report, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that it believed that
"it is very important that Parliament remains fully focused on the latest developments, and that the profile of Zimbabwe in British political life remains high."
I entirely agree. But how can we in the House be fully focused on Zimbabwe if the Government have not, thus far, introduced a debate on the subject in the main Chamber? In the seven-year lifespan of this Government, we have had many debates on foreign affairs, but we have not had a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time. Even today, we are debating the matter because of the success of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in securing the debate.
The Minister knows of the real tragedy that is gripping Zimbabwe and of our links to that country, and has heard the powerful speeches today. I hope he
396WH
will use his powers of persuasion, so that we can have a debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House of Commons. Everyone will then know that Zimbabwe is a matter of great concern, and that that concern crosses the party political divide. Moreover, the public will know that we in the House of Commons want to debate the matter comprehensively.
The Foreign Affairs Committee was right. It is vital that we remain focused on developments in Zimbabwe, which inexorably and distressingly continues to sink ever deeper into chaos, violence, brutality and economic collapse because of the malevolent and brutal rule of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.
We heard this afternoon that the agricultural base of the country has been destroyed by the illegal land seizures. Many farm workers, and farmers themselves, have been left devoid of any means of support. Since 1998. more than 400,000 jobs have been lost. Of a population of 11.5 million, 7.5 million are, to varying degrees, in receipt of food aid, and the UN World Food Programme is having to increase its aid provision.
However, the Zimbabwean Government continue to maintain that the land seizures have worked—they were the original basis for the unravelling of the country. The truth is that much land remains unproductive and idle. It is estimated that only 600 commercial farms are still operational across the country—a mere 14 per cent. of the more than 4,000 farms that were operational in 1997, according to the central statistical office figures. The shocking thing is that only 2 per cent. of land has actually been given to ex-farm workers, whereas much has been given to Mugabe's cronies. Earlier this year it was announced that some 400 farms were to be redistributed again from the black farm workers who had received them under the original seizures. The point about the hunger for land reform, which Mugabe gave as the spurious basis for his land seizures, is that the land reform has not happened at all. The situation is extraordinary, tragic and Kafkaesque. The picture is one of gloom and chaos. The so-called land reform programme has utterly failed to help its supposed beneficiaries.
The Zimbabwean economy should be flourishing given the abundant natural resources, the energy of the people of Zimbabwe and the country's historic reputation as Africa's bread-basket. We have heard some of the frightening economic statistics, with inflation at more than 600 per cent. and Zimbabwe's banks in crisis, we have read the recent comments of the governor of the reserve bank, and we have seen so much of the financial sector in collapse.
New laws, supposedly aimed at targeting those engaged in economic corruption, allow detention without bail for up to four weeks, and once again, after an all-too-brief reappearance,The Daily News has been forced from the streets. Although economic corruption in Zimbabwe must be tackled, nothing of the kind has happened and I am utterly unconvinced that the moves are anything other than window dressing. Moves supposedly against corruption have been made at the expense of the rule of law. A re-establishment of the rule of law and freedom of expression must be a priority for Zimbabwe—although I believe that it will never happen while Mugabe remains in power—and I agree with the appointment of a human rights commissioner.

397WH
As we have continually forecast, the so-called informal and erratic talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF have come to naught. Substantive and genuine talks must remain a pre-condition to moving on and to Zimbabwe's readmission to the Commonwealth, as its secretary-general Mr. McKinnon recently stated. ZANU-PF must engage in genuine, formal and structured talks with the MDC to that end, but I fear that that will never happen under Mr. Mugabe. He is obsessed with protecting himself from the consequences of leaving office, and I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for should Mr. Mugabe want to leave the country in one way or another, he should be assisted in that process, as happened with a former African dictator, Idi Amin.
Tom Brake:I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Mugabe leaving the country. However, if he did that, there would have to be a detailed analysis of any funds that he might have salted away.
Mr. Spring:There is clear evidence that that has happened, and we have seen the grotesque extravagance of Mr. Mugabe and his family when he has been allowed to travel in Europe and elsewhere.
Mugabe will seize any opportunity to cling to power and boost his position with propaganda, and it is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called on the England and Wales Cricket Board not to go ahead with a Zimbabwe tour. As he said,
"I would never …leave England's captain in the intolerable position of having to shake the bloodied hand of Zimbabwe's cricket patron, Robert Mugabe."
We have made our views on that point crystal clear, and I would be grateful—I am sure the ECB would be even more grateful—if the Minister stated unequivocally, on behalf of the Government, whether he believes that the tour should proceed.
To wait for demography or the anger of people to topple Mugabe would be to wait too long, considering what is happening and because, regrettably, such a prospect is not likely in the near future. As we see Zimbabwe ever falling into despair and misery, to wait for a reaction to Mugabe from within is to shirk our obligations to the Zimbabwean people.
The EU recently decided to extend the targeted sanctions for a third year, increasing the list of individuals covered from 79 to 95 people. The travel bans and asset freezes for which we called for so long are a welcome start, but they must be rigorously enforced and extended to the businesses and individuals that bankroll the Mugabe regime. The US recently introduced new and tougher sanctions to target Government-owned companies and the Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo.
Why are our Government reluctant to take an even tougher line and follow the US example? When will we see the Government seeking to internationalise the issue even more, taking the matter to the UN Security Council to obtain a resolution to try to place food monitors on the ground? There is no point in saying that such a resolution would not be passed. If a country does not table and argue for a resolution, it will never happen.
398WH
Thus there is still much to do to improve on what is already being done. Alongside increased pressure from the United Kingdom and the European Union there must be increased regional pressure. All hon. Members have alluded to that this afternoon. The regional power most able to do this, and with a real interest in doing so, given the knock-on effects of collapse, is South Africa.
I had the pleasure some months ago of meeting Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo. He was reported as calling on President Mbeki's Government to cut off electricity supplies to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is dependent upon South Africa for much of its fuel and energy and, as was demonstrated against Ian Smith in comparable circumstances, South Africa could very quickly effect a change by cutting off supplies. It took only three days to be effective before, and a short sharp ratcheting up may well prove ultimately more effective, and less painful to Zimbabweans.
We have put that directly to the South Africans on many occasions. President Mbeki still appears to think that quiet diplomacy will work in respect of Zimbabwe, but thus far it has paid no dividends at all, and the recent collapse of talks show that it has failed to achieve any progress. Those who called for patience as quiet diplomacy proceeded have been led well and truly up the garden path.
While I naturally have concerns on humanitarian grounds about the short-term impact of an energy cutoff on the Zimbabwean people, here we have a Zimbabwean archbishop calling for it. I believe that it is incumbent on the South African Government to give such ideas urgent consideration. I hope the Minister will encourage the South Africans to consider all options afresh, to persuade them to take a more proactive approach to their northern neighbour. We have told them this before. The economies of southern Africa are dependent in large part upon external investors, who look for stability and security for their investments. The situation in Zimbabwe ultimately puts that confidence at risk. The South African Government should consider all these factors most urgently in the context of their role as a regional power.
In a powerful and, in many ways, impressive speech that the Prime Minister made on 5 March, he said:
"It may well be that under international law as previously constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe".
He went on to talk about the values that must surround a doctrine of international community when a country behaves in an utterly irresponsible and wicked way. He spoke about a new arrangement in the world to react to that. He said:
"Britain's role is try to trod a way through this: to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and means of enforcing it."
I very much agree with what the Prime Minister said, but I believe that in the case of Zimbabwe those words need to be translated into more direct action. Sometimes we have to be blunt with our friends whom we admire and with whom we have historic links. We have to tell that they must take action themselves and that we will support them in that. We have never suggested that solving the crisis in Zimbabwe would be easy or could be

399WH
accomplished overnight, but there will certainly not be progress if we do not move the process on more forcefully. A start has been made with targeted sanctions, but it seems to have stopped there. We must ratchet up pressure on Mugabe's regime through the EU, the UN and through close working contacts with the neighbouring states.
I hope the Minister can give us concrete examples of the steps that the Government intend to take to end the suffering of Zimbabwe's people and to bring about free and fair elections. Occasionally, leadership requires a clear public statement. That is now overdue.
3.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, this is the 14th debate about Zimbabwe in the past four years. Much of the Prime Minister is statement reporting back from the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in December was taken up with questions on our role in maintaining Zimbabwe's suspension, large parts of Foreign Office questions over a long period have been taken up with Zimbabwe, and there have been innumerable speeches about that country in foreign affairs debates on the Floor of the House.
If debates on the Floor of the House were the answer to Zimbabwe's problems, they would have been solved long ago. I can offer hon. Member is a little piece of good news, for which I hope they will be duly grateful, although I am prepared for the possibility that they might not. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to a debate on the subject in the main Chamber. and we will arrange a mutually convenient time for all the main parties through the business managers.
Although one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise when one attends these debates, there is no serious difference between the main parties on the issue of Zimbabwe. The Government's objective for Zimbabwe, like that of the principal Opposition parties, is for the restoration of a democratically accountable Government who respect human rights and the rule of law, and who adopt sound economic policies aimed at alleviating the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.
I acknowledge the measured and responsible contributions from most hon. Gentlemen, especially the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake) and for West Suffolk (Mr Spring).
However, I thought that the tone of much of what the hon. Member for East Devon said went a little over the top, to no particular purpose. If he wishes to be taken seriously, he should not try to pretend that what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe is mostly the fault of the British Government, or that there is a long list of things that they could have done years ago that would have made everything different. Most sensible people will acknowledge that it is a complex problem to which there is no perfect solution.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about Kosovo, which he raised last time he participated in one of these debates, unless he is proposing military action, which he told us last time he was not. All sensible
400WH
people would acknowledge that there is no basis for any kind of outside military intervention, not least because none of the surrounding countries would tolerate it.
I will not attempt to outdo the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, but I shall try to respond to some of his points. Much of his speech was directed against South Africa, and he made points regarding the role of the South African Government. I am sure the South Africans will have heard what hon. Members had to say.
One hon. Member said that the South African Government had been inactive, which I dispute. Whether or not one accepts his tactics, President Mbeki has been extremely active on the issue. He regularly meets representatives of the ruling party and of the Opposition—
Tom Brake:Can the Minister tell us whether Mr. Mbeki will be active on the subject of the UN human rights commissioner, and does he have any information about whether South Africa will again call for no action on that?
Mr. Mullin:I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the UN human rights commission. The UN may consider the issue again later this month. I do not know what South Africa's position is likely to be, but we will, of course, talk to its representatives about that.
I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Devon say—he will forgive me if I am wrong—that our only response to millions starving is rhetoric. That is absolute and obvious nonsense. British taxpayers have spent £62 million on food aid over the past five years to help to feed the hungry, and £26.5 million to help to deal with the huge problem of HIV/AIDS.
We worked hard at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. Indeed, we took the lead to ensure the continued suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, and we worked hard with our European partners in extending the roll-over of EU sanctions. I will say more about sanctions in a moment. Scarcely a day passes without the subject of Zimbabwe crossing my desk, so the Government are perfectly aware of the importance that hon. Members attach to the issue, and of its general importance to Africa and the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain actively engaged.
Several hon. Members asked whether we had talked to the Libyans about Zimbabwe. given the relationship between the Libyans and Mr. Mugabe. The answer is that we have done so on several occasions and will continue to do so.
On US sanctions and the seven companies to which several hon. Members referred, I should make it clear that all the people who run those companies are among the 95 on the EU sanctions list. Although we may approach the matter from a slightly different angle from that of the Americans, there is quite a large overlap. Hon. Members should be aware of that. We are willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, extending the sanctions to the companies themselves or to the people connected with those companies, but, as I said, there is already a considerable overlap between ourselves and the Americans. There are more people on the EU list than on the Americans' list.
Tom Brake:I thank the Minister for clarifying the position and the overlap between what has been done by

401WH
the UK and the US. On the specific point about M&S Syndicate, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond now or in writing. Admittedly, the information dates back to January 2001 and therefore may no longer be relevant, but will he confirm whether there is a link between M&S Syndicate and Unicorn Import-Export and, if so, what action, if any, the Government will take?
Mr. Mullin:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As he anticipates, I cannot reply off the top of my head, but I will write to him and ensure that he receives the letter.
Several hon. Members referred to "Playing with Fire", the report published today by a South African non-governmental organisation, a copy of which was given to me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this morning by Professor Ncube. I commend it to the House. It documents the horrendous experience that Opposition politicians—Members of Parliament and candidates—and their agents have suffered in trying to mount a democratic opposition to the tyranny in Zimbabwe. It deserves wide circulation.
Sir Nicholas Winterton:I raised the position of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and the whole world is watching his trial. I hope the Government will leave the Administration of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF in no doubt that we expect the trial to be transparently fair. The whole world, including all African countries. would take a very dim view if it were a charade, and Morgan Tsvangirai, who is perhaps the country's only chance for pluralistic democracy and freedom, were sentenced on a trumped-up charge.
Mr. Mullin:Every one of us would endorse those sentiments. There are still heart-warming signs that some members of the Zimbabwean judiciary remain committed to administering the rule of law despite the enormous pressure on them. Even recently, there have been cases in which the state's evidence has been dismissed in the most disparaging terms when it has attempted to fit up its political opponents. I therefore retain some faith in Zimbabwe's judicial system, but we shall be watching the outcome of Mr. Tsvangirai's trial very closely.
As hon. Members said, the political, economic and humanitarian crisis remains as acute as ever. We and our partners in the wider international community are doing what we can to increase pressure on the ZANU-PF regime to commence negotiations with the Opposition. We regard that as a prerequisite to finding a solution to the crisis.
On 19 February, the EU agreed to continue its targeted measures against the country's leadership for another year. I am pleased to say that, with our strong support, the list of those targeted by the travel ban and the assets freeze has been extended from 79 to 95 people. Those who have been added to the list include several individuals who bear particular responsibility for the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. They include the head of the Media and Information Commission, who was closely associated with the closure of The Daily News and the hounding of other independent media; the
402WH
head of the electoral commission and registrar general, who was closely associated with the fraudulent elections that have become the rule in Zimbabwe; the leader of the so-called war veterans, who is closely associated with the most violent takeovers of commercial farms; all the provincial governors appointed by Mugabe, whose job it is to enforce his writ at local level; and the new set of Ministers whom Mugabe appointed in his last reshuffle on 9 February.

On 23 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. It issued a strong statement, deploring the Zimbabwe Government's failure to address EU concerns about the deteriorating situation in the country. It made it clear that there would he no normalisation of the EU's relationship with Zimbabwe until those concerns were addressed. It also underlined the EU's intention to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe on the basis of need alone.
The UK Government have been a consistent advocate of a robust EU approach to Zimbabwe, so we welcome last month's decision. It sends a clear message that the EU wants Zimbabwe to end repression and economic catastrophe and to return to democratic governance and the rule of law. I hope that that message will be heard not only by Mugabe and his regime, but by the people of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's Opposition, the MDC, certainly welcome the EU measures, which they described as
"a clear indication that the international community will not fold its arms while the regime in Zimbabwe continues to trample upon people's basic needs".
Mr. Spring:The Minister's first point, about the commitment to dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, was interesting. We have made it clear for some time that, unless a formal structure was put in place, dialogue would not work, and it has not worked. Indeed, Mr. Mugabe recently denounced the MDC as agents of the west. It is all very well making statements about dialogue, but South Africa has not properly brokered discussions. Everything is informal, and no one knows exactly what is going on. I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, but I ask him to move away from rhetoric and propose a specific structure for holding a dialogue.
Mr. Mullin:To give President Mbeki his due, he has worked quite hard to establish a dialogue between the two main parties, as has President Obasanjo of Nigeria, but without success. It takes two to tango, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I agree that there is no sign of any formal talks between the two sides, and no talks are likely until sufficient pressure is put on the Mugabe regime. Much of the pressure will come from inside the country, given the ruinous state to which it has reduced the economy.
Mr. Swire indicated dissent
Mr. Mulllin:The hon. Member for East Devon shakes his head, but he does not appear to have a better idea, which is what depresses me about his contributions to these discussions. Members of the Government regularly talk to the MDC, and are open to any reasonable suggestions from anyone who has the best interests of the people of Zimbabwe at heart.

403WH
Hon. Members referred to youth training camps. Many of us saw the recent "Panorama" documentary, which drew attention to one of the main pillars of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe— the so-called youth training scheme. The fact that a retired brigadier has been placed in charge of those training camps indicates the type of training that takes place. The United Kingdom and its EU partners have made it clear that the closure of the camps is a prerequisite of any normalisation of relations between the EU and Zimbabwe, and I am pleased to say that past and present Ministers in charge of the training scheme are on the EU's list of banned individuals.
On the subject of humanitarian assistance, I stress, as I have in the past, that the EU measures are targeted, and as such are not intended to harm Zimbabwe's civilian population. The impact that switching off the electricity would have on ordinary people must be carefully calculated. I would not like to make that judgment. It is not unreasonable for the South Africans to expect Zimbabwe to pay for the large amounts of electricity that it receives but, in the end, it will be for South Africa to make that judgment. It should not be made lightly.
The EU remains committed to the Zimbabwean people, and has donated humanitarian assistance worth £184 million in the past year or so. The UK is the EU's largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe, and the largest donor overall after the United States.
Mr. Spring:The Minister is generous in giving way. I fear that he is not going to address the central point about the role of South Africa in all this. He will know as a Foreign Office Minister that the reason why North Korea was persuaded to come to the table to negotiate
404WH
was that the Chinese threatened to switch off its energy supplies. That got North Korea thinking and acting. I ask the Minister to address the central point about applying pressure to South Africa and inviting the South Africans to take concerted action to move the process on.
Mr. Mullin:I do not rule out increasing the pressure on the Mugabe Government. I agree that the South African Government are better placed than most to do so, but I am not willing to engage in a public slanging match with the South Africans in Westminster Hall, in the Chamber, or anywhere else, nor am I willing to advise them over the airwaves on what they should do. They are in the front line. They have 2 million refugees from Zimbabwe, so they know exactly the scale of the problem. We remain in close dialogue with them, and have had several robust conversations. I shall not, however, address them through a megaphone.
In conclusion, as hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe's economy continues to spiral downwards. Inflation is now running at almost 700 per cent., and unemployment is running at more than 70 per cent. As hon. Members said, as many as 7 million people will need international help with food this winter. We recognise the need to keep up the pressure, but the greatest pressure of all will come from the sheer scale of the catastrophe that Mr. Mugabe and his Government have unleashed on their own people. In the meantime, I hope that African Governments, including South Africa, will speak out as clearly as Governments in Europe do—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair):Order. We now come to the debate on clean water access in developing countries.

Developing Countries (Clean Water Access)
3.30 pm
Norman Baker:I am pleased to have this opportunity to address such an important issue. I knew that clean water access was important when I started researching it, but the more I have looked into it, the more I have become convinced that it is one of the key issues for the century ahead. The debate is not only, I hope. timely, given that 22 March is world water day, but pressing, as I shall outline.
The surface of planet Earth is approximately 70 per cent. water, of which 97.5 per cent. is in the oceans, and therefore salt water, and 2 per cent. is frozen in the polar ice caps. That leaves us with only 0.5 per cent. of the world's water resources on which to live. Water is essential for life. Kofi Annan said:
"Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity."
The impressive document "Hitting the Targets", which a number of charities and pressure groups produced, says:
"Access to water and sanitation is a right, a basic need for survival, a requirement for reducing poverty, and, a driver of growth. Much of the suffering from a lack of access to water and sanitation is borne by the poor, those who live in degraded environments, and overwhelmingly by women and girls."
Human beings are so dependent on water that although they can live for a month or more without food they can live only for less than a week without water. Despite that startling dependence, according to the World Health Organisation, in 2000 more than 1 billion people worldwide did not have access to safe water and 2.5 billion people had improper or no access to sanitation. Worryingly, the situation will get worse unless we take drastic action as a planet.
Mr. Don Foster:Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is bitterly disappointing that the Government have cut money from the aid budget that directly targets improvements in the supply of fresh, clean water and sanitation? Does he also deprecate the way in which the Department for International Development has axed its public service agreement in respect of that? Does he support WaterAid's "Flush out poverty" campaign, which urges the Department to increase the aid spent directly on such important things?
Norman Baker:I certainly support WaterAid's campaign and I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's intervention and for the early-day motion that he has tabled, to which my signature has been appended. The figures on the Department's contribution, which I hope the Minister will recognise as they are from the Department for International Development's water action plan, suggest that the percentage of the budget spent on water has decreased from 2.6 per cent. in 1998–99 to just 1.9 per cent. today, albeit, to be fair to him, within an increasing budget overall. However, that is a small proportion of the budget for such an essential human need.
By 2025 the situation could be even worse. The projection is that every second person on Earth will be suffering from a lack of drinking water and about two
406WH
thirds of the world's population will live with water shortages, which is double the current number. Some 31 countries face water shortages and a further 17 are likely to be added to that number by 2025.
The situation is serious and has all sorts of unwelcome consequences. One, of course, is the effect on poverty and the grinding standard of living that so many people in our world, predominantly females, have to endure. There are girls and women in Africa who require on average three hours a day to fetch water from a well. The effort involved in that consumes one third of the daily food energy intake, which is a disgraceful statistic. Some 15,000 cu m of water can be used to irrigate one hectare of rice fields, provide 100 nomads and 450 animals with water for three years or put up 100 guests in a luxury hotel for 55 days. We have a very disparate approach to water in our world, where many people struggle to have even the basic requirement for life while others in the UK, America and elsewhere treat it as if it were endlessly replenishable, which it certainly is not.
This is a matter not simply of grinding poverty, but of disease, because 2.5 billion people have no access to proper sanitation. Every second hospital bed in the world is occupied by somebody who became ill because of polluted water. Every day 6,000 children die because of a lack of sanitary facilities—one every 15 seconds. That is a frightening statistic. The situation is getting worse, not simply because of the profligate use of water in the west, but because of population pressure from other countries. Populations in countries such as China and India are soaring, but there is not the water infrastructure to ensure that they have the water they need.
Even in the UK. in my constituency, a planning application is being submitted for a desalination plant because there is simply not enough water in the aquifer in the south-east to deal with demands. Even in this area, with a proper infrastructure by and large, we still have to have a desalination plant.
Africa, one of the world's most water-stressed regions, has experienced a population increase of 27 per cent. in the last 10 years or so. That figure is nearly double the global increase for the same time. Further pressure is coming from that, which also involves another possible unwelcome complication—sadly, that of war.
"If you're short of water, the choices are conservation, technological invention, or the politics of violence".
Those are the words of Marq de Villiers, who has written an excellent book, which I commend to everybody, called "Water Wars". A Friends of the Earth report, "Water Justice for All", states:
"This growing scarcity and demand has led many to believe that water may well have as important a role as oil in the 21st century, with the water market becoming as valuable and politicised as the fossil fuel market."
Or, as Mark Twain put it rather more succinctly:
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting".
The wars of the 21st century may be over water rather than oil or territory.

407WH
We are seeing that already in, for example, discussions on the use of the waters in Egypt and, most dramatically perhaps, in Israel, where the so-called security wall is being erected. In my view, that is not about security; it is about stealing Palestinian water.
Dr. Jenny Tonge:Does my hon. Friend also realise that the Israelis are planning to extend the wall down the eastern side, thus cutting the Palestinians off from the Jordan valley and the Sea of Galilee? The Israelis take 80 per cent. of the west bank water for their own use; 40 per cent. of Israeli water comes from the west bank.
While the Israeli settlers in the west bank are splashing around in private swimming pools and have access to hot and cold running water whenever they want it, the Palestinians have water sometimes only once a week. The Israelis are wasting water to such an extent that the average Israeli uses 10 times more water than the average Palestinian in the west bank. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a major contributory factor in the conflict between those two peoples?
Norman Baker:I certainly do, and I think that it is an affront to human decency that the Israelis are behaving in such a way. I recognise that the Government have criticised the construction of that wall, which is right, but I hope that they will apply more pressure than they appear to have done so far to bring about a change in Israeli policy. That means applying pressure on the United States.
The same applies to water resources and the environment in general. For example, the Prime Minister recognises, I believe, the importance of climate change. He says that it is an important issue, yet his friend in the White House, Mr. Bush, is busy increasing carbon emissions as if there were no tomorrow. We do not hear much about that.
Indeed, when Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, says how important climate change is, the result is a memo from 10 Downing street to tell him to keep quiet. The Prime Minister and Departments, including DFID, need to follow through what they honestly believe and put pressure where it has to be applied, rather than trying to indulge in a form of kow-towing to the Americans, who are engaged in a process that pays scant or no attention to the environmental needs of the future.
Environmental change is another consequence of the water shortage and of the increased use of water. It is said that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That is certainly so in the Sahara, for example, where, 4,000 years ago, hippos were playing where now there is only stone and scrub.
Forests are decreasing and deserts are increasing. In the past century, more than half the wetlands on earth have been lost to development and conversion, partly due to pressure on water. The underground aquifer that supplies one third of the water for the continental US is being depleted eight times faster than it is being replenished. About 20 per cent. of freshwater fish species have become extinct or are endangered. The Aral sea in Kazakhstan has halved in depth and lost 90 per cent. of its volume in the last 40 years. The statistics are endless, and if I seem slightly irritated and frustrated that is
408WH
because I do not see any action from the Government or the world community to address these issues, which will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences unless they are taken seriously.
I recognise that the Government have signed up to the UN 2000 millennium development goals. The 2002 world summit on sustainable development had a commitment to developing integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005. I have seen the document released last week by the Government to take matters forward. To be fair, they recognise the issue and pay lip service-sometimes more than that—to the actions that need to be taken, but, given the scale of the problem, we must go much further, much faster.
I want to refer briefly to the controversial issue of the general agreement on trade in services and get the Minister's response on that point. I am sure he knows from his postbag, as I know from mine, that many well-meaning pressure groups and individuals up and down the country are concerned about the suggestion that, as a consequence of GATS, we will end up with water privatisation in developing countries and control of that essential resource will move from those countries elsewhere in a one-way process that, effectively, will be irreversible.
There are also concerns that the European Union is applying pressure for developing countries to go down that road. I have seen such statements, which seem to be well sourced, from those pressure groups, and I have also seen categorical denials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments. Frankly, I cannot reconcile the two, so I hope that the Minister provides us with more information that will enable us to take the matter forward. This is an important issue that we must get right. If we get it wrong, there will be no way back. My instinct is not to pressurise developing countries: if they come to that conclusion themselves there are sufficient safeguards, but there should be no pressure from the EU or elsewhere.
On environmental violations, we should consider the Environment Agency report for 1999 to 2001, which shows that the top five polluters include Sirius Vivendi, Thames Water and Wessex Water. The water industry does not have a good record of adhering to environmental legislation in this country, where controls are quite strict, let alone in developing countries where controls are sadly much weaker. It is also worth remembering that the global water and waste industry is estimated to be worth as much as $800 billion. That is a lot of money and, potentially for somebody, a lot of profit.
I ask the Minister to amplify his thoughts on the water action plan, pick up the point quite properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his intervention, set out the Government's response to the question of GATS and assure me and other hon. Members that the Government—although I genuinely believe that they have the right instincts on these issues—are prepared to make the commitments necessary to deliver the changes that are essential if we are to have better water allocation in our world.
It is not sufficient for the Government to think the right thing, nor just to publish documents saying the right thing, nor even to adopt policies and put money in

409WH
budgets hoping that it will be all right. The scale of the problem is such that the Government have to go on a crusade to convert countries such as the United States, which are not playing their role properly, to ensure that there is a big turnaround in how the world deals with water.
The UK, with its position in many international organisations such as the Commonwealth, NATO, the UN Security Council and the Bank for International Settlements, is well positioned to take this matter forward. I want to hear a commitment from the Minister that he will do so.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas):I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He and I were founder members of the Environmental Audit Committee and I welcome the opportunity to trade blows again on environmental issues. I am also pleased that he has been able to secure the attendance and support of his colleagues, the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
As the hon. Member for Lewes said, getting enough clean water—something we in the UK take for Granted—is a daily challenge for far too many poor people around the world. Disposal of water essential for hygiene and sanitation is just as big a challenge. The number of people who lack access to safe drinking water is 1.2 billion, and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. The proportion of Africans with access to safe water and sanitation has hardly changed over the past 10 years. Hundreds of millions of people live in parts of the world where there simply is not enough water to go round. Inevitably, if there is not enough to go round, the poor are the least likely to get access to the water that they need even though their needs are the greatest. Pollution—an issue that the hon. Gentleman also touched on —adds to the problems of access to clean water. When that is combined with poor water management, the health and livelihoods of poor people inevitably suffer.
Water-related diseases are the single largest cause of human sickness and death in the world, and they disproportionately affect poor people. A major issue for children is diarrhoeal disease, which accounts for some 2 million child deaths each year. That number can be reduced through better hygiene practices, safer water supplies, and the provision of basic sanitation. Such measures will also support better maternal health in the home.
If we are going to do more to help poor people to overcome that daily challenge, as the hon. Gentleman and the non-governmental organisations that he quoted made clear, much more must be done by the international community. It is sadly all too clear that the pace of progress for improving access to water, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is not as fast as I would like. To achieve the millennium development goals, approximately 250,000 people need to be provided with safe water supplies a day, and approximately 320,000 people need to be provided with basic sanitation. That
410WH
is a considerably greater increase than has ever been achieved. It is unusual for a Minister to be accusing the hon. Gentleman of understating the challenge that faces us, but perhaps he is in danger of doing just that.
Investment must double to meet the millennium development goals on water and sanitation. That investment will have to come from the resources of developing country Governments, the international community, international financial institutions and international donors such as the UK. It will also have to come from the private sector.
It is not as though poor people do not consistently say that clean water is one of their top priorities; they definitely do. We know that through the consultation processes that take place when poverty reduction strategy papers are drawn up in country. However, translating that desire into action requires joined-up action across developing country Governments and better international donor co-operation. Joined-up action across Governments is a challenge at the best times; it is a huge challenge for developing country Governments who are faced with the capacity issues involved in dealing with international donors.
Why is joined-up action such a challenge? Well, responsibility for water resource management, water supplies and sanitation is often spread across many parts of developing country Governments. No single part of government takes the lead, and different parts of government often sadly have conflicting views. Solving those problems demands commitment from the Governments of developing countries. They must ensure that there ate clear lines of responsibility and accountability. They need arrangements for resolving differences about competing demands for water in a country. They need to give water and sanitation appropriate priority, and to allocate appropriate long term funding, so that the relevant authorities, which are often local authorities., have the incentives as well as the money that they need to ensure that investment is being made in better water and sanitation for ordinary people.
Clearly, making progress in many developing countries requires support from donors such as the UK. Our approach involves supporting countries in developing plans to eliminate poverty. The poverty reduction strategy papers that I referred to earlier relate to that. We provide advice and support to ensure that the needs of poor people are included in those plans. We then put our support behind those plans and the priorities in those plans and we encourage other donors to do the same. Our experience, which is, I think, generally borne out in the views of NGOs, is that that is the most effective way to achieve rapid progress towards all the millennium development goals.
Water has featured particularly strongly in our discussions with our partners in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Uganda and Nigeria. Uganda, for example, has made safe access to water one of its first priorities for its poverty reduction strategy. The donor community has responded to that prioritisation of water with financing through water sector support, as well as through budget support and through individual projects in rural and urban areas.
Uganda, I am pleased to say, is almost on track to achieve the water millennium development goal by 2015—unlike many other developing countries, sadly.

411WH
As part of our support to the Ugandans in the water sector, we have seconded a water specialist to work in the Ugandan Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Another example concerns Nigeria, where we are working with the federal Government and with UNICEF to focus the federal Ministry of Water Resources on the long-term policy reform necessary to secure the investment and pro-poor reforms needed to ensure good access to water.
Our policy dialogue with the Government in Bangladesh has focused on trying to improve donor collaboration, particularly on the arsenic contamination of ground water—an issue of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware—as well as on better access generally to water and sanitation. We are also funding a large environmental health programme there, through international and local NGOs, which are working with local government on water supply and sanitation.
Water also forms the basis of a strong partnership with the World Bank in China, where we are promoting reforms across the water sector.
Dr. Tonge:The Minister may not be able to answer this question now, but perhaps his Department could write to me. What progress has there been on the privatisation of the water supply in Accra in Ghana? I know that DFID was, in that case, sponsoring the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) alluded to in his speech.
Mr. Thomas:I will do my best to deal with the hon. Lady's question, but I shall first deal with other comments by the hon. Member for Lewes. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically what position we have reached on GATS. As he rightly said, that is the framework for WTO negotiations between countries on the liberalisation of trade in services, including, crucially, water supply. It is a bottom-up agreement, meaning that countries themselves decide whether and when to open up their service sectors to foreign competition.
The UK does not insist that countries go to the GATS negotiations with a commitment to privatise their water industries. If they decide, of their own volition, to go down that route, we will consider supporting them, if that is a priority for their poverty reduction strategy. I hope that that reassures the hon, Gentleman to some extent.
I now want to comment on specific issues concerning the role of the private sector. Whether we are referring to international companies or to small-scale local service providers, the private sector has a role in supporting Government and civil society. Crucially, it can bring management and technical expertise, efficiency and service delivery to the table. Effective regulation and communication are essential to ensure that water companies' investment is in the interests of the poor.
412WH
Our approach to private sector involvement is to focus on what is necessary to ensure that investment in water by the private sector delivers better access to safe water supplies.
Mr. Foster:The Minister has rightly been focusing on the important role that the private sector can play, but it is important that he also talks about the Government's role. Does he acknowledge that his Department gives much of its aid through budget support? Will he also acknowledge that it does little to track how much of the budget support is spent on water projects and that the National Audit Office report makes it clear that only a small percentage is spent on them? Given his rightful emphasis on water, surely he should be telling us that it is the Government's intention to increase the proportion of Government aid that is spent on water and sanitation.
Mr. Thomas:If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal first with the point about private sector engagement in Ghana raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
Late in 2003, the Government of Ghana advised us that they had reached a decision on a revised process for involving the private sector in a five-year management contract for the existing water networks. It now seems unlikely that there will be significant private sector participation in that process, partly because of a decline in interest from water companies operating in that part of the world. The World Bank is in the final stages of developing a $120 million project to support it and we expect to co-finance it. If the hon. Lady has further questions about what we might do in that respect, I shall be happy to speak to her privately or to write to her.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the issue of our bilateral spend on water and sanitation and I shall set out the figures: we spent about £29.8 million directly on water and sanitation in 1998–99; £33.4 million in 1999–2000; £34.5 million in 2000–01; £34 million in 2001–02, and £35 million in 2002–03. However, that understates our expenditure in the water sector. Our analysis shows that our total bilateral expenditure, including that with NGOs and multilateral partners was £82 million in 1999–2000; £91 million in 2000–01; and some £87 million in 2001–02. That spending represents about 6 per cent. of our total bilateral aid budget respectively in each of the years quoted. The criticism made by the Clean Water Fund was unfortunate, as it did not take into account the other spending envisaged, although I recognise that it is still campaigning for higher bilateral spending from the Department for International Development.
I confirm that we have published a water action plan setting out what we are hoping to do to renew our effort to increase access to safe water and, as part of that process, we are hoping to meet NGOs to discuss progress. I am happy to have a further discussion with the hon. Member for Lewes on these issues when he has had the chance to digest the water action plan and to hear NGOs' views on the matter.

Mr. Steven Chivers
4 pm
Mr. Eric Insley: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about my constituent, Mr. Steven Chivers. I should point out that he is a long-standing friend of mine and I have known him for over 35 years.
To put it mildly, my constituent has been treated very poorly by the Government and by Customs and Excise. Mr. Chivers' case raises several issues, including the losses he suffered at the hands of Customs and Excise, the wider elements of operations carried out by Customs and Excise and the legality of, and confusion surrounding, what are known as indicative levels of tobacco and alcohol imports, which are used by Customs and Excise to make judgments when people import such goods. His case also highlights the actions of Customs and Excise in targeting consumers of tobacco and alcohol in this manner—Mr. Chivers took his motor car to France and brought back alcohol and tobacco—rather than spending more time targeting large—scale smugglers.
Mr. Chivers' case draws attention to the lack of control or supervision of Customs and Excise. You will be aware, Mr. Benton, that, over the past few months and years, there have been numerous press reports on the money that Customs and Excise has wasted on certain trials and other issues. Customs and Excise seems to act without any control or governmental supervision. This case also highlights the confusing advice given to those travelling abroad, particularly to France, by ferry operators and organisations that provide trips to countries such as France specifically to buy alcohol and tobacco.
The decision in this case brings to light the conflict between the actions of Customs and Excise and court judgments. There is clearly a conflict between the Crown court judgment in Mr. Chivers' appeal and the attitude of Customs and Excise to section 144 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Mr. Chivers was stopped at Dover in May 2001 as he returned from a trip to France to buy alcohol and tobacco for his own consumption. The alcohol and tobacco were seized and his vehicle was impounded. However, the difference between the impounding of Mr. Chivers' vehicle and that of other vehicles is that his was a lease car and a registered taxi. By confiscating that motor vehicle, Customs and Excise deprived him of his means of making a living.
Mr. Chivers successfully appealed that action at Maidstone Crown court:the court overturned the actions of Customs and Excise, but that was in June 2003—some two years after his vehicle and those products were seized. During those two years, Mr. Chivers had to pay for the lease on his motor car at over £300 a month, the hire of radio equipment for his taxi business and insurance and other payments for the vehicle. He also had to find another way to make a living during that period because his taxi had been impounded
When Mr. Chivers appeared a Maidstone Crown court, the judge found in his favour and decided that he should be awarded reasonable costs in respect of the court action, his expenses in pursuing the case and
414WH
compensation. However, Customs and Excise invoked section 144 of the 1979 Act, which required the judge to certificate Customs and Excise as having acted reasonably. It was therefore not liable for any damages case brought by the claimant in respect of a seizure. In other words, Customs and Excise was in a win-win situation. It was found to have acted unlawfully by the court, but invoking section 144 meant that it was not required to make any reparations or pay compensation or damages. Even when it is found to have acted unlawfully, it gets away with it.
At this stage, I should point out that Mr. Chivers is not seeking damages. He is seeking only compensation for the loss of his livelihood and the loss of his vehicle during the two years that it was impounded by Customs and Excise. He is also claiming the amount that he expended on the tobacco and alcohol, which were found to have been seized unlawfully by Customs and Excise.
Mr. Chivers' vehicle was eventually returned to him in 2003. He was also offered limited compensation, which he has disputed, as this no where near covering the costs he has incurred during the past two or three years in pursuing the case and due to the loss of his livelihood and motor vehicle. It is my view that he should now be compensated for the loss of his vehicle and the payments that he had to make on the leased vehicle in the two years.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about the case, and it took four months to receive a reply from the Treasury. In that response, he stated that under section 144 and the terms of the seizure of the vehicle, the Government or Customs and Excise were not liable for any compensation because, at the end of the lease, the vehicle reverts to Mr. Chivers, my constituent. However, that is not the case. At the end of the lease period, the car does not revert to my constituent, although he has the option of purchasing it. As it is a taxi, subject to high mileage and everything that goes with that, he would not purchase it. which is why he went for a leased vehicle in the first instance. Even though Customs and Excise was supplied with a copy of the lease agreement for the vehicle, it chose to give a wrong interpretation of the terms. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider that point.
As I have pointed out, the case highlights the considerable confusion over the use of indicative guidelines. My hon. Friend and I have corresponded on several occasions about them. I tend to accept the European Union's view that the indicative guidelines have no place in a single market. Either we have a single market in which we can import tobacco and alcohol in unrestricted quantities or we do not. I appreciate and support the idea of preventing smuggling, but the indicative guidelines are contrary to other Government policy.
On several occasions, my hon. Friend has written to say that any individual in this country may bring in unlimited quantities of tobacco and alcohol, and people are given that advice on cross-channel ferries and trips abroad, particularly to Calais. People travelling abroad tend to think that they have a right to bring in unlimited quantities. However, that is obviously not true because of the indicative guidelines used by Customs and Excise, which many people ire simply unaware of.

415WH
I know about the leaflet issued by my hon. Friend's Department, but he will remember that he was required to triple those indicative guidelines just over a year ago after pressure from the European Union, which found them to be inadequate. I accept that they may be the highest in the EU, but the public are still confused about the reason for them.
Customs is targeting consumers rather than real smugglers. Shops in certain parts of my constituency do not stock some brands of tobacco and cigarettes because they cannot compete with the price of illegal imports circulating in the area. I could take my hon. Friend to certain shops, and the shopkeepers would be able to point out the houses to which large quantities of cigarettes are delivered. From there, they are distributed by runners.
Shopkeepers simply cannot compete with the price of such cigarettes, which are being sold in bulk. We should be targeting those imports, not taking the cigarettes, alcohol and motor cars of genuine consumers who are unaware of the indicative guidelines put out by the Government in respect of the single market. Once again, I refer to the confusion that has been caused.
My constituent brought in two litres of Bacardi. two litres of Campari and 30 litres of beer. He also brought in a substantial quantity of hand-rolling tobacco. For that, he lost his motor vehicle and his livelihood for two years. I compare that to a case in my constituency in which an individual was convicted for avoiding £2.5 million of duty on imported cigarettes—I do not mean cigarettes worth £2.5 million; I mean £2.5 million of duty. Somewhere along the line, Customs and Excise has got its priorities wrong. It attacked a constituent of mine for a few bags of tobacco and a few litres of beer, yet large-scale smuggling is still going on.
Customs and Excise appears to be able to do as it likes and does not appear to be responsible to anyone. It was found to have acted wrongly when Maidstone Crown court decided in favour of my constituent, but it is refusing to compensate him to anywhere near the level of his losses. It is hiding behind section 144, which states that because it acted reasonably—in view of the guidelines, that is obviously questionable—it does not have to pay. Again, I stress that my constituent is not claiming damages; he seeks compensation.
It took my constituent two years to get the case overturned, but Customs and Excise does not want to compensate him for the few thousand pounds that he lost. That is despite the fact that a newspaper article on 26 November 2002 pointed to the fact that Customs and Excise had probably lost £1.25 billion in respect of fraud cases and the monitoring of certain imports in a warehouse case. I compare that to a few litres of beer and a bag of tobacco. Even the Maidstone Crown court judge, who allowed the section 144 order, said that my constituent should not be out of pocket as a result of the actions of Customs and Excise.
There is a clear contradiction between what the judge intended and the attitude of Customs and Excise, and the compensation that it is offering. The judge clearly agreed that the action should not have been taken against my constituent and that he should not be out of pocket. Customs and Excise refuses to offer compensation, thus forcing him to consider other ways of trying to obtain the compensation that is due to him.
416WH
I believe that my constituent has been badly treated by Customs and Excise, which appears to be taking draconian measures against genuine consumers while ignoring large-scale smuggling that results in hundreds of millions of pounds in duty being lost. I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine the case to determine whether he can authorise the payment of proper compensation to my constituent.
4.15 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury(John Healey): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing the debate, which has provided an example of the tough way in which he pursues the interests of his constituents. As he said, I have been on the receiving end of his strong and fair, but tough, representations.
This debate is about the compensation and expenses that are properly payable in the case not just of Mr. Chivers but those in similar situations. In discussing any such case it is important to understand not only the facts of the particular case and how the law should be applied, but what the law says about the resolution of differences such as those that my hon. Friend pointed out in this instance.
I will deal with the specific points on compensation but, before doing so, I shall try to set those points in the legal framework in which Customs officers make decisions to seize goods and vehicles, and in which they acted in Mr. Chivers' case.
Mr. Chivers and his wife were stopped by Customs officers at Dover eastern docks on 10 May 2001. At the time of the seizure, the relevant legislation was the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, which was enacted by the previous Government in line with EU advice. That order made a presumption of commerciality when hand-rolling tobacco in excess of 1 kg was brought into the UK from another EU member state. After the interview, the officers concluded that they had evidence of commercial use and the 30 kg of hand-rolling tobacco belonging to Mr. Chivers was therefore seized. That amount of hand-rolling tobacco is enough for at least 36,000 cigarettes. It would last a 20a-day smoker five and a half years.
In October 2002 I laid new legislation before Parliament, which repealed the 1992 order. That legislation made it clear that tobacco and alcohol on which tax has been paid elsewhere in the EU and which has been imported to the UK for someone's own use is not liable to duty. It also made it clear that tobacco or alcohol imported for payment in cash or in kind, whether for profit or straight reimbursement—-known as commercial use—is subject to UK duties.
Mr. Illsley:On two occasions, my hon. Friend has mentioned evidence of commercial use. Could he elaborate on that? I have seen nothing in what I have been shown to suggest that Mr. Chivers was involved in the commercial use of those products.
John Healey:We must consider the question whether the case for commercial use was tested in the Court of Appeal; I shall address that point later. I was trying to explain the framework in which Customs officers acted

417WH
at that time—and act now—to make judgments about commercial or personal use, because that framework is different.
I was about to address my hon. Friend's point about minimum indicative levels. Those levels were set, on EU advice, at 800 cigarettes and 1 kg of hand-rolling tobacco. As a result of the changes that I introduced in October 2002, they are now set at 3,200 cigarettes and 3 kg of hand-rolling tobacco—the highest minimum indicative or guideline levels in the EU. That is at least six months' supply for the average smoker.
The new regulations remove the burden of proof on the individual to show that goods are for their own use. Again, that measure was introduced in 1992 under a previous Government and it reflected guidance from the EU. Under the new legislation, it is for Customs to be satisfied that goods are for commercial use. The point for my hon. Friend is that the legislation establishes that on the basis of a series of criteria set out in regulations, including the explanations offered by people importing large quantities. Customs has publicised the criteria widely—indeed, he mentioned a leaflet that refers to them—and it stands ready to explain its reasons for reaching such a view to any court or tribunal as necessary.
The new regulations reflect recent interpretations offered by the courts and represent an overhaul of 10year-old EU-based legislation. They have brought UK legislation fully in line with UK court rulings, EU-based legislation and existing practice.
The old regulations specifically said that a passenger with goods in excess of the minimum indicative levels had to prove that the excise goods were for their own use, but Customs has always had to be satisfied that it can explain and defend decisions and judgments when challenged at a tribunal or in court.
Mr. and Mrs. Chivers' car, which was used to carry the seized goods, was itself seized under the power in section 141 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to seize vehicles used to carry goods liable to forfeiture. As my hon. Friend said, Mr. and Mrs. Chivers appealed against the seizure on 15 May 2001, and the case was heard at Dover magistrates court on 25 April 2002. The court supported the decision made by the Customs officers, condemned the goods and the car, and awarded costs to Customs. However, Mr. Chivers appealed against the decision on 26 April 2002, and the appeal was heard in Maidstone Crown court on 17 June 2003.
The Crown court concluded that Customs had not proved that the hand-rolling tobacco was not for own use, so it allowed the appeal. However—this is the central point for my hon. Friend—in coming to its conclusion, the court also ruled that there were reasonable grounds for the seizure, if not for the permanent forfeiture of the goods, and it therefore signed a certificate under section 144(1) of the 1979 Act. That was not invoked by Customs, as my hon. Friend argued; the court made the determination, according to the merits of the case. The granting of a certificate is by no means automatic and is often not awarded in such cases.
418WH
It might be helpful if at this point I make clear to my hon. Friend the purpose of the legislation. Section 144 provides limited protection to the Crown in cases in which, although the court requires restoration of something that has been seized, it is satisfied that Customs' decision to seize the goods, and the car if appropriate, was reasonable, given the information available to it at the time. That was the decision taken. Let us say that a certificate is granted. Section 144(2) provides that the claimant cannot recover from Customs any consequential costs arising as a result of the seizure. However, section 144(3) preserves the claimant's right to have the seized item returned and to compensation in respect of any damage caused while it was seized.
That is the significant and central matter in this case and similar cases. In other words, Parliament has seen fit to provide a limit on the costs and expenses that an individual may recover if the courts are satisfied that Customs' actions were reasonable. Had the court refused to grant a certificate, Mr. Chivers would have been entitled not only to compensation for any damage, but to costs and expenses, which is the argument that my hon. Friend made. However, the court issued a section 144 certificate in this case. Therefore, Mr. Chivers is not entitled to recover any damages or costs, such as those incurred in respect of his travel between home and Dover on the day of the seizure, taxi fares while not in possession of the car or the finance costs for the car.
My hon. Friend mentioned my reply of 11 February, in which I explained to him that Customs understood that the agreement in relation to Mr. Chivers' car was a lease purchase agreement in which the title to the vehicle transferred to Mr. Chivers once the final payment was made. That is not uncommon in such an arrangement. However, Customs officials now understand that that is not so in Mr. Chivers' case and the vehicle is subject to a genuine lease. It follows that my argument in the letter regarding the effect of paying Mr. Chivers' lease payments—in other words, that we would be subsidising his purchase—is incorrect. I regret the error and apologise to Mr Chivers and my hon. Friend for that mistake.
I need also to make it clear, however, that it remains the case that the Crown court issued a section 144 certificate restricting the claims that Mr. Chivers can make against Customs for losses arising from the seizure of the goods and the car. As such, lease payments for a car are not recoverable. As a result of the court's ruling, and in accordance with its liability under the terms of the certificate, Customs returned the seized car to Mr. Chivers and offered to pay the purchase price of his goods, which have been disposed of, the cost of the trip and legal costs that he incurred up to and including the Crown court hearing.
In respect of the amount offered for the goods that were destroyed, I have advised Mr. Chivers that he can ask the Department for Constitutional Affairs to appoint an independent referee, who will adjudicate on the amount to be paid by Customs. We are not, as my hon. Friend put it, forcing any option on his constituent. It remains open to Mr. Chivers to seek further legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim on other matters relating to the case.

419WH
My hon. Friend made several wider points about tobacco smuggling and illicit markets, and Customs' response. As he will be aware, tobacco smuggling grew rapidly in the UK from the mid-1990s, so that by 2000 almost one cigarette in five smoked in the UK was illicit, at a cost at that time of more than £2 billion a year to the public purse. Without intervention, the illicit cigarette market was set to hit 34 per cent. last year, but in 2000 we introduced a tough clampdown on tobacco smuggling, so that the scale of the illicit market is on a downward trend. It has been reduced to 18 per cent., and over the three years of the tobacco smuggling strategy receipts to the public purse have risen and more than £3 billion of revenue has so far been protected.
My hon. Friend is concerned that Customs somehow may be targeting shoppers, not smugglers. Part of the purpose of the reforms that I introduced and the next stage of the strategy I launched in October 2002 was to confirm that the Government fully uphold the rights of UK citizens to bring back unlimited amounts of alcohol or tobacco from cross-channel shopping trips, so long as
420WH
they are for their own use. We are, however, determined to crack down on smugglers who bring back alcohol and tobacco to be sold illegally in the UK.
My hon. Friend and I know the scale of the problem. Our own area of South Yorkshire is one of the hot spots for such activity, and he may like to know that Customs has seized about 17 million cigarettes in South Yorkshire in the current financial year alone, often in joint operations with the police.
The new guideline levels are designed to be fair for the honest shopper, tough on criminal smugglers and clearer about the distinction between the two. They help to clear up the confusion about which my hon. Friend is concerned. They help to draw the distinction in the public mind between the honest shopper and the professional smuggler, and they help the Customs officer to make better judgments between the two. The balance between tackling smugglers and upholding the rights of shoppers has been effectively struck.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "Building Schools for the Future"
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what brief the architects commissioned to produce designs for 21st century schools, as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme, were given with regard to sports and physical activity. [159864]

  Mr. Miliband
  The exemplar designs allowed for a variety of sites and school sizes for 4 to 11 primary schools, 11 to 18 secondary schools and 4 to 18 all-through school.

  The design briefs for the exemplar designs included:
  minimum indoor sports provision of a one-court sports hall and a small activity studio for primary pupils;
  minimum indoor sports provision of a four-court sports hall, a main hall and an activity studio for secondary pupils;
  minimum outdoor facilities (even in the most constrained sites) of a hard surfaced multi-use games area, as well as pitches for summer and winter games and an all weather pitch where the site demanded it.

  Sports halls and multi-use games area were required to conform to the minimum dimensions and specifications required by Sports England for community use. All this provision and its ancillary accommodation was to be located appropriately to be available to the community outside the school day.

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultations have been made with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding the Building Schools for the Future programme to ensure that schools have the capacity to increase sporting activity. [159865]

  Mr. Miliband
  There have been a number of positive discussions both at official and ministerial level, about how we can ensure synergy of our capital resources in order to maximise them and to deliver the national strategy to improve schools' PE and Sports facilities. Our aim is that following BSF investment all secondary schools will have sports facilities suitable for wider community use.

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what share of the £5.1 billion capital investment for Building Schools for the Future is allocated for sports and physical activity resources. [159868]

  Mr. Miliband
  This Government gives great priority to the physical and recreational needs of our children as well as their academic needs.
  1382W
  Central Government capital funding for school buildings in 2005–06 is over £5.1 billion, including over £2 billion allocated to the first wave of Building Schools for the Future (BSF). BSF aims to transform secondary schools so that they are fit for the teaching and learning needs of the 21st century, including for sports and physical activity. Decisions on investment will be made locally by the authorities which have been allocated funding as they develop their projects, in line with their priorities which will reflect local need and government policies. In time, all secondary schools in England will benefit from BSF.

  The balance of capital funding, of about £3 billion in 2005–06, is mainly allocated to schools and authorities by formula, so that they can make investment decisions locally, in line with the priorities of their asset management plan.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, which schools which have benefited from the Building Schools for the Future programme open up their sports facilities to the wider community out-of-hours. [159871]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Building Schools for the Future programme aims to transform secondary provision over a 10–15 year period starting in 2005–06, subject to future spending decisions. Therefore no schools have yet benefited from the programme. Local authorities to be included in the first wave of projects were announced on 12 February. Over the coming months they will be developing their plans in association with their schools and other local partners. Our aim is that following BSF investment all secondary schools will have sports facilities suitable for wider community use.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure on communications for the Department 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. [158157]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The DFES estimates that Strategy and Communications Directorate will, in 2003–04, expend around £4.9 million of its administrative budget on communications staff. £2 million of that will be on Government Information and Communication Service (GICs) staff. Press officers will make up approximately £0.7 million of the GICS cost. There are no press officer costs outside of this.

  Additionally, policy directorates plan to spend £3.5 million on their communications staff in 2003–04. It would be of disproportionate cost to identify any further GICs costs within this.

  The Special Advisers' Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister. This includes communications activity. Details of the costs of special advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.
  1383W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff are employed in the Department to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158160]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The DFES Strategy and Communications Directorate (SCD) currently employ 159 staff on communication activities, 54 are members of the Government Information and Communication service (GICs), of whom 23 are press officers. There are no non-GICs press officers. In addition, policy directorates employ a further 121 'other' staff on communications activities.

  There are two special advisers' to the Secretary of State. The Special Advisers' Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister. This includes communications activity. Details of the costs of special advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146917]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are 56 members of staff in my Department who work in the West Midlands. There are no members of my staff employed in North Staffordshire.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of how much(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities spent on recruitment advertising in each year since 1997. [159846]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has made no such estimates.

  School Exclusions (Cannabis)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent estimate he has made of whether the number of(a) permanent and (b) fixed term pupil exclusions related to possession or use of cannabis has been affected by the reclassification of cannabis. [159995]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department started to collect data on the reasons for exclusions, including drug-related incidents, from summer term 2003. The first term's data are not yet available.

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department sets as(a) the ideal and (b) the minimum sports facilities for a secondary school. [159866]
  1384W
  Mr. Miliband
  Advice on the requirements for accommodation in secondary schools, including sports provision. will be available on the web from 1 April 2004 in Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects. This will supersede the current Area Guidelines for Schools and enhance the current area recommendations.

  The guidance sets out minimum recommended provision and also allows sufficient overall area to allow for further facilities, both indoor and outdoor, appropriate to the priorities of individual schools. Hence:

  (a) the ideal provision will depend on the priorities of the school and its extended role in providing facilities for the wider community. For instance, while all schools would be able to offer community use outside school hours, sports colleges and other schools could provide facilities more appropriate to the regional demands of specific sports.

  (b) the minimum provision recommended for new secondary schools, in line with current guidance, is a minimum indoor sports provision of a four-court sports hall, to Sport England minimum specifications and other large spaces (including the main hall and activity studios that would be used for Physical Education and should be appropriate and sufficient to ensure that examinations and assemblies need not take place in the sports hall. Minimum recommended outdoor facilities include pitches for summer and winter games and a hard surfaced multi-use games area, again to Sport England minimum specifications.

  School Year
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he was consulted prior to the Government's announcement of support for proposals to change the school year; what assessment he has made of the overall impact on the economy of these proposals; and what assessment he has made of the impact on specific sectors of the economy, with particular reference to(a) tourism and (b) transport. [159874]

  Mr. Miliband
  Proposals for a standard six-term school year have been developed by an independent commission on the school year which was established by the Local Government Association. The Commission included representation from the tourism industry. My right hon. Friend sees merit in the argument in favour of standardising the length of school terms. Decisions on school term dates and holidays however continue to be the responsibility of individual local education authorities or school governing bodies, depending on the category of school

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) specialist schools and (b) non-specialist schools are designated under section 100 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and how many and what percentage of pupils they have selected in each of the last six years. [155621]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools' admission arrangements are determined locally without central consultation or approval. The DfES therefore cannot provide figures on
  1385W
  the number of schools which fall into this category (i.e. whose selective admission arrangements pre-dated the 1998 Act).

  The evidence suggests that just under 6 per cent. of the 685 schools that had specialist status in September 2001 used aptitude as part of their admission arrangements. The following table shows the latest collated information relating to partial selection by specialist schools. Most of these schools were selecting by aptitude

  Specialist schools selecting by aptitude as at September 2001

  Specialism

  School

  LEA

  Start

  Percentage1

  Technology

  Archbishop Blanch School

  Liverpool

  1996

  5.6

  Technology

  Archbishop Temple School

  Lancashire

  1995

  10.0

  Language

  Bohunt School

  Hampshire

  1996

  10.0

  Arts

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent

  School Essex

  1999

  10.0

  Technology

  Budmouth Technology College

  Dorset

  1995

  10.0

  Technology

  Central School (The)

  Lincolnshire

  2001

  10.0

  Technology

  Chaucer Technology School

  Kent

  1996

  67.0

  Arts

  Chestnut Grow School

  Wandsworth

  1997

  16.0

  Technology

  Cornwallis School

  Kent

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  Deacon's School

  Peterborough, city

  1994

  15.0

  Technology

  Denbigh School

  Milton Keynes

  1997

  10.0

  Arts

  Eastwood School (The)

  Southend on Sea

  2001

  10.0

  Technology

  George Spencer GM School

  Nottinghamshire

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  Glyn Technology School

  Surrey

  1994

  15.0

  Technology

  Heathside School

  Surrey

  1995

  4.0

  Language

  Hendon School

  Barnet, LB of

  1995

  10.0

  Language

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertfordshire

  1998

  10.0

  Arts

  Intake High School

  Leeds

  1998

  10.0

  Arts

  Latimer Community Arts College

  Northamptonshire

  1997

  10.0

  Technology

  Lodge Park School

  Northamptonshire

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  Lynn Grove VA High School

  Norfolk

  1994

  15.0

  Technology

  Mill Hill County High School

  Barnet, LB of

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  Monks' Dyke Technology College

  Lincolnshire

  1995

  10.0

  Technology

  Moseley Park School

  Wolverhampton

  1995

  10.0

  Technology

  Ninestiles School

  Birmingham

  1997

  10.0

  Arts

  North Kesteven School

  Lincolnshire

  2000

  10.0

  Sports

  Oakbank School

  Bradford

  1997

  10.0

  Sports

  Oldfield School

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1997

  10.0

  Technology

  Philip Morant School

  Essex

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  Princes Risborough School

  Buckinghamshire

  2001

  3.2

  Language

  Robert Pattinson School

  Lincolnshire

  2001

  2.0

  Technology

  Sandwich Technology School

  Kent

  1996

  10.0

  Technology

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  1994

  10.0

  Technology

  St. Margaret's C of E High School

  Liverpool

  1997

  15.0

  Technology

  St. Martin's School

  Essex

  1995

  10.0

  Arts

  St. Marylebone School (The)

  Westminster

  1998

  10.0

  Sports

  Southfields Community College

  Wandsworth, LB of

  2000

  10.0

  Arts

  Stantonbury Campus North

  Milton Keynes

  1998

  5.0

  Sports

  Whitefield School

  Barnet, LB of

  1999

  10.0

  Sports

  Wye Valley School (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  1998

  10.0

  1 Of the 685 specialist schools operational as at September 2001, the above 40 (that is, just under 6 per cent.) selected a percentage of their pupils on aptitude/ability in the chosen specialist subject.

  Notes:

  The percentages refer to aptitude selection relating to the schools' specialist school designations, some schools may also select for aptitude in other specialisms.

  This information was taken from progress reports submitted by 685 specialist schools operational as at September 2001.

  Working Group on 14 to 19 Reform
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) budget and (b) estimated cost to date is of the Working Group on 14 to 19 reform. [159638]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Budget: £724,000 in 2003–04, including £224,000 for running costs;
  1386W
  prior to the 1998 Act, with some selecting more than 10 per cent. of their pupils. The next time specialist schools will be asked to provide aptitude selection data will be this autumn.

  The admissions framework for specialist schools is the same as for all other maintained schools. Applicants must be considered against the school's published admission arrangements, including, where applicable, selection.

  (b) Estimated cost to date: £518,000 as at 31 January, including £198,000 on running costs.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who has(a) been approached by and (b) responded to consultation by the Working Group on 14 to 19 Reform. [159639]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following the publication of its Progress Report in July 2003, the Working Group on 14–19 Reform consulted a wide variety of organisations and individuals, including schools, colleges, higher education
  1387W
  institutions, employers and their representative bodies. I understand that, following his appearance at a meeting of the Select Committee on Education and Skills on 3 March, Mike Tomlinson, Chair of the Working Group, will be sending the hon. Member and other Members of the Select Committee details of the 350 organisations and individuals who commented on the Progress Report. I will ensure that this information is also placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  The Working Group is currently inviting comments on the recommendations in its Interim Report, which was published on 17 February. It will therefore be in dialogue with key stakeholders to ensure that the concerns of employers; higher education; young people and their parents are carefully considered. It is also holding a series of regional events to make sure those in the front line of education and training delivery have opportunities to comment. The aim is to ensure direct engagement of all these parties in the development of the recommendations of the final report of the Working Group, due in the autumn.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate has been made of the cost of implementing the proposals of the Working Group on 14 to 19 Reform. [159640]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government welcomes the recent publication of the Interim Report of the Working Group on 14–19 Reform. The Working Group will be submitting its final report in the autumn. That final report will include recommendations for the timetable and the way in which proposals should be implemented; the costs and other resource and practical implications of reform; and the further policy and implementation work needed. The Government will decide on the way forward for the 14–19 phase of learning in the light of the recommendations in the final report, including the cost implications.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Foster Inquiry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the planned date is for the completion of the Foster inquiry into the funding of British athletics; when its report will be published; how soon after the publication of the report the remainder of the legacy money will be allocated to athletics in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [156891]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Foster inquiry is due to be completed around the middle of April, with the report to be published shortly afterwards. Legacy funds will be released as soon as is practicable based upon the report's recommendations.

  Reading and Libraries
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives the Government have introduced to promote(a)reading and (b) library usage (i) in England and (ii) at a local level; at what cost; what promotional techniques and media were used; and if she will make a statement. [158966]
  1388W
  Estelle Morris
  In February 2003, DCMS published Framework for the Future, the first-ever national public libraries strategy. "Framework" reflects a 10 year vision to improve public libraries, affirming that reading and learning are at the heart of libraries' modern mission. "Framework" identified many good practice examples in libraries and proposed a strategy to build on this excellence to improve services delivered by all libraries in England. DCMS and Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) are taking the strategy forward through a three-year action plan, which is on the MLA website: www.mla.gov.uk.

  Considerable work has been done in this area. Examples of some of the specific schemes to promote reading include: Book start, which DCMS has funded with £500,000, over the last two financial years, which provides reading books and a libraries card for babies; a Quality Index fiction tool, that is being developed in conjunction with the Audit Commission and Arts Council England to help authorities identify the quality of their stock and a joint DCMS/Wolfson Foundation Fund to which DCMS has contributed £4 million, over two years, for reader development projects. Arts Council England also support a number of reader development programmes through public libraries.

  Very nearly all of England's over 3,000 libraries have been connected to the internet through the £100 million lottery funded People's Network programme. The early indications are that the People's Network has increased the number and types of people that use our public libraries.

  School Sports Grounds
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many school sports grounds have been sold in each London borough since 1997. [159169]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no figures available until October 1998 when we introduced new legislation to stop the indiscriminate sell off of school playing fields. Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. Local authorities and schools now must obtain the written consent of the Secretary of State before disposing, or changing the use, of school playing fields. Applications to sell school playing fields are approved only where it is clear that any proceeds will be used to improve school sports provision or education facilities.

  The following table shows the number of approved applications from London boroughs to sell areas of school playing field capable of forming at least a small sports pitch.

  London boroughs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1389W

  London boroughs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. A 'school sports pitch' is an area of playing field that has the shape and topography to form at least a sports pitch of 2,000m2.

  2. The table includes playing fields that have been used as school sports pitches within the 10 years before the application was made.

  3. There were no figures collected before October 1998.

  4. The table reflects applications made by each authority. The playing field that was the subject of the application need not be in the same borough as that making the application.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many television licences have been bought online in each year since the service became available. [158043]

  Estelle Morris
  Facilities for paying the television licence fee online have been available since December 1999. The BBC has provided the following information on the number of television licences paid for online in each calendar year since then:

  Number of licences paid for online

  1999 (December only)

  59

  2000

  4,628

  2001

  59,137

  2002

  127,201

  2003

  178,642

  Workplace Exercise
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what action her Department is taking to encourage employers to give their workers the opportunity to take exercise(a) at or close to the workplace and (b) in or around the work-day; [159948]

  (2) what her Department's policy is on encouraging employers to allow employees longer lunch breaks to spend time engaged in active recreational activities. [159953]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has an active Sports and Social Club that encourages staff to take part in a range of sporting, fitness and leisure activities:(a) cricket and softball teams practice and compete at various locations at or
  1390W
  close to the workplace and staff can exercise at the on-site fitness facility; (b) a flexible working policy operates that allows staff the flexibility to take exercise at times to suit them, either during an extended lunch-break or at the start or end of the working day.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the benefit to small farms in Lancashire of the revised Common Agricultural Policy. [153888]

  Alun Michael
  The link between the subsidy paid to farmers and the level of production has been broken. This is known as "decoupling". This means that activities of farmers in the UK will no longer be dictated by subsidy regimes and frees them to farm for what the market wants.

  By removing incentives for intensification and over-production, and by linking compliance to a range of environmental standards, decoupling will help to reduce damaging environmental impacts.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, outlined in her statement to the House, on 12 February, that in England we have now set out a fair basis for calculating the single payment that will be sustainable in the longer term.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money from the Common Agricultural Policy has gone into the North-West Region in each of the last five years. [156504]

  Alun Michael
  The figures in the following table represent the amount of money that has gone into the North-West Region from the Common Agricultural Policy in each of the last five years.

  These are based on the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) year which runs from 16 October to 15 October.

  EAGGF year

  Amount

  19991

  114,947,199.98

  2000

  190,337,294.44

  2001

  221,572,202.49

  2002

  178,075,721.05

  2003

  214,156,549.44

  Total

  919,088,967.40

  1 Figures available from August 1999 only, due to implementation of current data management system. Data prior to that time could be accessed only at disproportionate cost in time and resources.

  Branding
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will assess the benefits for English farmers of an English brand to compete with the Welsh and Scottish brands for beef and lamb. [157705]
  1391W
  Alun Michael
  The branding of lamb and beef is a matter for the industry under the auspices of the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX). Defra strongly support the steps being taken by EBLEX to launch a marketing strategy for English beef and lamb.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list London buildings leased by her Department; what the total cost of such leases was in the latest year for which information is available; how many staff work in each building; and what the nature of their employment is. [156599]

  Alun Michael
  The Department leases the following London buildings for use by its civil servants and Ministers, where we are the sole occupier:

  Staff

  10 Whitehall Place, SW1

  326

  Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, SW1

  550

  Ergon House, 17 Smith Square, SW1

  568

  1A Page St, SW1

  682

  Eastbury House, 30-34 Albert Embankment, SE1

  105

  Cromwell House, Dean Stanley Street, SW1

  183

  55 Whitehall, SW11

  1Currently vacant

  3–8 Whitehall Place, SW12

  2 Currently being

  redeveloped

  1 Although currently vacant, 55 Whitehall is being prepared for occupation by all of Defra's family of organisations moving from another central London location. It should be ready by September 2004.

  The total cost of the leases for these buildings for 2002–03 was £12,174,290.

  The Department also has agreements with other Government Departments to occupy space in their buildings:

  Staff

  Ashdown House

  646

  9 Millbank

  255

  Woburn Place

  132

  Note

  Staff numbers quoted include part time staff, agency temps and consultants.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what help her Department gives to the setting-up of farmers' markets in England. [156110]

  Alun Michael
  Defra makes provision under the England Rural Development Programme for grants for projects promoting farmers' markets. Within the last year we awarded £100,256 to the National Association of Farmers' Markets (NAFM—now known as the National Farmers' Retail and Markets Association) to raise the profile of farmers' markets across England and to increase public awareness of them. NAFM also received funding from Defra under the Agriculture Development Scheme for the publication of information booklets and to help producers develop 1392W
  their knowledge of sales and marketing; and to help NAFM develop its certification programme for accrediting farmers' markets. The Countryside Agency, which we grant aid, also provided start-up funding to NAFM. In addition, in November 2002, my noble Friend, the Lord Whitty wrote to all Local Authorities outlining the benefits farmers' markets bring and the role they play in bringing urban and rural communities together. They offer an excellent outlet for farmers to sell their produce direct to consumers and the Department is keen to encourage their development.

  Grazing Land
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much land in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Europe is used for (i) grazing and (ii) growing food for animals; and what the figures were 10 years ago. [156835]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  (a)UK

  (i)Area of land (hectares) used for grazing in the United Kingdom

  1993

  2003

  Permanent grass

  5,274,280

  5,683,469

  Temporary grass

  1,582,160

  1,200,550

  Sole rights rough grazing

  4,878,598

  4,329,287

  Common rough grazing

  1,228,901

  1,236,392

  (ii) As some crops are grown for human as well as animal consultation, it is not possible to provide a complete total of the crops grown for animals but the June agricultural census indicates that the totals of crops grown specifically for stock feeding are:

  Total fodder crops1

  1993

  388,081

  2003

  414,877

  1 Includes Turnips and Swedes, Fodder, beet and mangolds, Kale, Cabbage, savoy, kohlrabi and rape, all others for stock feeding.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  (b) Europe

  Comparable figures are published from the EU Farm Structure Survey (Farm Structure Survey 1999/2000 ISBN 92–894—5618—3). The latest estimates for the Survey in 1999–2000 indicate that the area of permanent grassland and meadow was 45 m hectares for the EU 15 and 9 m hectares for the UK.

  Separate figures are not available for stock feeding crops.

  Fuller information on the surveys and results can be obtained from the Eurostat website.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ban electric shopping scooters from rights of way; and if she will make a statement. [159258]

  Alun Michael
  We have no plans to ban electric shopping scooters. Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that anyone driving a mechanically
  1393W
  propelled vehicle off-road or on a road that is a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway without lawful authority is guilty of an offence. However, where an invalid carriage is being used in accordance with the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988, section 20(1)(b) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person Act 1970 provides an exemption for such vehicles. It specifically excludes the section 34 offences from applying to invalid carriages.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural 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 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. [158247]

  Alun Michael
  There are no central records of the number of staff employed on a temporary basis through employment agencies. Departmental accounts show payments to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff and consultants as follows: 2001–02—£27.03 million; 2002–03—£19.6 million; 2003/end of February 2004—£14.7 million.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance the Government are giving to the Afghan Government in reforming the civil service in Afghanistan. [159890]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has provided technical assistance to the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission, Office of the President, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Rural Reconstruction and Development and the Ministry of Health. We also provided support last year for ministerial expenses.

  We have also committed funds to the Second Emergency Public Administration Programme, which is to be managed and co-funded by the World Bank. This programme will provide further support to the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission: it will also provide technical assistance to a number of key Ministries for the preparation and implementation of the Priority Reform and Restructuring process. We also plan to support the establishment of an effective Cabinet Secretariat.

  All of these initiatives aim to help the Afghan Government work towards a merit-based, effective, well-structured civil service that can deliver the services the Afghan people need.

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department has provided in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 to tackle HIV/AIDS in Burma. [157475]
  1394W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's funding to tackle HIV/AIDS in Burma totalled £2.86 million in 2002–03 and is expected to total £2.84 million in 2003–04. The money is given to a UN Administered fund supported by DFID and three other donors for work on HIV/AIDS in Burma. Operational management is by a Technical Working Group chaired by UNAIDS. The Fund supports the work of international and national non-government organisations, UN agencies, and the Government's National Aids Programme.

  Our work to tackle HIV/AIDS is essential to preventing the humanitarian situation in Burma worsening considerably and it is in line with the EU Common Position.

  EU Development Policy
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response the Government has made to the document "Human Security: Placing Development at the Heart of the EU's External Relations" produced by the Irish EU Presidency Project. [158951]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government have not made any formal response to the "Placing Development at the Heart of the European Union's External Relations" document, produced by the Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations. However we welcome many of the ideas in the report, such as the focus on multilateralism and on HIV/AIDS.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations the Government has had with the Irish Government about their proposals for international development in the recent Irish EU Presidency project document "Human Security: Placing Development at the Heart of the EU's External Relations". [158952]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government have not had any specific consultations with the Irish Presidency about the "Placing Development at the Heart of the European Union's External Relations" produced by the Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations. We welcome many of the ideas in the report, such as the focus on multilateralism and on HIV/AIDS.

  Haiti
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been provided to Haiti in the last two years as part of multilateral programmes including those funded by(a) the European Union and (b) the World Bank. [159144]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The data on how much British money has been provided to Haiti in the last two years as part of multilateral programmes is not available.

  The last available data is for 2001, where the UK's imputed multilateral share was £4.0 million, of which £1.8 million was through the European Union, and £0.1 million was through the World Bank.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department plans to reassess its policy on the provision of bilateral aid to Haiti. [159160]
  1395W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has no immediate plans to reassess its present policy on bilateral development assistance to Haiti. DFID will continue to provide direct funds to Haiti through the Small Grants Scheme and the Civil Society Challenge Fund. It will also continue to provide support to Haiti through contributions to international agencies working there.

  Given the current crisis, DFID has sent a two person team to Haiti to assess the humanitarian situation and discuss needs with humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations agencies that will shortly be launching a consolidated Flash Appeal.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much direct British Government aid has gone to(a) non-government organisations and (b) other civil society groups working in Haiti in the past three years; what other sums have been provided to Haiti; and to whom. [159161]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In Financial Years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03, DFID has provided a total of £409,375 in direct British aid to Haiti. This amount includes all disbursements to non-government organisations and civil society groups through the Small Grants Scheme and the Civil Society Challenge Fund. The organisations which have made use of these funds are:

  Fraternité Notre Dame

  Plan International

  Concern

  Save the Children

  Catholic Relief Services

  Action Aid

  Oxfam

  CARE

  Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)

  Médecins du Monde

  Nepal
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice his Department gives to British aid workers in Nepal on the Government's policy towards(a) the Government of Nepal and (b) Maoist rebels against the Government of Nepal. [160175]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID seeks to ensure that our assistance does not undermine the Nepal Government's capacity and, where possible, helps to develop it. DFID's new Country Assistance Plan to Nepal will be launched in country in April. It provides support to the Nepal Government with economic and social reform, particularly to improve delivery of basic services to poor people and to address discrimination on grounds of gender and caste. The programme also seeks to deliver development benefits to poor people in rural areas through a variety of channels.

  Many DFID funded programmes work directly or indirectly with the Nepal Government. It is important that they are run in the field with operational neutrality including the areas that have a strong Maoist presence. Programmes seek to ensure that developmental benefits reach the poor, and to ensure that our assistance is not
  1396W
  used for any military, political or sectarian purposes. Our programmes are run transparently and are open to inspection by all.

  DFID has had a leading role in creating a multi-donor set of Basic Operating Guidelines, which reflect this advice.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the safety of British aid workers in Nepal. [160176]

  Hilary Benn
  Both the Foreign Secretary and I attach high priority to the safety of British aid workers in Nepal and this issue has been the subject of regular discussions and correspondence on the government's policy towards the conflict.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he has taken to ensure the safety of British aid workers in Nepal. [160177]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID gives the issue of staff safety in Nepal the highest priority. In 2002 we established a Risk Management Office (RMO) to provide risk assessment and crisis management expertise, as well as to provide training, support and advice to all staff associated with our programmes and projects. Since then the RMO has delivered training to over 300 field staff to help them to continue to work in remote and conflict affected parts of the country. The RMO undertakes risk assessments on a regular basis, the results of which are fed back to field managers. Field staff have also received assurances that DFID will support their decisions at any time to withdraw from an area because of concerns about their personal safety.

  North Korea
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the levels of food shortages in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [159225]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that the North Korean food output falls short of need by 944,000 tonnes, but due to the environment of secrecy and restrictions on agencies operating there, it is difficult to be certain of figures regarding the situation in North Korea. It is the case that around a quarter of the population of 22 million require food aid to meet the recommended daily calorie intake. This leaves many recipients, particularly children, the elderly and the sick, vulnerable to breaks in the supply of assistance.

  The World Food Programme has recently re-started cereal distributions following a stall in February brought about by a lack of contributions. It estimates however, that 1.5 million vulnerable people are still likely to go without assistance until the end of March when further contributions are expected. Beyond March, 600,000 core beneficiaries may still not receive cereal rations at least until June.

  It is important to tackle the problem of malnutrition through a balanced approach to its causes. Both my Department and the European Commission Humanitarian Office, are concerned that food aid currently accounts for

  1397W
  90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of requested assistance, while poor water and sanitation increases the prevalence of water-born diseases and diarrhoea, which in turn worsens malnutrition. A significant proportion of the population of 22 million have poor quality water and sanitation and only 52 per cent. have access to safe drinking water. DFID has recently agreed to provide £1.023 million in support of the United Nations Children's Fund for its work in water, sanitation and primary health care (e.g. vaccinations and other essential medical supplies) in North Korea.

  The European Commission is funding targeted food aid through the World Food Programme and other organisations. In January it agreed to give €5 million. The United Kingdom's share of European Community assistance is approximately £680,000.

  Somalia
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the levels of food shortages in Somalia. [159227]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  According to a recent report from the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), cereals availability across Somalia from the most recent harvest is higher than average, totalling 287,000 tonnes; total food aid requirements are lower than average at 70,000 tonnes (of which 18,000 tonnes have been pledged).

  The Somalia Food Security Assessment Unit is highlighting serious drought-related food insecurity in the north (in the Sool Plateau, Lower Nugaal, and Togdheer), and in central Somali regions. Most of southern Somalia is free from major food shortages, although some groups remain vulnerable, as indicated by high rates of malnutrition.

  In response to nutritional difficulties in Somalia, the UK is providing £480,000 to International Medical Corps for health and nutritional services, and has also given £300,000 to UNICEF for a nutrition project.

  Sudan
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the requirement for aid supplies for the Darfur region of Sudan. [159226]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Access for humanitarian workers is now beginning to open up in Darfur. Some assessments of needs are now possible, in limited areas. We know from initial reports that immediate needs include shelter, water, health and food assistance.

  We have contributed over £6 million to the crisis in Darfur, through United Nations (UN) agencies and international non-governmental organisations. We have also provided four humanitarian affairs officers to assist the UN response for three months. Three of these will be based in Darfur and will, among other things, undertake assessments of humanitarian needs.

  We are urging all the parties involved to re-establish a ceasefire, preferably with international monitoring, permit humanitarian access to all those in need, and resume talks to find a peaceful solution to Darfur's problems.
  1398W
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the influx of Sudanese refugees into Chad. [159228]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A DFID Humanitarian Adviser visited Chad between 7 and 12 February. He visited refugees at the border with Sudan, who have fled from the fighting in Darfur in Western Sudan. The present location of refugees along the border is unsafe. New camps are being set up away from the border, where refugees will be safe from attack. Our Adviser visited one of these new relocation camps at Forchana. Other relocation camps are at Touloum and Kounoungu. Eight thousand refugees have been moved to the new camps to date.

  The general condition of the approximately 110,000 refugees is poor. Around Tine, Medecins Sans Frontieres established that 27 per cent. of children were malnourished, whereas around Adre only quite low levels of malnutrition were detected. Lack of food, shelter, safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are the main risks.

  There is an effective humanitarian response in place led by United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), with significant contributions from non-governmental emergency relief organisations. The UK is one of the major contributors to this effort with an early £1 million contribution to UNHCR in October last year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the relocation of civil service posts to the regions and nations of the UK. [159456]

  Mr. Alexander
  Sir Michael Lyons is currently leading an independent review of the scope to relocate civil servants and other public sector workers. Sir Michael will make recommendations to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that this will be shortly.

  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Strategy Unit expects to publish its alcohol harm reduction strategy. [159808]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 619.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the progress made by the Better Regulation Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [159575]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Task Force provides an important contribution to the Government's work on better regulation.
  1399W
  Since its creation in 1997 it has produced 30 substantive reports with around 400 recommendations. The Government have accepted all but 10 of its recommendations.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was of(a) the establishment and (b) the maintenance since its establishment of the Better Regulation Task Force. [159573]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Task Force was established in 1997. Before July 1999, the cost of the Task Force was met from within the budget of the Regulatory Impact Unit in the Cabinet Office. It is not possible to identify specific costs for the Task Force within this overall budget.

  Since July 1999, the Task Force has been supported by a dedicated support team. The costs of this, and the expenses of Task Force members, now amount to around £0.5 million per annum.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received on the Better Regulation Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [159580]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Task Force makes an important contribution to the Government's work on better regulation. I have discussed the work of the Task Force at a number of recent meetings including the seminar for MPs on better regulation held in January and the conference for independent regulators hosted by the NAO in October 2003.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received regarding Civil Service recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [160036]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under the Civil Service Order in Council 1995, individual government departments and agencies have delegated authority for the recruitment of staff to the Home Civil Service.

  The Cabinet Office has responsibility for the central framework of conditions, as set out in the Civil Service Management Code. As such, the Cabinet Office continues to receive representations from stakeholders and interested parties regarding recruitment to the Civil Service.

  Computer Purchasing (Working Practices)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that Government Departments purchase computers from firms which ensure that their sub-contractors in developing countries respect workers' rights and provide decent working conditions; and if he will make a statement. [157355]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Each Government Department is responsible for its own procurement decisions, within the framework of the Government's procurement policy, based on value for money, and the EU procurement rules. The information required from, or obligations placed on,
  1400W
  suppliers should be relevant to the subject matter and performance of the particular contract and consistent with the requirements of the EU procurement directives, where applicable, and the EU Treaty. This applies to social, employment and ethical issues—whether it is in relation to the supplier itself or to any potential sub-contractors.

  Crown Employment (Nationality Restrictions)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to review the nationality restrictions on Crown employment; and if he will make a statement. [160021]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government supports Andrew Dismore's Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill which is currently listed for Second Reading on 14 May.

  Government Information and Communication Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to change the level of expenditure on the Government Information and Communication Service. [159334]

  Mr. Alexander
  Members of the GICS work across government.

  Individual departments are responsible for their own expenditure on Communications.

  Within the Cabinet Office, funding for existing GICS central functions will be maintained at current levels, pending the transfer of responsibilities to the new Permanent Secretary of Government Communications, whose appointment was recommended by the independent Phillis Review of Government Communications.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments/Unit
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what resources have been allocated for the Regulatory Impact Assessment process for each year between 1998 and 2006. [160134]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the total resources allocated to the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) process across Government are not held centrally. Each department is responsible for producing robust RIAs to assess the impact of proposals that are likely to have an effect on business, charities and the voluntary sector which consider all available options including non-regulatory alternatives.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people are employed in the Regulatory Impact Unit. [160035]

  Mr. Alexander
  As at the 1 March 2004, 63 staff were working in the Regulatory Impact Unit.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the impact of the Regulatory Impact Unit; and if he will make a statement. [160038]
  1401W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Regulatory Impact Unit works with other Government Departments, agencies and regulators to promote the better regulation agenda. The work of the Unit covers the private and public sectors, domestic and European issues.

  In its assessments of the UK's performance in the area of regulatory reform the OECD has said that the UK is "at the forefront of regulatory reform" and "has almost the lowest administration cost and fewer regulations for entrepreneurs than any other EU country".

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office by what means his Department judges the cost–effectiveness of Government websites as an information tool. [159522]

  Mr. Alexander
  The provision and ongoing delivery of Government websites, is the responsibility of individual Government Departments and authorities.

  The Cabinet Office has published the Guidelines for UK Government websites, containing a substantial range of best practice on the building of websites, their management, their content, effective procurement and the evaluation of their reliability in delivering information to the citizen.

DEFENCE

  Advertising
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount has been spent on Ministry of Defence advertising in the(a) UK, (b) Wales and (c) England since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. [158890]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the plans(a) agreed to by his Department and (b) being discussed by his Department with regard to the use of British armed forces and personnel during expansion of NATO operations in Afghanistan; [158834]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the expansion of NATO operations in Afghanistan on the number of (a) international forces and (b) British armed forces based in Kabul. [158835]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]The expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will be carried out under a comprehensive NATO operational plan currently being prepared by the Alliance. This will assess troop requirements both in Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan. Decisions on the United Kingdom's military contribution to the international forces there will depend on the requirements of the operational plan and upon our determination to build on the success of the ISAF by offering to lead its expansion in Northern Afghanistan.

  Aircraft Costs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of each(a) Typhoon, (b) joint strike fighter, (c) A200M and (d) advanced jet trainer. [156132]

  Mr. Ingram
  Unit production costs (UPC) for major equipment programmes, such as Typhoon, where these are practical to construct, can be found within the information given in the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report (MPR). Those figures are estimated in accordance to methodology agreed with the National Audit Office (NAO). The NAO published their report on MPR 2003 on 23 January 2004 and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The cost per unit of Typhoon as stated in MPR 2003 is £56.8 million.

  The unit production cost for the Joint Strike Fighter will not be agreed until after the completion of the current negotiations on the Production and Sustainment Phase Memorandum of Understanding. However, the estimated UPC of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is around $50 million on current planning assumptions.

  At part (c) of his question I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to A400M. The current forecast cost of the UK programme is £2356 million. I am withholding the unit price information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice access to Government Information, which relates to third party commercial confidences.

  The cost of each Advanced Jet Trainer will not be known until contractual negotiations with BAE Systems have been concluded. It should be noted that unit production costs are on a resource account basis and exclude development costs.

  Birth Defects (Iraq)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has examined evidence of birth defects among babies born to service families whose members were deployed in Iraq in 2003 and who were inoculated for anthrax, with particular reference to those serving in the 33 Field Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [159420]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]The Health Protection Agency, which is a Special Health Authority accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, has confirmed that the anthrax vaccine has been used for many years and there has never been any indication that it could lead to congenital problems.

  Civilian Jobs (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civilian jobs are in Scotland, broken down by location. [159305]

  Mr. Caplin
  Information about the number of jobs is not available, only staff numbers. There were 6,510 civilian staff employed in Scotland as at 1 January 2004 (rounded to the nearest 10). This figure is for full–time equivalent, permanent, industrial and non–industrial staff, excluding Trading Funds, Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
  1403W
  and those on career breaks, long term sick leave, secondments etc. Reliable data are not available below Government Office Region level.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the evidence of the Permanent Secretary to the Committee of Public Accounts on 21 January, which foreign contractor, after winning a defence contract, refused to supply the goods; for what reasons; and whether others have done so in the last two years. [159085]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]In respect of the evidence given by the Permanent Secretary to the Committee of Public Accounts on 21 January, I presume my hon. Friend refers to the contract for the supply of ammunition for Underslung Grenade Launchers. In this case, there was no known instance of the contractor (RUAG) refusing to meet the contract, though deliveries of ammunition were suspended by the Swiss Government during the major hostilities in Iraq.

  As regards identifying any other foreign contractors who have refused to meet defence contracts in the last two years, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  WWI Executed Soldiers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations and discussions he has had on the Irish Government's recent support for a pardon for those soldiers wrongly executed during the First World War as part of the 90th anniversary of the outbreak of the war; [157168]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to consult the Irish Government prior to the anniversary of the start of the First World War on the possible pardon of soldiers who were wrongly executed during the First World War; [157169]

  (3) what plans he has to grant pardons to the soldiers in the British Army who were executed in the First World War to mark the 90th anniversary of the outbreak of the war. [157442]

  Mr. Caplin
  This matter was fully examined during the detailed review led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. John Reid), which was completed in 1998, and reported to the House, 24 July 1998,Official Report, columns 1372–86. As a result, those who were executed have been recognised as victims of the War.

  An initial meeting at official level has been held at the request of the Irish Government on the subject of a possible pardon for Irish soldiers executed during the First World War and further contact is expected.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the Royal Military Police were involved in the(a) arrest and (b) detention of the six Iraqis who have died in British custody in Iraq. [147707]
  1404W
  Mr. Ingram
  We do not release details of units who are involved in any incident that the SIB have investigated, unless the case is referred for court martial.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many casualties witnessed by UK forces in Iraq have been reported; and if he will make a statement. [148003]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]If United Kingdom forces witness an incident in which they are not directly involved and civilian or military personnel are injured they assist medically if necessary and endeavour to report it to the appropriate authority. We do not record the number of casualties witnessed in such incidents centrally.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK troops have been evacuated from Iraq for treatment of medical problems not related to wounds or injuries. [148293]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 1,109 medical evacuations of British military personnel from Iraq between May 2003 and February 2004. Of these some 460 were evacuated for treatment of medical problems not related to wounds or injuries.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the signing of liability waivers by Iraqi civilians who receive compensation payments from the UK for UK actions in Iraq; [151618]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the text of the liability waivers presented to Iraqi families receiving compensation from the UK for harm caused by UK forces; and if he will make a statement. [154675]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answers 30 January 2004 and 12 February 2004]Iraqi civilians who receive compensation payments from the United Kingdom do not sign liability waivers.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK(a) military and (b) civilian personnel have been (i) killed and (ii) injured in Iraq since 19 March 2003. [151619]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]Since 19 March 2003, 58 United Kingdom service personnel have died while deployed on operations in Iraq. One civilian, a member of the Defence Fire Service, has died in the same period.

  During major combat operations, from 19 March to 1 May 2003, UK forces suffered 155 battle casualties. Since then we have recorded centrally only those ill or injured personnel who have required medical evacuation to the UK. There have been 1,109 medical evacuations of British military personnel to date.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contamination has occurred from depleted uranium ordnance in Iraq; whether this has arisen from(a) toxicity, (b) ionising radiation and (c) other aspects associated with the ordnance; whether human safety measures in this connection have been put in place; and if he will make a statement. [157137]

  Mr. Ingram
  DU is a "weakly radioactive substance" and its chemical toxicity is similar to that posed by other heavy metals such as lead.
  1405W
  The overall responsibility for dealing with depleted uranium (DU) contamination in Iraq lies with the Coalition Provision Authority (CPA), unless it has adverse effects on Ministry of Defence service personnel or civilians in theatre.

  The MOD issues specific safety instructions to all personnel who may come into contact with Depleted Uranium (DU) in operational situations. These instructions have been publicly available on the MOD's website http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/gulf_safety_instructions.htm since February 2003. In addition to these, the MOD is carrying out activities to reassure civilians that the risk posed to them by DU is as minimal as practically possible Surface-lying DU fragments are being removed from the battlefield as they are discovered, and Iraqi locals have been warned through leaflets and signs that they should not go near or touch any debris they find on the battlefield.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conclusions of each of the boards of inquiry from operations in Iraq which were outstanding on 31 October 2003 but which have since reported. [157151]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]Further to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 3W, I can confirm that the only Board of Inquiry to report since 31 October 2003, is that concerning the death of Marine Maddison on 30 March 2003. The Board of Inquiry concluded that Marine Maddison's death was as a result of a tragic friendly fire incident.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when DU information cards Ref F Med 1018 were first issued to troops in Iraq; on what advice it was deemed necessary to issue such warnings, and from whom; and if he will make a statement. [159691]

  Mr. Caplin
  The depleted uranium (DU) information card F MED 1018 was introduced on 26 March 2003. It is issued as a standard administrative procedure to those returning from Operation Telic in Iraq to confirm that they have been deployed in a theatre where DU munitions have been used and to remind them of their eligibility for a voluntary biological monitoring test to measure uranium in the urine. It is therefore not a warning card, but is intended to inform personnel about one of the tests available in line with the Ministry of Defence operational health policies.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department's research into theatre ballistic missile defence to be able to report interim results and conclusions to(a) him and (b) Parliament; and what theatre ballistic missile defence is available to UK forces now. [157052]

  Mr. Hoon
  I expect to receive a report on the Ministry of Defence's three-year research programme into Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence this summer, but due to its classification, there are no plans to publish the report. I shall keep Parliament informed in the usual way, once I have had a chance to consider the report. Defence against theatre ballistic missiles comprises a1406W
  number of components, including steps to prevent and counter proliferation, diplomatic measures, deterrence and passive and active defence. Passive defence may involve the dispersal of forces and the provision of protective equipment against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Within a coalition force, allied partners provide the active defence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155920]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Ministers aim to answer ordinary written questions within five sitting days whenever possible.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has(a) received and (b) made about the Stonehenge Project Land Train route and dispersed visitor centre access scheme; whether the Larkhill Garrison Commander has made representations about the planned route; and if he will make a statement. [156724]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]The Ministry of Defence has received a very small number of representations about the scheme, from local Councillors and from residents living close by. No formal representations have been made by MOD as the proposals are currently being discussed by officials from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, English Heritage, the National Trust and Ministry of Defence.

  Suez Canal Zone Medal
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) HMS Roebuck, (b) HMS Whirlwind and (c) HMS Wakeful served in the Suez Canal Zone for four months in each year from 1953 to 1955; whether veterans who served on those ships have an entitlement to the Suez Canal Zone Clasp; and how many veterans of the three ships have received the Canal Zone Clasps. [157477]

  Mr. Caplin
  Although records indicate that the ships were present in the Mediterranean and/or Gulf of Suez areas at intervals between October 1951 and October 1954, it has yet to be established whether they meet the qualifying criteria of 30 days continuous service in the Canal Zone area that is necessary to qualify for the award of the Naval General Service Medal with 'Canal Zone' clasp. Only once a ship's eligibility has been established will it be possible to assess each veteran's application to ascertain their individual eligibility. No medals or clasps have yet been issued to veterans of HMS Roebuck, HMS Whirlwind or HMS Wakeful.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Suez Canal Zone medals have been awarded to date in each Lancashire constituency. [157563]
  1407W
  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 November 2003,Official Report, column 634W. Over 4,400 medals and Canal Zone clasps have now been despatched to eligible veterans and their families throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many campaign medals for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 have been issued since the decision was made to make this award. [156832]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 20 February 2004 a total of 4,086 Naval General Service Medals 1915–62 and General Service Medals 1918–62 with the clasp Canal Zone, plus a further 321 clasps without medals, where the claimants had already received the medal with an appropriate clasp for other military campaign service had been despatched.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints his Department has received from ex-service personnel and their families who have applied for the campaign medal for those ex-service personnel who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 about delays in the processing of their claims. [156928]

  Mr. Caplin
  In recent months the Ministry of Defence has received over 34,000 applications for the new Canal Zone medal. In addition, the medal offices and secretariat branches which deal with this subject have received several hundred letters and an unquantifiable number of telephone calls from veterans or their families asking for some indication of the progress of their claim. Fewer than 50 letters or calls could be described as 'complaints' and once the situation has been explained to them the majority of correspondents have been satisfied with the response.

  Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason it is not proposed to arm the new Type 45 destroyers with Tomahawk cruise missiles; [158139]

  (2) how many Tomahawk cruise missiles he estimates could be mounted on a Type 45 destroyer. [158140]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]The principal role of the Type 45 destroyer will be Anti-Air Warfare. There is currently no requirement for the Type 45 to be fitted with Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM). If a requirement for TLAM arises in future, the Type 45 has been designed with substantial space and weight margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life. We currently estimate that up to 16 TLAM missiles could be mounted on a Type 45 Destroyer.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to include(a) Tomahawk cruise missiles and (b) a larger-calibre turret gun in the armament of the Type 45 destroyer fleet. [158142]
  1408W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]There is currently no requirement to fit Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles or a larger calibre gun to Type 45 destroyers. Should such a requirement arise, these modifications could be made.

  War Graves
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to allow old war graves to be relocated; and if he will make a statement. [157317]

  Mr. Caplin
  Only in exceptional circumstances, where the long-term security of a war grave is at risk and all other measures to ensure non-disturbance have been exhausted, will the Commonwealth War Graves Commission apply to the Home Office for an exhumation order. Once granted, the grave is transferred to the nearest Commission maintained war grave plot or cemetery.

  This position is confirmed in the recent Government Consultation Paper on Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century which clearly stated that
  "war graves constitute a particular class of grave which, at least in municipal cemeteries enjoy special protection by virtue of certain powers and exceptions granted to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is not proposed that war cemeteries, or individual war graves, should be subject to a re-use regime."

SOLICITOR–GENERAL

  Attorney-General (Legal Advice)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the occasions between November 1990 and May 1997 when legal advice given by the Attorney-General to the Government was made public. [158713]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am aware of two occasions on which Law Officers' advice was disclosed between November 1990 and May 1997. In both cases disclosure was made for the purposes of judicial proceedings. In 1993, Law Officers' advice relevant to the subject matter of the Scott Inquiry was disclosed to it. The advice was published in an annex to the inquiry report. Law Officers' advice on the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act was disclosed to the other parties in the course of the Factortame litigation in which Spanish fisherman were seeking damages from the Government for a breach of Community law.

  On 15 February 1993 the views of the Law Officers were disclosed in the debate on the Maastricht Treaty. However, the Government of the day refused to disclose the full advice.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will publish the factual evidence on which the Attorney-General's view on the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq, expressed in his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report [Lords], columns WA2–3, was based; and if she will make a statement. [156108]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2004]No. This information is covered by legal professional privilege and the convention against
  1409W
  disclosure of Law Officers' advice outside Government, mentioned in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4d of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Attorney-General made a statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. On the same date, the Foreign Secretary submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee which gave further detail of the legal position.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the occasions on which the Attorney-General formally submitted an opinion on the legality of the use of force against Iraq prior to 18 March 2003; and if she will make a statement. [156250]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2004]No. There is a long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, that whether the Law Officers have advised on a particular matter, and the substance of any advice, is not disclosed outside Government. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4d of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Attorney-General made a statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. On the same date, the Foreign Secretary submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee which gave further detail of the legal position.

  Professor Sir Roy Meadow
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Solicitor-General if the Attorney-General will review the cases of children separated from their parents following evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow used in family court judgments. [144467]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children on 23 February 2004, Official Report, columns 38–39, which sets out our plans for the review of cases. Further, on 25 February, a Local Authority Circular (2004 (5)) was issued to councils with social services responsibilities, setting out the steps that they should take. A copy of this circular has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a new high speed rail link to the north of England and Scotland from London. [159438]

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Commission for Integrated Transport report on highspeed rail. [159443]
  1410W
  Dr. Howells
  Consideration of the case for a North South High Speed Line must be for the longer term. The current priority for the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail industry is to improve the performance of the existing railway network.

  Buses
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to facilitate the introduction of bus quality contracts outside London. [159444]

  Mr. McNulty
  As I announced on 4 February, we are taking steps to improve the potential effectiveness of the bus quality contract provisions in the Transport Act 2000. We are about to consult stakeholders on the proposal to reduce the 21-month implementation period to a shorter minimum period in the range 6–15 months.

  Airports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on expansion of small airports in South East England. [159445]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper "The Future of Air Transport", which makes it clear that smaller airports have an important role to play in relieving pressure on the main South East airports, particularly in the period before a new runway is built in the South East. We support their further development in principle, subject to consideration of relevant environmental, surface access and airspace constraints. Any development proposals will need to be decided locally through the planning system.

  Speed Cameras
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many(a) lives have been saved and (b) serious injuries have been prevented in the last 12 months as a result of the installation of speed safety cameras. [159446]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The evaluation of the 2-year pilot of the safety camera programme covering 2000–01 and 2001–02 concluded that in those participating areas there had been a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites. This equated to 280 fewer killed and seriously injured casualties. Information for 2002–03 will be contained in the 3-year evaluation report which will be published shortly.

  Transport (Nottingham, North)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss local transport. [159447]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend visited Nottingham on 8 March 2004 to open the Nottingham Express Transit Line 1, where he had the opportunity to meet with local authority officials to discuss local transport issues.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the future need for heavy goods vehicle drivers. [159448]
  1411W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The key change in the need for HGV drivers will result from the introduction of EU working time legislation for road transport. We have estimated that this will require around 12,000 extra drivers.

  Aviation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the UK's commitment to a fully liberalised aviation treaty between the EU and the US; [R] [159204]

  (2) what progress has been made at the recent talks in Washington between the EU and the US on an open aviation area; [R] [159205]

  (3) what steps he is taking to promote the interests of (a) the UK and (b) UK aviation during the open aviation talks between the EU and the US; [R] [159206]

  (4) if he will make representations for restrictions on (a) ownership, (b) cabotage rights, (c) wet lease and (d) the Fly America policy to be removed as part of any agreement on an open aviation area between the EU and the US; [R] [159207]

  (5) what further progress is expected at the next meeting between the EU and US on an open aviation area. [R] [159208]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have supported a mandate for the European Commission to negotiate an open aviation area with the US on the basis that this will be an area where air carriers of both sides will be able to establish themselves and freely provide services according to commercial principles, competing on a fair and equal basis. The offer made by the US at the recent talks falls far short of this objective. We will continue to take every opportunity, including meetings of the Transport Council and our participation in the Special Committee of Member State representatives, to make the case for a fully liberalised EU/US aviation agreement, including the removal of restrictions in areas such as airline ownership, market access and aircraft leasing.

  Crossrail
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the importance of Crossrail(a) to those who work in London and (b) to London businesses. [157321]

  Mr. McNulty
  These issues were covered in Cross London Rail Link Limited's Crossrail Business Case. They have been considered in the context of the review of the proposals undertaken under the chairmanship of Adrian Montague, whose work has also been informed by meetings with key London stakeholders. My right hon. Friend has now received advice from Adrian Montague which he is studying closely and whose findings will be published in due course.

  Cycling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards introducing and extending(a) a cycle-friendly road network, (b) cycle training, (c) a network of bus lanes, (d) minimum quality standards for bus services,
  1412W
  (e) minimum standards for rail services, (f) safe routes to
  schools, (g) lower speed limits, (h) a discount network rail card, (i) greater purchase incentives for smaller cleaner vehicles, (j) grants for rail freight projects, (k) increased funding for public transport and (1) pay-as-you-go road user charging; and what steps he has taken to improve streets, lanes and paths for walking. [160055]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report" published in December 2002 set out the progress made in Delivering the 10 Year Plan for Transport in the first 18 months of its life. As promised in that report we are now reviewing the Plan, taking account of events and achievements since its implementation. We expect to set out in the Summer how the strategy will be rolled forward to 2015 and beyond

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many staff are employed in the Department to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others; [158168]

  (2) what the total expenditure on communications for the Department has been in 2003–04, broken down by expenditure on (a) Government Information and Communications Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers.(ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158200]

  Mr. McNulty
  The average number of full-time equivalent staff employed in DfT (central)'s Communication Directorate and the related forecast expenditure for 2003–04 is:

  Staff

  Press officers

  Others

  Total

  GICS staff

  13.0

  29.8

  42.8

  Other staff

  0.8

  28.3

  29.1

  Total

  13.8

  58.0

  7.1.8

  £Million

  Press officers

  Others

  Total

  GICS staff

  0.62

  1.33

  1.95

  Other staff

  0.06

  0.97

  1.03

  Total

  0.68

  2.30

  2.98

  The Special Advisers' Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister. This includes communications activity. Details of the costs of Special Advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on future staffing levels for the Department; and what plans the Department has for(a) staff cuts, (b) voluntary retirements and (c) voluntary redundancies. [158294]
  1413W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002. The functions the Department needs to undertake has been clarified and a Corporate Business Plan has been drafted to provide direction and enable the Department to meet its PSA targets.

  The staffing level required to deliver the Department's priorities is being considered along with piloting new ways of working flexibly. The intention is to reduce the number of posts overall and create a smaller more strategic centre. There are no concrete plans at the moment and the Department is unable to predict the number of staff that may be surplus Wherever possible and practicable the exit of staff from the Department will be on a voluntary basis using redundancy and retirements to facilitate the process. The Department will, however, ensure that staff with the appropriate skills to take forward its agenda, remain within the Department.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of the minimum usage charge paid to Eurotunnel was in each year since its inception. [154911]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total annual payment by the railways is published annually in Eurotunnel's accounts, which are available from the company. The figures include a contribution towards operating expenditure, variable toll elements, and the additional contribution needed to achieve the Minimum Usage Charge. The precise composition of the payments is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards introducing an integrated transport system; and if he will make a statement. [160056]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report" published in December 2002 set out the progress made in Delivering the 10 Year Plan for Transport in the first 18 months of its life. As promised in that report we are now reviewing the Plan, taking account of events and achievements since its implementation. We expect to set out in the Summer how the strategy will be rolled forward to 2015 and beyond.

  Radio and Television Advertising
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much his Department is spending on radio advertising in the current financial year; and how much is planned for next year; [159410]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) radio and (b) television advertising in each of the last five years. [159411]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002. Our current forecast expenditure outturn for 2003–04, is £2.62 million on radio advertising. The estimated figure for 2004–05 is £3.3 million, the majority of which will be devoted to the THINK! road safety campaign.
  1414W
  Media expenditure covering road safety in 2002–03 was £5.6 million on TV and £2.6 million on radio.

  Rail Regulator
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the remit of the Rail Regulator to include the train leasing companies. [158509]

  Mr. McNulty
  The review of the structure and organisation of the rail industry announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 19 January will consider whether there should be any extension to the remit of the Rail Regulator. We will publish our proposals for change in the summer.

  Rail Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which bodies he is suggesting to consultees may be responsible for regulating the(a) ticket costs, (b) service levels and timetables and (c) access issues for community railways; [158553]

  (2) which organisation he is suggesting to consultees may be responsible for (a) setting and (b) monitoring and regulating (i) maintenance, (ii) operational standards and (iii) safety for community railways; [158555]

  (3) what the suggested structures for (a) ownership, (b) management and (c) operational responsibilities are for community railways; [158557]

  (4) on which lines he is consulting about whether they should become community railways; and if he will make a statement. [158559]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority published its consultation paper on a strategy for Community Railways on 26 February. The Authority is consulting on proposals to offer much greater community involvement in determining issues for Community Railways. The strategy is aimed at simplifying and structuring their regulation and it outlines options to strengthen local management and to simplify and improve the effectiveness of operational responsibilities on Community Railways. No change is proposed in the current ownership of railway infrastructure by Network Rail, or in the primary responsibilities of the duty holder in respect of safe operation of these railways.

  The lines to be consulted upon are listed in the consultation paper. The paper has been sent to MPs with constituencies covering these lines and has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sources of(a) public and (b) private funding he plans will be available to Community Railways. [158556]

  Mr. McNulty
  Community Railways lines form part of larger franchises which already make use of public and private funding. Whatever the source of funding, it is remunerated by the user through fares and freight charges and by the taxpayer through franchise support payments or grants. This will continue to be the case. Community Rail Partnerships currently seek further
  1415W
  local funding support to improve services and facilities, recognising the benefit of such improvements to the local economy and environment.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [158177)

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002. For open competitions for permanent positions below the Senior Civil Service (SCS), the Department uses two contracted out recruitment consultants. For open competitions for SCS positions, the Department uses specialist recruitment consultants taken from the Cabinet Office Central Call-Off Contract for recruitment into the SCS.

  Following are details of the costs incurred by DfT (Central) for contracted out recruitment procedures:

  (£)

  2002–03

  Senior Civil Service

  309,237.08

  Below SCS

  211,626.55

  2003–04 to date

  Senior Civil Service

  781,378.64

  Below SCS

  582,084.33

  The 'Below SCS' details do not include costs incurred by the Department's Executive Agencies as they have responsibility for their own recruitment for below SCS. We are unable to provide costs for recruitment procedures carried out by the Department itself as these costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Senior Civil Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what basic pay and bonuses were awarded in relation to the 2003 pay round for(a) the Permanent Secretary, (b) each of the chief executives of the Department's agencies and (c) each Grade 2 in the Department. [158295]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is not our policy to provide information on pay and bonus that are identifiable to particular individuals. The base pay awards for Directors General (formerly Grade 2s) ranged between 4 and 8 per cent. Non consolidated bonus awards ranged from zero to £9,000. Base pay awards for agency Chief Executives ranged from 2.25 to 4.0 per cent. with non consolidated bonus awards ranging from zero to £15,800.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of the senior civil service in the Department is. [158296]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total cost of the salaries as at 1 March 2004 of the senior civil service in DfT central and the agencies is £10.5 million. This figure includes the costs of the Permanent Secretary and chief executives of the agencies.
  1416W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the total cost of the pay increases in the Department awarded to the senior civil service as a result of the 2003 pay round. [158297]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total cost of the increase to basic pay awarded to the senior civil service in DfT central and the agencies, as a result of the 2003 pay round, was £0.4 million. This amount also includes those awards given to senior civil servants on fixed term contracts that received the revalorisation rate of 2.25 per cent.

  Sick Leave
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the average number of sick days taken by each grade in 2003 in(a) the Department and (b) its agencies. [158298]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2003 the total number of days sick absence recorded for the Department for Transport and its Agencies was 164,364 days. This is monitored on an overall average days per staff year basis, and the 2003 figures were:

  Days

  Department for Transport (Central) (DfT(C))

  5.7

  Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

  12.7

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

  12.7

  Highways Agency (HA)

  8.3

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

  8.4

  Vehicle Certification Agency (VGA)

  5.9

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

  9.0

  Total Department for Transport

  10.4

  The average number of sick days taken by each grade in DfT(C) was recorded as:

  Days

  Pay Band 1/Secretarial

  5.5

  Pay Band 2

  6.9

  Pay Band 3

  6.6

  Pay Band 4

  4.9

  Pay Band 5

  3.9

  Pay Band 6

  2.0

  Pay Band 7

  2.1

  Senior Civil Service

  0.6

  Average DfT(C)

  5.7

  The Agencies are responsible for their own staffing arrangements and have their own grading structures. Similar breakdowns of average days by grade levels for the Agencies are not readily available.

  The Department and its Agencies are committed to managing sickness absence effectively. This includes actively reviewing statistics and trends and gaining a clearer understanding of the reasons for non-attendance.

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision on the Government's funding of the South Hampshire Rapid Transit system. [159880]
  1417W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State recently received further information on this scheme following a significant increase in the proposed level of central Government funding. A decision will be made in due course.

  Thames Gateway
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of the integrated transport infrastructure requirement for the Thames Gateway. [159648]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have already committed more that £600 million to transport projects within the Thames Gateway. These include DLR extensions to City airport and improvements to the A2/A282 near Dartford.

  In his statement on 30 July 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister identified some of the transport infrastructure projects that could potentially help to support housing growth including domestic services on the channel tunnel rail link, extensions to the Docklands light rail (DLR) network and bus transit systems for east and south east London and Kent Thameside.

  In relation to local transport schemes, it is for local authorities in the Thames Gateway area to bring forward major schemes through the Local Transport Plan process for consideration by Ministers.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159618]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs under what circumstances legal aid is available to those contesting legal cases involving children; and if he will make a statement. [158956]

  Mr. Lammy
  Legal aid is available for parties involved in contested proceedings involving children. In certain special cases under the Children Act 1989 funding is available free to people who have parental responsibility, without any means or merits tests. These cases are mostly to do with public authorities intervening in the relationship between parents (or those with parental responsibility) and children, such as care proceedings. All other grants of funding are subject to means and merits criteria. The means criteria are set out in the Community Legal Service Financial Regulations 2000 (as amended) and considered against the relevant merits criteria set out in the Funding Code determining income and capital thresholds above which legal aid is not available. The merits criteria Are also set out in the 1418W
  Funding Code and aim to ensure that funding is only available in circumstances where a reasonable private paying client would be prepared to proceed.

  Legal aid must also take into account the Legal Services Commission's (LSCs) published guidance which further encourages cost effective dispute resolution. All grants of legal aid are subject to limitations as to what steps can be undertaken and what level of costs may be incurred.

  The LSC also funds family mediation services with a view to resolving cases amicably without contested proceedings. With certain exceptions, funding for court proceedings will be refused unless the client has seen a mediator to assess the suitability of the case for mediation.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what restrictions are placed on the availability of legal aid for use in cases where costs orders cannot be made; and if he will make a statement. [158957]

  Mr. Lammy
  Each application for legal aid is subject to the statutory tests of the applicant's means as set out in the Community Legal Service Financial Regulations 2000 (as amended) and considered against the relevant merits criteria set out in the Funding Code.

  A funded client's liability for costs is limited to the amount, if any, which is reasonable for him to pay, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the means and conduct of both parties. The awarding of costs is a matter for the court, whether a party is publicly funded or not. Whether a cost order can be made is not taken into account in determining eligibility for legal aid.

  Cost protection has always been a feature of the legal aid scheme; it provides that costs orders cannot be enforced against a funded client except to the extent that the court considers it reasonable. In limited circumstances a successful opponent may be entitled to costs from the Community Legal Service fund.

  Parliamentary Elections
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the 20 constituencies in which the highest number of electors have been lost from the parliamentary register between 2000 and 2004. [158959]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Alan Whitehead, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the 20 constituencies with the highest loss of electorate between 2000 and 2004. (158959)

  A table showing the total and percentage change of the 20 parliamentary constituencies with the greatest fall in number of registered electors over the period 16 February 2001 to 1 December 2003 (or to 2 February 2004 for Northern Ireland) is shown. The Office for National Statistics did not publish electoral data for parliamentary constituencies for 2000 and therefore the

  1419W
  2001 figures have been used. 2004 data are not available (except for Northern Ireland) therefore the most recent data available, 1 December 2003, have been used.

  It should be noted that these figures represent the number of 'registered' electors. In many cases, especially in Northern Ireland, large decreases may be due to 'cleaning' of the registers rather than actual falls in the number of electors. In the case of Northern Ireland, the Electoral Commission carried out a review of the

  Parliamentary constituencies with the 20 largest falls in the numbers of registered electors between 2001 and 20031, ranked by size of absolute change

  Constituency

  Electors 1 February 2001

  Electors 1 December 2003

  Absolute change

  Percentage change

  1

  Brentford and Isleworth

  83,420

  67,934

  -15,486

  -18.6

  2

  Belfast West

  60,377

  47,139

  -13,238

  -21.9

  3

  Belfast North

  61,646

  49,054

  -12,592

  -20.4

  4

  Portsmouth South

  77,372

  66,162

  -11,210

  -14.5

  5

  Belfast South

  59,937

  49,207

  -10,730

  -17.9

  6

  Edinburgh Central

  66,296

  55,714

  -10,582

  -16.0

  7

  Foyle

  71,835

  62,321

  -9,514

  -13.2

  8

  Belfast East

  59,044

  49,930

  -9,114

  -15.4

  9

  South Antrim

  71,316

  62,906

  -8,410

  -11.8

  10

  Strangford

  72,948

  64,718

  -8,230

  -11.3

  11

  Lagan Valley

  73,494

  65,545

  -7,949

  -10.8

  12

  North Down

  63,944

  56,030

  -7,914

  -12.4

  13

  Rhondda

  56,096

  48,332

  -7,764

  -13.8

  14

  Glasgow Maryhill

  55,087

  47.525

  -7,562

  -13.7

  15

  Bradford West

  72,193

  64,663

  -7,530

  -10.4

  16

  Edinburgh South

  64,437

  57,274

  -7,163

  -11.1

  17

  Brent East

  58,082

  51,114

  -6,968

  -12.0

  18

  East Antrim

  61,597

  54,644

  -6,953

  -11.3

  19

  Bolton South East

  68,080

  61,198

  -6,882

  -10.1

  20

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  70,301

  63,489

  -6,812

  -9.7

  1 2 February 2004 for Northern Ireland

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the buildings occupied by her departmental staff and agency staff, 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. [159367]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has no buildings which currently require remedial work or removal of asbestos. There is no specific budget for asbestos surveys or any resulting remedial work and such costs are included as part of the normal operating costs associated with the DTI estate. For those agencies where the Department holds budgetary information, the position is similar.

  Broadband
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits that could accrue from the process of local loop unbundling. [157244]

  Mr. Timms
  Local loop unbundling is increasingly widely used in the UK.

  The Government believe the key benefit to accrue from the process of local loop unbundling is the promotion of competition.
  1420W
  workings of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. This act introduced a new system for registering electors in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission's review report' on the Act's first year of operation stated that the number of registered electors in Northern Ireland fell by 10 per cent. in the first register published under this new system.

  1 "The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, an Assessment of its First Year in Operation, Research Report December 2003"

  Ofcom has proposed a local loop unbundling market review in its Annual Plan for 2004–05.

  Cast Metal Industry
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the change in scrap metal prices on the British cast metal industry. [159027]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am aware of the difficulties that are being faced by UK cast metal producers as a result of rises in the world price of scrap metal and industry's concerns about the implications for competitiveness. It is widely accepted that the cause is soaring demand for steel in China and the knock-on effect on raw materials costs. We are monitoring developments and I will be meeting my hon. Friend the representatives of the cast metals industry later this month to discuss the situation further.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's responsibilities are for meeting the Energy White Paper target of achieving 10GW of combined heat and power by 2010. [159209]

  Mr. Timms
  Defra take the lead on delivery of the combined heat and power (CHP) target, working closely with DTI and other departments and agencies as part of the Sustainable Energy Policy Network.
  1421W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently issued guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority on social and environmental issues, under the terms of the Utilities Act 2000, drawing attention to the importance of Energy White Paper goals, including the 10GW CHP target.

  Further information on how the Government are working towards the Energy White Paper target will be available in the CHP Strategy, due to be published after the Easter recess.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning combined heat and power; and if she will make a statement. [159210]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has regular discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about combined heat and power both in the context of implementing the Energy White Paper and preparing for debates on the Energy Bill.

  Company Voluntary Agreements
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of company voluntary agreements. [159165]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The company voluntary arrangement procedure was introduced in 1986 and allows a financially troubled company to reach a binding agreement with its creditors to pay them in full or in part over a period of time. However, the recession of the early 1990s showed it was not particularly effective for the small financially troubled company because there was no stay on creditors' actions in the period before an arrangement could be agreed. Therefore, in 2000, this Government introduced the option of a short stay on creditors' rights, into that procedure, to give the company's management a breathing space in which to put a rescue plan to creditors. Other technical amendments were also made to improve the procedure's efficiency and effectiveness.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many company voluntary agreements creditors received monies owed in each year since 2000. [159166]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We do not record statistical data which would provide this information.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company voluntary agreements were entered into in each year since 2000. [159167]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively 557, 597, 651 and 726 company voluntary arrangements were entered into.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have entered into company voluntary agreements and have continued trading in each year since 2000. [159168]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively 557, 597, 651 and 726 companies entered into voluntary arrangements but we do not record 1422W
  statistical data, which would reveal how many of them continued trading once the arrangements had been agreed.

  Copyright Directive
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with ensuring compliance with the EU Copyright Directive; and if she will make a statement. [159008]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2498) bringing UK law into full compliance with the EU copyright Directive came into force on 31 October 2003.

  Data Protection
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the data protection implications of the offshoring of the processing of financial details. [159125]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under the Data Protection Act, companies who control data remain responsible for how data are processed overseas on their behalf. They remain bound by the requirements of the Act, in particular its requirement for data to be kept secure. The method of transfer must include measures to ensure the security of the processing and security against breaches of the Act. Companies must also be open with individuals about how information they collect on them is intended to be used.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much coltan was imported by the United Kingdom from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement. [159242]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, there were no imports of coltan from the Democratic Republic of Congo into the United Kingdom in 2002 or 2003.

  Elexon Ltd.
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of whether Elexon Ltd.'s remit should be extended to electricity trading arrangements in Scotland. [159089]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]Ofgem and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), as part of the second consultation on the legal text of a Great Britain (GB) Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) (June 2003), consulted on whether Elexon's remit, as the Balancing and Settlement Code Company (BSCCo), should be extended to electricity trading arrangements in Scotland. After considering responses to this consultation Ofgem and DTI concluded that Elexon should undertake the role of the GB BSCCo and that a competitive tender exercise was not necessary.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her role is in(a) the appointment of the (i) Chairman and (ii) Board of Elexon Ltd. and (b) determining the terms and conditions of appointment of the (i) Chairman and (ii) Board. [159090]
  1423W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004 ]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no role in the appointment of the Chairman and/or Board of Elexon Ltd. The Elexon Chairman and Board are appointed in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) in Section C4.1. The Chairman of the Board is the Chairman of the BSC Panel. The Chairman of the BSC Panel is appointed by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. Other Directors are appointed by the BSC Panel and by the Chairman.

  Any change to these arrangements would require a modification proposal to be progressed through the BSC modification procedures as outlined in Section F of the BSC. This process is designed to be transparent and inclusive. Modification proposals are subjected to a series of industry consultations, and are usually assessed in detail by a group of industry experts, and then considered by the BSC Panel (which comprises five members elected by parties to the BSC, a potential 6th member drawn from licence exempt suppliers or generators, two members nominated by energywatch, two independent members, one member nominated by NGT, one representative of distribution system operators and is attended by Ofgem) before being approved or rejected by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the shareholders of Elexon Ltd.; and what assessment she has made of the board's corporate governance arrangements. [159091]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]Elexon Ltd. is the Balancing and Settlement Code Company (BSCCo) established under the provisions of the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC). The BSC is given effect through Section C3 of National Grid Transco's (NGT) Transmission Licence.

  Elexon is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid Transco (NGT). However, Elexon is independently governed and has a separate Board of Directors. Elexon operates outside the commercial and operational interests and control of NGT. Shareholder control by NGT can only be exerted within the limited circumstances outlined in the BSC.

  Elexon's corporate governance arrangements were carefully considered and consulted on, by Ofgem and the DTI before the implementation of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) when the BSC was designated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State through the authority provided in the Utilities Act 2000.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role of Elexon Ltd. is in the operation of the electricity market in England and Wales; if she will undertake a review of this role; and if she will make a statement. [159092]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]Elexon Ltd. is the Balancing and Settlement Code Company (BSCCo) established under the provisions of the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC). The principal role of the BSCCo is to provide and procure facilities, resources and services (including providing or procuring resources required by the BSC Panel and BSC Panel 1424W
  Committees, and procuring services under BSC service descriptions) required for the proper, effective and efficient implementation of the BSC. The powers of the BSCCo are subject to the restrictions and limits set out in the BSC.

  The systems and processes outlined in the BSC have operated effectively since the introduction of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) on 27 March 2001. These include arrangements for the use of meter readings to allocate energy between participants, to register energy trades, to aggregate balance positions and to calculate and apply imbalance prices for each half an hour, twenty four hours a day. They underpin competition in generation and in the supply of electricity.

  Extensive consultations were carried out by the DTI and Ofgem on the role of Elexon prior to the inception of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements in March 2001. Ofgem and the DTI, as part of the second consultation on the legal text of a Great Britain Balancing and Settlement Code (June 2003), also consulted on whether Elexon's remit, as the Balancing and Settlement Code Company, should be extended to electricity trading arrangements in Scotland. In addition, Ofgem keeps the operation of the BSC under constant review and considers the annual business strategy and budget documents carefully.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the application of the statutory Environmental and Social guidelines of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to Elexon Ltd. [159093]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]The statutory Environmental and Social guidelines to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority do not apply to Elexon. As the Balancing and Settlement Code Company (BSCCo), Elexon has the powers and functions and responsibilities set out and assigned to it in the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) and, in accordance with BSC Section C 1.2.2, may not conduct business or activities not provided for in the BSC.

  It should be noted, however, that the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (the Authority) has the role of determining whether a modification to the BSC should or should not be made. In making its decision, the Authority is obliged to take into consideration its wider statutory obligations. The Authority is also obliged to carry out a Regulatory Impact Assessment in relation to any important Modification Proposal.

  Employment (Offshoring)
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the types of jobs that have been offshored in the past 12 months. [159126]

  Ms Hewitt
  The principal areas where services work has been transferred offshore include call centres, data and business processing and analysis ("back office") operations, and IT services such as software development.
  1425W
  My Department has commissioned research on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of UK call centre operations to help identify any appropriate actions which need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services. This will include an examination of the main product areas in the UK call and contact centre industry that are vulnerable to growing competition from lower-wage economies; which types of call and contract centre activity and which regions have been most affected or are most likely to be affected in the near future.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rate of remuneration will be paid to the Chair of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [158304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  £500 gross per day.

  The Chair of ECGD is a part-time role involving an initial commitment of 1–2 days per week eventually reducing to 1–2 days per month.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list export licences granted for the sale of defence(a) equipment and (b) equipment components to Nepal for each year since and including 2001. [158915]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]Details of all export licences approved for Nepal in 2001 and 2002 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House. Details of export licences approved in 2003 will be published later this year in the 2003 Annual Report, and details for 2004, similarly in the 2004 Annual Report.

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2002
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from business on the(a) registration costs and (b) authorisation process for companies offering customer insurance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2002. [160132]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are giving the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating general insurance mediation as from 14 January 2005. This implements the European Union's Insurance Mediation Directive. On 5 June 2003, the Government published a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) to accompany the implementing legislation. This is available from the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. The RIA took into account comments front business and others made during the public consultation on the draft legislation. Under its statutory responsibilities, the FSA is obliged to consult on and to carry out a cost benefit analysis on its regulatory activities and others made during the public consultation on the draft legislation.
  1426W
  Under its statutory responsibilities, the FSA is obliged to consult on and to carry out a cost benefit analysis on its regulatory activities

  Information Technology
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's information technology budget was for each year since 1997. [153543]

  Ms Hewitt
  Total spending by Department of Trade and Industry, (excluding agencies), on Information Technology was £12.1 million in 1998–99. Subsequent to this the Department entered into a PFI partnership agreement with UNITAS, (a consortium of Fujitsu and Logical/CMG), for the provision of the majority of its IT services and support. Total spending by the Department on IT in the following years was £15 million in 1999–2000, £30 million in 2000–01, £32 million in 2001–02 and £41 million in 2002–03. Spend for 2003–04 is forecast at £45 million. The equivalent figure is not readily available for 1997–98.

  These figures do not include payments made to suppliers of IT services not covered by the PFI contract referred to since they are not available from a central source.

  Local Government Finance (Dorset)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by her Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156205]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 750W.

  Miners' Compensation Claims
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many examiners who worked for both the Coal Board or the Coal Authority and small private mines have valid chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims outstanding; how many claims have received part payments; and if she will make a statement on progress of negotiations with small mine insurers in respect of the Court Handling Agreement. [158537]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of outstanding COPD claimants who have worked for both BCC and a small mine is 2,164. The number of outstanding COPD claimants who have worked for BCC and a small mine and have received an interim payment is 453.

  Following a three-way mediation exercise held in January, at which much progress was made, a further day of negotiation between the parties was organised on 23 February. This meeting proved successful and an agreement was reached which allowed the small mines to join the claims handling agreement.

  Steps are now being taken with the Department's claims handlers to make arrangements for full and final offers to be made to this group of claimants
  1427W

  Nigerian Contracts
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 591W, on Nigeria, if she will provide a breakdown of Nigeria's debt to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, broken down by sector; and if she will list the top five contracts by value on which these debts are based. [158287]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to my official reply to his question on 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 591W. For the reasons stated earlier in that answer and the way in which records were kept in the 1980s, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of Nigerian debt according to trade sector without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Nirex
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has made to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the future structure of Nirex. [159047]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been a number of discussions between departments and with others affected on this subject, and these discussions are continuing.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Environment Agency on the possibility of their responsibility for the Letter of Comfort process operated by Nirex. [159048]

  Mr. Timms
  Disclosure of this information—internal advice and discussion—is covered by exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information between Government departments and it has not been the practice of successive Governments to disclose exchanges of this nature.

  Discussions are continuing to resolve a number of issues about the future of Nirex.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on the commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the UK. [159624]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 385W.

  Renewable Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the renewables innovation review. [159034]

  Mr. Timms
  The Renewables Innovation Review, which was conducted jointly by the DTI and the Carbon Trust, considers the way ahead for the renewables industry if the UK's renewable energy targets, carbon reduction aspirations and desired economic benefits are to be met.
  1428W
  The key conclusions of the Review, and the series of reports commissioned as part of the Review, are available on the DTI website at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/policy/renewables_innovation_review.sht 1

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is undertaking to reinforce the National Grid in(a) the UK and (b) London to meet the Government's target of 10 per cent. renewable generation by 2010. [159171]

  Mr. Timms
  The Transmission Issues Working Group works with the Transmission Owners, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government, and Ofgem to progress this important issue. An initial plan was published last year and the Transmission Companies are currently revising their technical and financial plans.(a) The first upgrade required in the UK is the Beauly to Denny line that Scottish and Southern intends to submit into the consents process this autumn. (b) It is unlikely that significant transmission grid upgrades will be required in London as most renewables will be connected to the distribution network but a full report which will include this issue is due to be presented to the Transmission Issues Working Group by the end of July.

  Sakhalin II
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she will take of the potential impact on(a) saffron cod and (b) herring populations when assessing the Sakhalin II phase 2 oil and gas project under consideration for support by the Export Credits and Guarantee Department. [157904]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Both saffron cod and herring will be considered as part of the overall assessment of potential impacts on fishing resulting from the Sakhalin II project.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have been undertaken with other Departments on the Sakhalin II phase 2 oil and gas project which the Export Credit Guarantee Department is considering. [158073]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  ECGD has consulted officials in DEFRA, DFID and FCO with regard to Sakhalin II.

  I have also consulted the Minister for Environment.

  Scottish Electricity Generators
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's assessment of the overall cost of the British Electricity Transmission and Trading Arrangements for Scottish electricity generators. [158534]

  Mr. Timms
  BETTA is a package of reforms, elements of which are likely to result in higher costs for Scottish generators, whilst others are likely to reduce costs. In aggregate, however, Ofgem estimates that the net impact of BETTA on Scottish generators will be broadly neutral.

  This is because any increase in transmission charges will be offset by the removal of the current interconnector charges and charges for access to the England-Wales market. There will also be lower connection charges for Scottish generation.
  1429W
  The DTI has carried out an analysis of the possible impact of BETTA as part of the Energy Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment www.dti.gov.uk/energy/leg_and_reg/acts/ria.pdf. This found that the relevant market participants—principally British Energy and the two vertically integrated incumbents, Scottish Power and SSE—would be exposed to initial costs of around £7.5 million and on-going costs of some £0.5 million per year, although this excludes the redistributive effects brought about by a Great Britain-wide transmission charging regime.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159613]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the annual cost of(a) administering Housing Benefit and (b) Housing Benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [156596]

  Mr. Pond
  The most recent available estimate of the annual cost of administering Housing Benefit is in the table:

  Housing Benefit administration costs in Great Britain 2001–02

  £million

  England

  360

  Scotland

  32

  Wales

  15

  Total

  407

  Notes:

  1. Figures are Net Current Expenditure.

  2. Amounts are rounded to the nearest million

  Source:

  Figures for England provided by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Scotland figures provided by the Scottish Executive.

  Wales figures provided by the Welsh Assembly.

  For Housing Benefit Fraud, we published "Fraud and Error in Housing Benefit, April 2002 to March 2003" on 11 December 2003. This report represents the first national headline estimates, for the level of fraud and error in Housing Benefit, derived via the statistical analysis of data collected by the Housing Benefit Review (HBR) continuous measurement exercise. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the proposal to give local authorities the ability to withhold payment of housing benefits to tenants as a method of controlling anti-social behaviour. [159457]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1105.
  1430W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made since the formal consultation about ground rents and the referral of rent to local rent officers under the proposed changes to housing benefit. [157489]

  Mr. Pond
  The first step in our reform of Housing Benefit has been the introduction from November 2003 of a flat rate Local Housing Allowance in the private rented sector in nine pathfinder local authorities; with flat rate allowances for same size properties in the same area. Early indications are that the shift away from making payments direct to landlords is going well.

  In the pathfinders, Housing Benefit is no longer linked to individual rents, so there is no need for individual rents to be referred to the local rent officer. The local rent service will however continue to support the local authorities by calculating monthly Local Housing Allowance rates and setting the Broad Rental Market Areas.

  We have also put a comprehensive evaluation strategy in place. This will include interviews with claimants, landlords, local authority staff and stakeholder organisations, as well as an analysis of administrative data.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of landlords in pathfinder areas who have stopped taking on housing benefit tenants. [158079]

  Mr. Pond
  We are making good progress in applying our ground-breaking Local Housing Allowance to tenants with mainstream tenancies in the private rented sector. All the nine pathfinder local authorities, who are taking this forward for us, have begun to implement the reforms. We have made an encouraging start: implementation has been smooth and early indications are that the shift away from making payments direct to landlords is going well. Initial concerns from landlords have now been addressed to a large extent and we are not aware of any landlords withdrawing from the market.

  The reforms are intended to help landlords, as well as tenants, by creating a more transparent system that will be simpler for local authorities to administer, thereby speeding up overall processing times. Also, the safeguards we have built in regarding direct payment to landlords in particular circumstances are designed to protect the interests of both landlord and tenant.

  It is too early to fully assess the response of tenants and landlords, but we have put a comprehensive evaluation strategy in place.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to bring older Child Support Agency cases into the new system for assessment. [158880]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1092W.
  1431W
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many payments of maintenance to parents with care have been delayed in the last six months because of the failure of the system in the issuing of maintenance payments; and if he will make a statement. [157984]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Bill O'Brien dated 9 March 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many payments of maintenance to parents with care have been delayed in the last six months because of the failure of the system in the issuing of maintenance payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Between August 2003 and February 2004 the new computer system generated over 346,000 payments. In the same period 1,741 payments were issued manually. I do not have a record of how many of these payments represent a delay in the issue of maintenance

  Departmental Estate
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department plans to sell its premises in Beeches Road, Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement. [159994]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 9 March 2004:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question concerning plans to sell off the Jobcentre Plus premises at Beeches Road, Chelmsford. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  In Essex, Jobcentre Plus consulted with partners and stakeholders during 2001 and 2002 and their views were taken into account in the final delivery plan that has now been put into place across this District.

  Jobcentre Plus has now been introduced to all the offices in Essex District, including Beeches Road, to deliver a radical change in the way that benefits and employment services are provided to people of working age. We have no current plans to vacate that office.

  Through the development of these new modern offices, we are providing an integrated, work-focused service to all people of working age. The introduction of work-focused interviews is extending the opportunity to more people who are taking advantage of the help, guidance and support we can provide to assist them to move into sustainable employment.

  In all our plans we have focused on the needs of our customers. The new offices offer customers a seamless service, where they are able to make enquires about their benefit entitlement, and the training and employment opportunities available to them, under one roof.

  In addition to these services Jobcentre Plus provides access to a telephone contact centre network where our customers are able to make enquiries without having to come into one of our offices. Our Beeches Road site offers both face to face and contact centre services.
  1432W
  Jobcentre Plus keeps under constant review our Estates and operational delivery to customers. I hope it will reassure you to know that, at the present time, there are no plans to vacate the Beeches Road premises

  Skilled Migrants
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many skilled migrants were working in(a) the NHS and (b) the education sector on the last date for which figures are available. [157584]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Simmonds, dated 9 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 surveys 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

  Thousand

  Health authority or NHS trust

  Education Sector2

  Highest qualification

  Degree or equivalent

  41

  23

  Higher education

  35

  *

  GCE A Level or equivalent

  *

  *

  GCSE grades A-C or equivalent

  *

  *

  Other qualification

  36

  10

  No qualification

  *

  *

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

  2 This includes University, Polytechnic or other grant funded educational establishments.

  * Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide additional assistance to those families on low incomes who receive a Social Fund(a) grant and (b) loan where the amount awarded is insufficient to cover basic household goods. [154205]

  Mr. Pond
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 February 2004, Official Report, c. 1492W]Community Care Grants, Crisis Loans and Budgeting Loans are part of the Discretionary Social Fund. They are designed to provide extra help for the most vulnerable people in society, helping them meet unexpected and more routine needs. The Discretionary Social Fund net budget will be increased by 6 per cent. in April 2004 and by a further 6 per cent. in April 2005.
  1433W
  As the Discretionary Social Fund is cash limited and decision makers may not always be able to award the full amount that a person has asked for; however they will always consider individual circumstances when making an award.

  If a person believes that the grant or loan is not sufficient to meet their needs they have the right to ask for the decision to be reviewed, first by their local office and, if they disagree with the outcome, the Independent Review Service. There are no current plans to change this procedure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he authorised the letter faxed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) on 28 February by the Cabinet Secretary. [158946]

  The Prime Minister
  As the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, informed the Public Administration Select Committee on Thursday 4 March, the letter was initiated by him. I was aware of it and approved of it being sent.

  Intelligence Services
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he received representations(a) in the run-up to and (b) during the war in Iraq from the then Secretary of State for International Development in which she raised concerns about the alleged activities of the United Kingdom's intelligence services at the UN. [158523]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will release to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration the full advice of the Attorney General on the legality of the war with Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [159588]

  The Prime Minister
  In evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee on 4 March, the Cabinet Secretary made clear that discussions with the Parliamentary Ombudsman are continuing as part of the normal process of handling these cases. The Government believe that the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the military action against Iraq is covered by exemptions 2 and 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which members of the Cabinet were provided with a copy of the Attorney-General's full opinion on the legality of military action against Iraq in March 2003. [159937]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice not to disclose details of internal discussion and advice or details of the circulation of papers to the Cabinet in line with exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  1434W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made by UK Government(a) ministers, (b) agencies and (c) Departments to (i) Dr. David Kay and (ii) the Iraq Survey Group (A) before and (b) during the preparation of its first draft report. [159943]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK has a number of civilian and military personnel attached to the Iraq Survey Group who are part of the process in investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. As part of this process, some would have contributed to the drafting of Dr. Kay's interim report on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) of 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1346W, what provisions of international law cover the use of nuclear weapons. [159934]

  The Prime Minister
  The legality of the use of nuclear weapons depends upon the application of the general rules of international law, including those regulating the inherent right of self-defence and the conduct of hostilities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to improve access to human intelligence for(a) British and (b). NATO forces operating in Afghanistan; and when he expects a human intelligence capacity to be available to British armed forces in Afghanistan. [159017]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the well-established and longstanding practice of successive Governments not to comment on operations of the Intelligence Services. The security and intelligence agencies are outside the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Paragraph 6, Part 1).

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) Afghans and (b) foreign nationals being held by the Coalition at Bagram airbase; and how long he expects they will be held. [158836]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]The British Government do not have detailed information about non-British detainees at Bagram. No British citizens are currently being held at Bagram and none of the detainees held there was captured by British forces. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been able to assess conditions at Bagram since 22 January 2002.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the value is of
  1435W
  Burmese assets frozen by the UK under EU sanctions; what the nature of those assets is; and where they are held. [159884]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The value of Burmese assets currently frozen by the UK under the EU Common Position is £3,573.57. The assets frozen are personal bank accounts of three individuals listed in the Annex to the Common Position, which is available on the website of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma: http://www.ncgub.net/Int'1―20Action/EU/EU℅20Commission℅20regulation℅2023℅20 December℅202003.pdf.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of militia violence in the Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. [159254]

  Mr. Mullin
  Recent reports of militia violence in the Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) relate to a number of attacks by a renegade militia group since the beginning of this year. The UN Mission in the DRC is in the process of investigating. We deplore all violence against innocent civilians.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed in the Department to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff; broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158171]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  External communications is the responsibility of the Press Office in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). There are 28 staff in the Press Office, comprising of six General Information and Communication Service (GICS) press officers, 11 non-GICS press officers and 11 support staff.

  Each of our overseas Posts also has a capacity to deal with local press and communications issues, commensurate with the size of the post and media interest.

  There are seven GICS officers working outside the Press Office.

  For details of the special advisers employed by the FCO, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 23 January 2003, Official Report, column 469W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total expenditure on communications for the Department has been in 2003–04, broken down by expenditure on(a) Government Information and Communications Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers.(ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158203]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  External communications is the responsibility of the Press Office of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). We anticipate the staff costs for 2003/04 will be as follows: GICS Press Officers £259,573, non GICS Press Officers £478,780, support 1436W
  staff £331,453, giving a total cost for the year of £1,069,806. There are further UK based, GICS staff, working outside of the Press Office and their cost for 2003–04 is anticipated to be £278,343. The total pay of special advisers for the year 2003–04 is anticipated to be £188,324. Costs comprise salary, employer's national insurance contributions and employers pension contributions.

  Our overseas posts have a capacity to deal with local press and communications issues, commensurate with the size of the post and media interest, however these costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The FCO is also the sponsoring Department for the BBC World Service, whose costs for the 10 months to 31 January 2004 are £177,859,730.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 482W, on Iraq, when the British embassy received the Note Verbale from the Mexican Government; and whether the UK Government has replied. [158354]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 743.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts, of what total financial value, have been awarded for reconstruction projects in Iraq, broken down by nationality of company awarded a contract. [159002]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The US administration has allocated $18.6 billion for the reconstruction process in Iraq. Because of the large number of different organisations involved and the fact that many are involved in partnerships with American, Iraqi and other companies, it has not been possible to maintain an overall picture of the total volume of contracts awarded on the basis of nationality. and the cumulative value of these contracts. There is no central organisation that collects, collates and publishes such information. However, British companies are active in the power, water, banking, ports, construction, telecoms, security, legal services and consultancy sectors.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the recent replacement of the Coalition Provisional Authority Governorate Co-ordinator for Dhi Qar province in Iraq. [159191]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]John Bourne served as the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Governorate Co-ordinator for Dhi Qar province from early September 2003 to 27 February 2004. It was never intended that he should remain until the dissolution of the CPA. He served with distinction in the face of considerable difficulties, particularly after the attack on the Italian Carabinieri in Nassariya. His Italian replacement, Barbara Contini, has already been working in the CPA's Regional Office in Basra, and comes with strong experience of post-conflict reconstruction in the Balkans.
  1437W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the interim constitution adopted by the Interim Governing Council in Iraq on the rights of women. [159501]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) signed on 8 March 2004 includes clear provisions for the protection of women's rights. It enshrines the fundamental rights of all Iraqis. It strictly prohibits discrimination based upon gender. The TAL also stipulates an electoral system designed to ensure that no less than one-quarter of representatives in the National Assembly are women.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the current status is of the decision taken by the governing council in Iraq to repeal existing family laws and make family law subject to Sharia. [159502]

  Mr. Rammell
  Governing Council Resolution 137 on family law has been withdrawn by the Governing Council. It has no legal status.

  Kolay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what inquiries he has made about the(a) fate and (b) whereabouts of the 500 villagers from Kolay and two nearby villages who were in hiding following clashes between forces from the State Peace and Development Council and the Karen National Union on 17 and 18 January; [157624]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government of Burma about the action of the State Peace and Development Council in forcibly relocating all Karenni villagers north and south of the Mawchi-Taungoo road to Mahutahlayu near Pasaungi in December 2003. [157626]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made no direct inquiries or representations on these issues. I do not have access to information to make accurate and reliable assessments of these matters. Travel restrictions imposed by the State Peace and Development Council on diplomats prevent local investigation or inquiries and make it difficult to independently verify such allegations.

  Nepal
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department gives to British travellers to Nepal on the Government's policy towards(a) the Government of Nepal and (b) Maoist rebels against the Government of Nepal. [160178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) travel advice does not contain statements of Government policy towards a particular country. FCO Travel Advice is available on the FCO website www.fco.gov.uk or it can be obtained by calling 0870 606 0290.
  1438W
  The FCO produces Travel Advice on 217 countries, including Nepal, which aims to ensure that British travellers are well prepared before their departure. This travel advice takes account of the on-going conflict between the government of Nepal and the Maoist insurgents.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements have been made by his Department on the Government's policy on the Maoist rebellion in Nepal in the last two years. [160179]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on Nepal on 19 June 2002,Official Report, columns 114–17WH, and to the statement I made at the Nepal International Support meeting in Nepal on 11 October 2002, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House. On 22 October 2003 I released a press statement in relation to the British Gurkha Nepal team temporarily abducted by Maoist forces. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary released a press statement on 28 August 2003 about the breakdown of the cease-fire in Nepal. Copies of both press statements are available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases.

  Overseas Bribery and Corruption
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures his Department employs for validation of reports on bribery and corruption overseas were received from involved in this procedure; and what criteria are employed for such validation. [151386]

  Mr. MacShane
  Reports on bribery and corruption overseas, received from diplomatic posts, are usually handled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Economic Policy Department. These reports are examined to see if any further information is necessary on the nature of the allegation and supporting evidence.

  Provided there is sufficient detail for an initial analysis, a report is sent to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

  Other Government Departments may also be made aware of these reports.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of repatriation of Sierra Leone refugees from Liberia. [159217]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 2 March the UN High Commission for Refugees restarted its repatriation programme for Sierra Leone refugees in Liberia. The first repatriations are proceeding smoothly. The programme is scheduled to last 17 weeks and aims to repatriate 14,000 of the 38,000 remaining refugees, 13,000 of whom are in refugee camps.
  1439W

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Darfur in Sudan. [158977]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in Darfur remains very serious. We are particularly concerned by reported attacks on civilians and are appealing to all parties to ensure protection of the civilian population. Although access to some areas is improving, the ability of humanitarian agencies to assist vulnerable populations remains limited. The Department for International Development has contributed over £6 million in response to the crisis in Darfur and is seconding three humanitarian affairs officers to the UN to work in Darfur for three months.

  We are urging all parties to re-establish a ceasefire, permit humanitarian access to those in need, and resume talks. To this end we have lobbied at the highest levels
  1440W
  in Khartoum, and are in almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan and the Darfur groups. The EU issued a statement expressing its serious concern on 25 February.

  UK Mission (Bugging)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the bugging of the UK Mission in the Justus Lipsius Council of Ministers building in 2003. [158527]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 530W, when I replied to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the Belgian authorities, on the approval of the Council of Ministers, have taken over the Council Secretariat's investigation into the discovery of a number of devices in the Justus Lipsius Council of Ministers building last year. We are co-operating closely with the authorities. The bugging operation remains a matter of serious concern.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  ACAS
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether each agency in the Department has disciplinary procedures which comply with(a) the ACAS handbook on discipline and grievances at work and (b) the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. [159413]

  Yvette Cooper
  Yes. In common with practice throughout the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, each agency has disciplinary procedures that comply with the ACAS Handbook and the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure.

  Arms-Length Management Organisations
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the legal liability is of the shareholders of arms-length management organisations if their ALMO goes bankrupt. [159460]

  Keith Hill
  The normal principles of company and company insolvency law apply to Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs). ALMOs are normally set up by local authorities as companies limited by guarantee. The local authority would not normally have any legal liability if an ALMO became insolvent, but each case will turn on its own facts. The authority would, however, remain statutorily responsible for providing and managing the housing stock.

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is the Department's policy to make notes of(a) meetings and (b) telephone conversations involving Ministers; and under what circumstances no notes would be taken. [149528]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister follows the central "Guidance on the Management of Private Office Papers" which makes clear that good record management procedures are necessary not least to ensure accountability and provide an audit trail. Among the records covered by the guidance are Ministers' meetings and telephone conversations.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money has been spent on(a) settling and (b)contesting claims in the Department registered at employment tribunals for (i) race discrimination, (ii) sex discrimination, (iii) disability discrimination, (iv) unfair dismissal and (v) equal pay since 1 January 2003. [159412]

  Yvette Cooper
  During the period in question, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has settled one Employment Tribunal case on terms that involved the payment of financial compensation. All other cases brought against the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were either withdrawn by the applicants, or settled on terms that did not involve payment.

  The exception was one case in category (i)—race relations—in which damages of £6,324.16 were paid.
  1442W
  The amounts expended in contesting applications made to Employment Tribunals are as set out as follows. The figures represent the costs of instructing Treasury Solicitor and of disbursements on fees to Counsel and other expenses. They include the case referred to above, as well as cases where The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has settled without payment of compensation, cases that have been successfully defended, cases that have been withdrawn and on-going expenses of cases that are still being contested.

  Since 1 January 2003 the amount of money spent on contesting claims at employment tribunals in the categories listed are as follows:

  (i) race discrimination—£15,655.64

  (ii) sex discrimination—£634

  (iii) disability discrimination⁃£23,856.85

  (iv) unfair dismissal £14,004.96

  (v) equal pay—£138,566.94.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Best Value Performance Indicator 183 as an indicator of the quality of service offered by local authority homeless services in areas of high demand; and whether BVPI 183 reflects(a) a local authority's current and historic performance and (b) the length of time homeless families with children in areas of high demand are required to spend in bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation; [158551]

  (2) if he will list the respondents to the consultation on Best Value Performance Indicator (a) X8, the number of individuals sleeping rough and (b) X9, the number of homeless families with children placed in temporary accommodation; if he will place copies of the responses in the Library; and when he expects to make a decision on their introduction. [158552]

  Yvette Cooper
  While no assessment has been made which focuses specifically on Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 183's effectiveness in areas of high demand, the BVPI does form part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's monitoring of all local authorities' provision of homelessness services. The BVPI provides useful information on the average length of time families with children spend in temporary accommodation with shared facilities. BVPI 183 was introduced in 2002–03. From 2004–05, it is proposed that this BVPI will be complemented by two other homelessness indicators, which will record the number of individuals sleeping rough (BVX8) and the number of homeless families with children placed in temporary accommodation (BVX9).

  Consultation on the introduction of the two additional Homelessness Best Value Performance Indicators closed on 6 February. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received 75 responses. A list of the respondents is as follows.

  An Order was laid before Parliament on 4 March which will enable the two additional Homelessness Best Value Performance Indicators to come into force from

  1443W
  1 April. I will arrange for copies of the responses to the consultation paper to be made available in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  Respondents to the consultation on BVX8 and BVX9:

  Association of London Government

  Barnardo's

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  Basingstoke and Deane borough council

  Bassettlaw district council

  Bradford metropolitan district council

  Breckland district council

  Brentwood borough council

  Brighton and Hove city council

  Bristol city council

  Broadway

  Burnley borough council

  Bury metropolitan borough council

  Chartered Institute of Housing

  Cherwell district council

  Chester city council

  Corporation of London

  Cotswold district council

  Darlington borough council

  Doncaster metropolitan borough council

  Dudley metropolitan borough council

  East Dorset district council

  East Northamptonshire district council

  Eastbourne borough council

  Gateshead metropolitan borough council

  Gedling borough council

  Greater London Association

  Groundswell UK

  Halton borough council

  Hambleton district council

  Hastings borough council

  Homeless Link

  Horsham district council

  Local Government Association

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London borough of Haringey

  London borough of Harrow

  London borough of Hillingdon

  London borough of Lambeth

  London borough of Merton

  London borough of Newham

  London borough of Redbridge (Officer Response)

  London borough of Walthamstow

  London borough of Wandsworth

  London borough of Westminster

  Lincoln city council

  Liverpool city council

  Manchester city council

  Mid Beds district council

  National Audit Office

  Mid Sussex district council

  North Hertfordshire district council

  Penwith district council

  Portsmouth city council

  1444W

  Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Redcar and Cleveland borough council

  Restormel borough council

  Rochdale metropolitan borough council

  Rotherham metropolitan borough council

  Rushmoor borough council

  Ryedale district council

  Salford city council

  Sandwell metropolitan borough council

  Selby district council

  Sheffield city council

  Shelter

  Shepway district council

  South Bedfordshire district council

  South Holland district council

  South Oxfordshire district council

  Stratford on Avon district council

  Stroud district council

  Sunderland city council

  Tonbridge and Mailing borough council

  Uttlesford district council

  Warwick district council

  West Somerset district council

  Wychavon district council

  Local Authorities (Members' Allowances)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will amend the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 to allow co-opted councillors to claim allowances; and if he will make a statement. [157315]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Co-opted members of principal councils are already entitled to receive a co-optees allowance and a travel and subsistence allowance.

  Co-opted members of parishes are not currently entitled to receive allowances. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to amend the regulations governing councillors' allowances shortly so that all parish councillors are eligible to receive an allowance for travel and subsistence.

  At present, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not plan to allow un-elected parish councillors to receive a basic allowance and will reassess this position, as part of the wider review of councillors' allowances, later this year.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) Regulations (England) 2003; what plans he has to alter the regulations in respect of non-elected councillors; and if he will make a statement. [158822]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a number of letters from MPs in recent weeks on behalf of their parish councils in respect of non-elected parish councillors.

  Co-opted members of parishes are not currently entitled to receive allowances. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to amend the

  1445W
  regulations governing councillors' allowances shortly so that all parish councillors are eligible to receive an allowance for travel and subsistence.

  At present, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not plan to allow un-elected parish councillors to receive a basic allowance and will reassess this position, as part of the wider review of councillors' allowances, later this year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to change the regulations whereby co-opted parish councillors are not entitled to the same pay and allowances as elected parish councillors. [158110]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to amend the regulations governing councillors' allowances shortly so that all parish councillors are eligible to receive an allowance for travel and subsistence.

  At present, however, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not plan to allow un-elected parish councillors to receive a basic allowance. We will reassess this position, as part of the wider review of councillors' allowances, later this year.

  Local Government
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what figure for the rate of inflation was used by the Minister for Local Government in his statement on 16 January that each local authority would receive at least an above inflation increase in grant for 2004–05. [159801]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest estimate of inflation available on 16 January was the Retail Price Index—all items excluding Mortgage Interest: Payments (RPIX) for November 2003 at 2.5 per cent.

  Every local authority in England with responsibility for education and social services received at least a 4 per cent. increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis in 2004–05; every shire district received at least a 3 per cent. increase; every fire authority received at least a 3½ per cent. increase; and every police authority received at least a 3¼ per cent. increase.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on the reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [159465]

  Phil Hope
  A phased programme of regulatory and policy reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme was announced on 23 July 2003. This takes forward the Government's proposals on the future of occupational pension schemes set out in the White Paper "Simplicity security and choice (CMS835)" and some initial findings from the on-going Stocktake of the Scheme. Following consultation, new regulations will take effect on 1 April. These will be followed by a statutory consultation exercise on further scheme amendments, which in part deal with proposals to increase the normal retirement age. These amendments are intended to take effect from 1446W
  April 2005. For the longer term, proposals to ensure the sustainability of the Scheme will be circulated to stakeholders in England and Wales later in the year.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which planning guidance notes are to be replaced with Planning Policy Statements; and what the timetable is. [159962]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has gone out to public consultation on revisions to PPG1 (General Policies and Principles), PPG3 (Housing), PPG6 (Town Centres), PPG7 (Countryside), PPG 11 (Regional Planning), PPG12 (Development Plans), PPG 22 (Renewable Energy) and PPG23 (Planning and Pollution) with a view to re-issuing these during 2004 as Planning Policy Statements (PPS). It is anticipated that consultation will begin in the first half of 2004 on revisions to PPG4 (Economic Development), PPG9 (Nature Conservation/ Biodiversity) and PPG 10 (Planning and Waste Management).

  The timetable for the review of other PPGs is being considered in the light of the recommendation in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee's report on the Annual Report 2003 that we should withdraw our stated intention to revise the less controversial PPGs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to make an announcement on this by the end of March.

  Roma
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the impact on Cambridgeshire of migration by the Roma Community of Eastern Europe after enlargement of the EU on 1 May; [150822]

  (2) what guidance he is issuing to local authorities regarding inward migration of the Roma community of Eastern Europe after enlargement of the EU on 1 May. [150823]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answers 26 January 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of numbers of people from the accession countries, whether or not they are members of the Roma community, who may travel to Cambridgeshire. There is no information available upon which such an estimate could be based. However guidance will be made available to local housing authorities regarding proposed changes to the rules on eligibility for benefits that they administer, and on eligibility for social housing and homelessness assistance, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in his Statement to the House on EU Accession on 23 February.

  Severe Weather
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued to local authorities on dealing with the effects of severe weather. [159237]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.
  1447W
  Cabinet Office has produced guidance—Dealing with Disaster—on the principles of emergency planning to assist local authorities in their preparation for, and response to, a range of major incidents, including those resulting from the effects of severe weather.

  Within this framework, local authorities work closely with relevant Government Departments and organisations to ensure that robust and effective plans are in place. For example, local authorities, where necessary, will liaise regularly with flood defence managers at the Environment Agency to maintain flood defence plans.

  The guidance is available in the Libraries of the House and at www.ukresilience.gov.uk.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148626]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following Machinery of Government changes in May 2002. The first complete year for which we have data on staff sick absence rates for staff in our HQ is January-December 2003. During this period the number of people taking sick leave was as follows:

  Number of days

  Number taking sick leave

  (a) 4–7

  411

  (b) 8–21

  204

  (c) 22–42

  53

  (d) 43–72

  31

  (e) 73–140

  22

  (f) 141–196

  4

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to managing sick absence effectively.

HEALTH

  B Streptococcal Screening
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the costs and benefits of group B Streptococcal screening. [158783]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence recently published a Clinical Guideline on Routine Antenatal Care, which recommends that pregnant women should not be offered routine antenatal screening for group B streptococcus (GBS), because evidence that it will do more good than harm is uncertain.

  The UK National Screening Committee is currently reviewing the prevention of GBS infection in newborn babies. As part of its work programme, it has asked the
  1448W
  National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment to commission research in this area and detailed proposals are being developed.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental practices have gone private in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [154434]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of dental practices going totally private is very small as most dentists continue with some national health service work. The Office of Fair Trading report "The private dentistry market in the UK", published in March 2003, states that only 210 practices are totally private in the UK out of 11,000 practices in total.

  Between August 2002 and August 2003 the total number of dental practices in the General Dental Service, Personal Dental Service or Salaried Dental Services increased by 44.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS orthodontists accepted new NHS patients in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154437]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the form requested. Information on which dentists currently accept new national health service patients is continually updated and available on the NHS website at www.nhs.uk. However, this does not identify those dentists who do orthodontic work within the general dental service.

  The number of dentists making 100 or more appliance claims for payments for orthodontic appliances, together with dentists in personal dental service orthodontic pilots, is available from the Dental Practice Board. These data are shown in the table for the period since 1997–98.

  Number of dentists with 100 or more appliance claims or in orthodontic pilots in England

  Number1

  1997–98

  448

  1998–99

  482

  1999–2000

  490

  2000–01

  532

  2001–02

  565

  2002–03

  591

  1 General dental service dentists with 100 or more appliance claims during the year and personal dental service dentists in orthodontic pilots at September.

  Mr. Burstow
  Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS dentists were(a) male and (b) female in (i) each NHS region, (ii) each strategic health authority and (iii) England in each year since 1990. [156294]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information is shown in the tables. This is for the proportion of male and female national health service dentists for each NHS region, each strategic health authority and England at September in each of the years 1996 to 2002 in table 1. For the years 1991 to 1995, information is available for England only and is in table 2.

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS),
  1449W
  community dental service (CDS), and personal dental service (PDS). Excluded are the small numbers of salaried dentists. Dentists are counted on a headcount basis and so no account is taken for part-time working in the NHS.

  Table 1: National health service: Proportion of dentists in England by sex in each region and strategic health authority at September each year

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  England

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  NHS Region

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.67

  0.33

  Trent

  0.73

  0.27

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  West Midlands

  0.71

  0.29

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  0.70

  0.30

  North West

  0.70

  0.30

  0.70

  0.30

  0.68

  0.32

  0.68

  0.32

  Eastern

  0.72

  0.28

  0.70

  0.30

  0.70

  0.30

  0.70

  0.30

  London

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  0.65

  0.35

  0.66

  0.34

  South East

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  South and West

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  Strategic Health Authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  0.70

  0.30

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  0.71

  0.29

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  0.71

  0.29

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  0.67

  0.33

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  0.65

  0.35

  Cov., Warks, Herefordshire and Worcs

  0.68

  0:32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.68

  0.32

  0.68

  0.32

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  0.65

  0.35

  Dorset and Somerset

  0.77

  0.23

  0.75

  0.25

  0.75

  0.25

  0.74

  0.26

  Essex

  0.74

  0.26

  0.72

  0.28

  0.70

  0.30

  0.71

  0.29

  Greater Manchester

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.70

  0.30

  0.70

  0.30

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  Kent and Medway

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  Leics, Northants and Rutland

  0.73

  0.27

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  0.71

  0.29

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lines.

  0.75

  0.25

  0.75

  0.25

  0.73

  0.27

  0.73

  0.27

  North Central London

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  0.68

  0.32

  0.65

  0.35

  North East London

  0.73

  0.27

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.70

  0.30

  North West London

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  Northumberland. Tyne and Wear

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.67

  0.33

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  South East London

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  South West London

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  0.63

  0.37

  0.64

  0.36

  South West Peninsula

  0.73

  0.27

  0.74

  0.26

  0.72

  0.28

  0.73

  0.27

  South Yorkshire

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  0.71

  0.29

  0.71

  0.29

  Surrey and Sussex

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  Thames Valley

  0.65

  0.35

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  0.63

  0.37

  Trent

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  West Yorkshire

  0.68

  0.32

  0.68

  0.32

  0.69

  0.31

  0.67

  0.33

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  England

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  NHS Region

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  —

  —

  Trent

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  —

  —

  Northwest

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  —

  —

  Eastern

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  —

  —

  London

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  —

  —

  South East

  0.65

  0.35

  0.65

  0.35

  —

  —

  South and West

  0.69

  0.31

  0.69

  0.31

  —

  —

  Strategic Health Authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  0.66

  0.34

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  0.71

  0.29

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  0.69

  0.31

  0,68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  0.64

  0.36

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  0.64

  0.36

  0.63

  0.37

  0.65

  0.35

  Cov., Warks, Herefordshire and Worcs

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  0.63

  0.37

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  0.66

  0.34

  0.65

  0.35

  0.65

  0.35

  1450W
  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 in the GDS only.

  Information for 2003 is not yet available.
  1451W

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Dorset and Somerset

  0.73

  0.27

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  Essex

  0.72

  0.28

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  Greater Manchester

  0.68

  0.32

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  0.64

  0.36

  0.65

  0.35

  0.64

  0.36

  Kent and Medway

  0.68

  0.32

  0.67

  0.33

  0.66

  0.34

  Leics, Northants and Rutland

  0.73

  0.27

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lines.

  0.71

  0.29

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  North Central London

  0.65

  0.35

  0.62

  0.38

  0.62

  0.38

  North East London

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  North West London

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  Northumberland. Tyne and Wear

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  0.69

  0.31

  0.66

  0.34

  0.66

  0.34

  South East London

  0.64

  0.36

  0.63

  0.37

  0.62

  0.38

  South West London

  0.62

  0.38

  0.61

  0.39

  0.60

  0.40

  South West Peninsula

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  0.72

  0.28

  South Yorkshire

  0.70

  0.30

  0.69

  0.31

  0.68

  0.32

  Surrey and Sussex

  0.67

  0.33

  0.65

  0.35

  0.65

  0.35

  Thames Valley

  0.61

  0.39

  0.61

  0.39

  0.59

  0.41

  Trent

  0.67

  0.33

  0.67

  0.33

  0.65

  0.35

  West Yorkshire

  0.68

  0.32

  0.66

  0.34

  0.63

  0.37

  Table 2: National health service: Proportion of dentists in England by sex at September each year

  England

  Male

  Female

  1991

  0.74

  0.26

  1992

  0.73

  0.27

  1993

  0.72

  0.28

  1994

  0.72

  0.28

  1995

  0.71

  0.29

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 502W, on departmental staff, what information his Department collates on the functions undertaken by staff in each business group. [158496]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In summary, the work of Departmental staff in the three business groups includes:Delivery—staff responsible for supporting delivery of targets set out in the NHS Plan. These include helping reduce waiting times, increasing choice for National Health Service patients, securing resources for NHS and local government organisations, ensuring the NHS has the capacity to deliver and integrating NHS information technology systems to deliver modernised patient services.
  Standards and Quality—staff responsible for the majority of our policy-making responsibilities, ranging from scientific developments and medical innovations, such as stem cell research, to lifestyle issues, such as obesity. Staff set standards and define quality in health and social care services, maintain and promote health and well being, ensure safety of patients and users and deliver key programmes, such as cancer.
  Strategy and Business Development—staff responsible for important corporate services, such as communications, corporate human resources and information services, ensuring the Department is run effectively and efficiently. They also lead important programmes and policies, such as system reform, equality, medicine and pharmacy, user experience and involvement and professional leadership.
  1452W

  Diabetes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to(a) scope, (b) commission and (c) disseminate research into the early detection of diabetes. [158029]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Screening Committee will, advise the Department by 2005 on the most effective policy for screening for Type 2 diabetes. It is generally accepted that screening of the whole population for Type 2 diabetes would not be cost-effective given the low prevalence of undiagnosed disease. However there is emerging evidence to suggest that it may be clinically and cost effective to offer screening to specific sub-groups of the population who are at high risk for diabetes. The Department and the National Screening Committee have commissioned research to define high-risk individuals and to evaluate pilot screening projects in primary care. The results of this research will be available to inform the advice of the National Screening Committee.

  Eye/Dental Check-ups
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of implementing a policy for free(a) eye and (b) dental check-ups for all NHS patients. [155965]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Sight tests under national health service arrangements are already available to certain priority groups. These include, children, those aged 16–18 in full-time education, people on low incomes and defined categories of people at particular risk of developing eye disease. In April 1999 we extended sight tests to all people aged 60 and over.

  Based on the most recent data available of the number of private sight tests, the cost of extending NHS sight tests to this group, at the 2002–03 rate of £16.72, would be an additional £80 million for England. The total cost would be increased if the change stimulated demand for more eye examinations. Costs could also be affected if

  1453W
  the change in the scope of the NHS service was associated with any review of the sight test fee payable to optometrists.

  About a quarter of dental examinations carried out on adults in the general dental service (GDS) involve patients who are exempt from charges or who qualify for a reduced charge.

  If dental examinations were made free to all adults in England, patient charge revenue would be reduced by around £85 million per annum.

  Fall-Related Injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of falls in people aged over 60 was to(a) the NHS and (b) personal social services in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156646]

  Fires 1,2 in care homes for elderly people by fire and Rescue Authority area, 1997–2002

  Fire and Rescue Service area

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20023

  England

  935

  940

  1,041

  851

  738

  780

  Avon

  12

  10

  13

  12

  38

  27

  Bedfordshire

  9

  12

  1

  0

  4

  10

  Berkshire

  15

  9

  35

  16

  30

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  26

  70

  61

  30

  22

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  16

  0

  10

  1

  11

  Cheshire

  36

  38

  10

  22

  29

  30

  Cleveland

  15

  18

  10

  21

  10

  6

  Cornwall

  16

  13

  25

  15

  15

  0

  Cumbria

  5

  15

  25

  20

  14

  14

  Derbyshire

  19

  5

  16

  11

  11

  11

  Devon

  33

  37

  34

  40

  16

  20

  Dorset

  6

  0

  4

  6

  9

  11

  Durham

  10

  13

  12

  13

  4

  4

  East Sussex

  5

  14

  13

  5

  6

  26

  Essex

  13

  13

  18

  11

  10

  24

  Gloucestershire

  13

  8

  0

  9

  6

  5

  Hampshire

  10

  6

  6

  20

  0

  6

  Hereford and Worcester

  28

  34

  30

  21

  20

  13

  Hertfordshire

  75

  66

  75

  24

  13

  25

  Humberside

  15

  15

  16

  7

  6

  12

  Isle of Wight

  0

  5

  4

  1

  1

  0

  Kent

  56

  30

  36

  21

  5

  21

  Lancashire

  23

  14

  41

  24

  12

  30

  Leicestershire

  4

  13

  0

  22

  12

  15

  Lincolnshire

  1

  11

  7

  13

  12

  17

  Norfolk

  6

  0

  3

  10

  9

  4

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  9

  13

  27

  12

  Northamptonshire

  54

  35

  64

  18

  30

  10

  Northumberland

  14

  6

  15

  17

  11

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  15

  3

  8

  14

  9

  Oxfordshire

  6

  0

  16

  0

  4

  13

  Shropshire

  6

  6

  13

  4

  5

  6

  Somerset

  0

  5

  5

  10

  6

  17

  Staffordshire

  18

  25

  34

  29

  16

  7

  Suffolk

  1

  2

  28

  10

  4

  5

  Surrey

  5

  19

  20

  30

  6

  9

  Warwickshire

  17

  5

  7

  4

  5

  18

  West Sussex

  0

  10

  15

  5

  15

  15

  Wiltshire

  29

  18

  12

  18

  14

  18

  Greater Manchester

  34

  43

  69

  32

  57

  51

  Merseyside

  23

  15

  27

  23

  7

  12

  South Yorkshire

  15

  16

  8

  23

  24

  12

  Tyne and Wear

  47

  31

  39

  47

  43

  48

  West Midlands

  108

  101

  94

  76

  71

  63

  West Yorkshire

  19

  31

  12

  26

  19

  25

  London

  75

  68

  56

  58

  43

  49

  1 Including late call and heat and smoke damage incidents.

  2 Figures are based on sampled data weighted to agreed FRA totals.

  3 Excludes strike days in November 2002.

  Source:

  Fire and Rescue Authority returns to ODPM.

  1454W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The actual cost of falls to the national health service and to personal social services is not recorded centrally. Hip fractures are the most common serious injury resulting from falls in older people. The national service framework for older people estimated the cost to the NHS of hip fractures at around £1.7 billion per annum for England.

  Fires (Care Homes)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fires have occurred in care homes for the elderly(a) in total in England and (b) broken down by local authority in each year since 1997. [157369]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of fires in care homes for the elderly attended by the Fire and Rescue Service in England since 1997 are as follows:

  Mental Health
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the progress made on the NHS plan target to recruit 700 carers workers; [154824]

  (2) whether the 700 carers workers promised in the NHS plan will be additional to existing staff in NHS trusts. [154828]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The commitment to recruit 700 carer support workers to by 2004 to increase the breaks available for carers, and to strengthen carer support networks is part of the "Priorities and Planning Framework 2003—06" which identified the targets set for services in the three year period.

  Recruitment is a local responsibility therefore we cannot say whether the 700 carer support workers will all be additional to existing national health service staff. Guidance on developing carer support services was published in 2002.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 688W, on mental health, whether the (a) 27 early intervention teams and (b) 132 crisis resolution teams conform to an early intervention model; what quality standards have been put in place for them; and if he will make a statement. [154986]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Detailed service specifications for crisis resolution and early intervention teams are contained in the "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" (2001), which is available in the Library.

  A full analysis of the teams currently in operation against the criteria set out in the "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" is available from the Durham adult mental health services mapping database at http://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh, which is regularly updated to reflect changes in team attributes.

  Local services are supported and managed by strategic health authorities to develop local delivery plans to meet NHS Plan targets.

  Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been allocated to implement the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and how implementation will be monitored. [158507]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding to implement the guidance and recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is not separately identified in primary care trust (PCT) allocations. The national health service is currently receiving the largest sustained increase in funding in its history, so the question of affordability of NICE recommendations should not be an issue. The total of PCT allocations is £45 billion for 2003–04, £49.3 billion for 2004–05 and £53.9 billion for 2005–06. This represents an increase of £12.7 billion, or an average of 30.8 per cent. over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will inspect against healthcare standards. The Health Care Standards were published on
  1456W
  10 February 2004 and are now out for consultation. NICE guidance features at two places within the standards. Within the "core" standards (under "clinical and cost effectiveness"), NICE appraisals are included; and under the "developmental" standards, NICE clinical guidelines are shown. The developmental standards are aspirational and for the NHS to implement over a longer period of time.

  Whitehaven Care Home
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken by the National Care Standards Commission following the inspection of the Whitehaven Care Home For Adults in Felpham, Bognor Regis on the 11 and 12 of November 2003. [159728]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This is a matter for the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). I understand that the NCSC has monitored the requirements made of the service provider during its inspection of November 2003. It is satisfied with the action plan which the provider has drawn up to address the shortfalls identified in the inspection. The NCSC will continue to keep closely in touch with the service provider and monitor the situation to ensure that compliance with Regulations and national minimum standards is achieved and that there is no risk to the people living at Whitehaven.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of anti-social behaviour orders in(a) reducing the frequency and seriousness of crimes by children and young people and (b) reassuring communities; and what plans he has to publish his findings. [158841]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are intended to address anti-social behaviour. In Home Office research study 236, January 2002 'A review of anti-social behaviour orders', Siobhan Campbell carried out some research into ASBOs shortly after they had been introduced. Campbell found that few areas managed to monitor ASBOs successfully, but just over one third of a sample of 40 individuals given ASBOs were known to have breached their order. Fewer (30 per cent.) had committed further offences during that time. In only four cases had the individual been taken to court for both breach and a further offence.

  Campbell also found that there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that ASBOs had been successful. The Home Office has not carried out further research to assess the impact of ASBOs in (a) reducing the frequency and seriousness of crimes by children and young people and (b) reassuring communities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees have been
  1457W
  resident at the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre for longer than (a) seven and (b) 10 days during the course of 2003. [145368]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the length of time detainees were resident at the Oakington Reception Centre and on all detainees held during 2003 is not available, except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Buses (Vandalism)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of vandalism to buses were reported in each police force area in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [159031]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cannabis
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to assess the research carried out by Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry on the causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia. [159288]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Secretary has not asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs (ACMD) to formally assess research carried out by Professor Robin Murray. Much of the research carried out by Professor Robin Murray was known to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) at the time it was producing its report on cannabis. The ACMD felt the research did not conclusively prove a causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia. The ACMD feel any new evidence produced since its cannabis report does not affect the overall weight of evidence or their conclusions that cannabis while still harmful, is less harmful than other drugs in Class B.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons evaluation of the 2004 cannabis advertising campaign is only being conducted among 14 to 17-year-olds; [159307]

  (2) which agencies bid for the 2004 cannabis advertising campaign. [159308]

  Caroline Flint
  It is important to focus our evaluation of the 2004 cannabis advertising campaign on 14 to 17-year-olds because they represent the priority audience for the Government in our overall aim to reduce drug misuse among young people. It is particularly important that under 18s understand the law because they will be arrested if found in possession of cannabis.

  The agency 'Mother', which is the Home Office's incumbant agency for the drugs education campaign, FRANK, was retained for the reclassification of the cannabis campaign aimed at persons under 18. They had participated in a full competitive pitch through the COI's roster of preferred providers and had been awarded a contract in October 2002.

  The joint Home Office Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) advertising campaign aimed at adults was commissioned through ACPO and was based on proposals they had developed with their own agency.

  Child Trafficking
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to(a) prevent child trafficking and (b) provide protection and support to the victims of child trafficking. [158227]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government is committed to combating child trafficking, both in the UK and in source countries. I have recently established an informal ministerial group to improve further the Government's response to the trafficking of both adults and children.

  The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raise awareness of trafficking in source and transit countries through bilateral and multilateral development programmes. These have included training for agencies working with victims of trafficking and work to raise awareness of trafficking.

  Since 2000, all operational activity targeted against organised immigration crime, including people trafficking, has been co-ordinated through the multi-agency task force Reflex.

  Led by the National Crime Squad (NCS), Reflex brings together all the key agencies, including the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and key police forces. Reflex aims to build up the intelligence picture, co-ordinate operations and provide a focal point for the operational response to human trafficking and smuggling.

  The Reflex strategy is, in part, based on seeking to disrupt activity as close to the source as possible. The development of an international network of Immigration Liaison Officers in countries that are considered to contain key nexus points for transit to the UK has been a key component of the Reflex strategy. Projects in source countries to prevent trafficking include working with law enforcement and government agencies to identify and disrupt trafficking networks and routes.

  In addition, the UK is contributing to the EU five year funding programme AGIS which will fund projects to promote police and judicial co-operation on combating organised crime.

  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 sets out wide-ranging offences covering trafficking for sexual exploitation with a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. A new offence covering trafficking for non-sexual purposes, such as forced labour or removal of organs, is included in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill which is currently before Parliament, however, we have also tabled amendments in the House of Commons to ensue that the Bill gives adequate protection to victims of child slavery.

  The Immigration Service has started specialist child interviewing training for around 600 operational members of staff nation-wide which will help identify child victims of trafficking as they arrive in the UK.

  The Government has also published a best practice toolkit, available at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits, as a guide for professionals who are likely to come into contact with victims of trafficking. This includes specific sections on children and young people.
  1459W
  The Government is committed to providing appropriate support to victims of trafficking. Child victims of trafficking are likely to be in need of welfare services. Under the Children Act 1989 local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those needs or arranging for their provision by other agencies. Assistance and support should therefore be provided by local statutory services in response to identified needs, whether directly or though specialist agencies.

  The Green Paper Every Child Matters highlighted tackling child trafficking as a key challenge for children's services. It also sets out new arrangements to join up services at the local level to strengthen child protection.

  Coroners
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance coroners are given on being sensitive to the families of the deceased in cases where an inquest many be necessary and on doing all that is reasonably practicable to meet the acute needs of the bereaved. [159968]

  Paul Goggins
  All those involved in the coroner and death certification system are expected to approach bereaved families and friends of the deceased in a sensitive manner. The Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Coroner Services, and the Shipman Inquiry both (laid before Parliament last year) recommended a more involved role for the family of the deceased. The Home Secretary and I are considering the recommendations set out in these and other reports and are deciding on a programme of reform which will include proposals to make the system more sensitive to the needs of the bereaved. We plan to publish a position paper shortly.

  Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) investigations and (b) prosecutions of individuals and companies for the offence of bribery of a foreign public official by the Metropolitan Police under (i) UK corruption laws and (ii) the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [158308]

  Paul Goggins
  I am informed that the Metropolitan Police is currently investigating two allegations of bribery of a foreign public official. The Metropolitan Police is not responsible for the prosecution of offences.

  There have been no prosecutions for the offence of bribery of a foreign public official since the enactment of part 12 of the ATCS Act which allows for extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes of corruption committed abroad by UK nationals and incorporated bodies. The Home Office does not keep specific statistics on prosecutions of bribery of a foreign public official within the UK, although there is one reported case (R v. Raud 1989).

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the(a) the UK Central Authority, (b) the National Criminal Intelligence Service and (c) the Metropolitan Police have received
  1460W
  a request from the (i) French authorities, (ii) US authorities and (iii) 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. [158312]

  Caroline Flint
  It is the Home Office's practice to treat letters of request for assistance in criminal matters from foreign governments confidentially, as communications between two countries. We are normally therefore unable to confirm or deny that we have received a request.

  However, the United Kingdom remains committed to assisting its international partners in the fight against corruption and bribery wherever possible.

  Disorder Penalties (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Merseyside police have issued penalty notices for disorder to 16 to 17-year-olds. [159597]

  Ms Blears
  The penalty notice for disorder scheme is in the process of being rolled out to all police forces in England and Wales. It is expected to be in place nationally by 1 April. Merseyside police commenced issuing penalty notices for disorder with effect from 1 March. Data are not yet available on penalty notices issued.

  Dog Theft
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking(a) to establish the extent of the problem of stolen dogs and (b) to co-ordinate a national strategy for dealing with the problem; [158725]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with (a) the police and (b) other countries concerning dog theft; [158726]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce a national dog register; [158727]

  (4) what representations he has received concerning dog theft; and if he will make a statement; [158728]

  (5) what steps he intends to take to ensure that instances of dog theft are properly investigated by the police; [158729]

  (6) if he will introduce a time threshold after which a dog reported as being missing will be classified by police as stolen; [159493]

  (7) if he will make it his policy to introduce passports for dogs travelling out of Britain to counter the problem of stolen dogs. [159494]

  Ms Blears
  There is no national strategy to counter dog theft. Where this emerges as a pressing local crime issue, it would be for the police, in consultation with the
  1461W
  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, to take appropriate action. Statistics on the kidnapping of dogs are not held centrally.

  Driving Disqualification
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals in Greater London were disqualified from driving in each of the last 10 years. [158448]

  Caroline Flint
  Available information up to 2001, which has been taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table. Information for 2002 will be available early in the spring.

  Number of persons disqualified1 from driving at all courts for motoring offences, within Greater London 1992–2001

  year

  Persons disqualified

  1992

  20,900

  1993

  26,400

  1993

  30,000

  1995

  17,100

  1996

  26,800

  1997

  26,300

  1998

  23,100

  1999

  21,100

  2000

  19,800

  2001

  20,900

  1 Includes persons disqualified under s.35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).

  Driving Standards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) endorsements and (b) disqualifications were registered by the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency against holders of GB driving licences in each of the last five years. [159789]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]: Information is not collected centrally on the number of endorsements and disqualifications issued against GB driving licence holders.

  Available data, given in the tables, shows the number of fixed penalty notices issued for endorsable offences and the number of offences where endorsements without disqualifications and total disqualifications were imposed at all courts within England and Wales from 1997 to 2001.

  Table A: Driving licence endorsements by type of action, England and Wales, 1997–2001

  Number of offences

  Type of action

  Fixed penalty notices: issued for endorsable offences

  Court proceedings (all courts): endorsements without disqualifications

  1997

  841,055

  623,205

  1998

  902,640

  622,734

  1999

  937,719

  637,487

  2000

  1 1,101,490

  626,317

  2001

  1,341,564

  599,879

  1 Revised since publication of HOSB

  1462W

  Table B: Driving licence disqualifications imposed at all courts, England and Wales, 1997–2001

  Number of offences where total disqualifications imposed

  Persons disqualified under s.35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty point system)

  1997

  161,267

  31,120

  1998

  157,963

  23,865

  1999

  156,099

  34,210

  2000

  153,293

  33,554

  2001

  165,044

  30,079

  Drug Testing (Schools)
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in de-toxification and rehabilitation places which random drug testing in schools will require. [157818]

  Caroline Flint
  De-toxification and rehabilitation are appropriate only for those with established drug-dependency, which is very rare in young people of school age. It is therefore unlikely that random drug testing in schools will have a significant impact on demand for de-toxification and rehabilitation services.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether random drug testing in schools requires the agreement of(a) local and (b) community police officers. [157819]

  Caroline Flint
  It will be for individual schools to decide upon the scope of drug testing, if any, and to decision what action to take if there has been a breach of school drug policy or of the law. Random drug testing in schools does not require the agreement of the police.

  Information is available through Drugs: Guidance for Schools, which is being sent to schools on 9 March.

  Drunk Driving
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers were found to be in excess of the legal alcohol limit in each year since 1997. [159045]

  Caroline Flint
  Available information from 1997 to 2001 on the number of drivers who have been found to be in excess of the legal alcohol limit is given in the table. Statistics collected centrally do not distinguish between positive and refused tests.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the Spring.

  Number of positive or refused breath tests, 1997–2001: England and Wales

  Numbers

  Number of positive or refused

  1997

  103,500

  1998

  102,300

  1999

  94,100

  2000

  94,600

  2001

  99,500

  Eastern European Immigrants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tests he will use to determine whether immigrants from Eastern European countries are eligible for immediate access to(a) benefits, (b) NHS treatment and (c) education following accession to the EU in May. [153095]

  Beverley Hughes
  As a result of the measures we announced on 23 February, nationals of the accession states (other than Cyprus and Malta) will be eligible for income-related benefits only if they have worked lawfully in the UK for a continuous period of 12 months. This restriction will apply for two years and may be extended. Those in work on a low income will be entitled to the normal work-related benefits.

  From 1 May EU-wide reciprocal health rules will apply to the accession states. Temporary visitors from these states can access immediately necessary treatment but their home state will have to pay the bill. There will be no automatic entitlement to free treatment for pre-existing conditions unless the home country authorises and pays for that care.

  Anyone who is deemed to be "ordinarily resident" in the UK, that is to say that they are living lawfully here for settled purposes, is entitled to receive free NHS care. People from accession states working here legally will therefore be entitled to the full range of NHS treatment free of charge along with all other residents.

  Nationals from the accession states will be eligible for education as are nationals of existing EU states.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average police response time to(a) grade one emergency 999 calls and (b) other 999 calls is, broken down by region; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure the effective prioritisation of 999 calls. [158844]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally. Responsibility for prioritising calls and deciding the most appropriate time to respond to 999 calls lie with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to attending to calls requiring an immediate response within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.

  EU Enlargement (Health Staff)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) midwives and (b) nurses from (i) Poland and (ii) other EU accession states will be able to work in the United Kingdom after accession. [156862]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Relevantly qualified midwives and nurses from Poland and other EU accession states will be able to work in the United Kingdom after accession.

  All nationals from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania who find work in the UK will be required to apply to register with the Home Office under the new 'Worker Registration Scheme' as soon as they find work.

  Fines
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on-the-spot fines were issued in each police authority area(a) in total and (b) per 10,000 population since their introduction, listed in descending order of number per 10,000 population. [157703]

  Ms Blears
  Penalty notices for disorder were piloted in four police forces for a period of 12 months from August and September 2002. Five police forces were involved: the British Transport Police (in West Midlands area only), West Midlands and Essex Police (both forcewide), North Wales Police (initially in their Central Division and then forcewide from April 2003) and the Metropolitan Police (Croydon Division). During the pilots over 6,000 penalty notices were issued.

  An evaluation report is being compiled and will be published. The report will provide a detailed breakdown of the penalty notices issued during the pilots.

  The penalty notice for disorder schemes is currently being rolled out to all police forces in England and Wales and is due to be in place nationally by 1 April.

  Gambling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the change in the need for assessment and treatment of problem gambling among offenders consequent on the provisions of the draft Gambling Bill, with particular reference to young offenders. [158670]

  Paul Goggins
  No assessment has been made of any change in the need for assessment and treatment of problem gambling among offenders as a result of the provisions of the draft Gambling Bill.

  Home Curfew
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were placed on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme between January 1999 and 31 January 2004, broken down by(a) sex and (b) police authority. [159309]

  Paul Goggins
  Between January 1999 and 31 January 2004 there were around 78,600 males and 8,600 females placed on the Home Detention Curfew (HOC) Scheme.

  Information on numbers placed on the HDC Scheme by police authority is not available.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants were(a) detected attempting to enter the UK clandestinely and (b) detected later in the country in each of the past five years. [147063]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: The number of people against whom illegal entry action was initiated in each of the last five years for which information is available is shown in the table.
  1465W

  Persons against whom illegal entry action was initiated 1998 to 2002

  Number of persons

  1998

  16,500

  1999

  21,165

  2000

  47,325

  2001

  69,875

  20021

  48,050

  1 Provisional figures

  Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected entering the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary.

  Though the figures include those people who were identified as having entered the country clandestinely they are not separately identifiable, as such this information would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  The figures show a high level of activity in 2001 compared to the preceding and following years. This was caused by the large increase in asylum seekers in 2001.

  Moreover, although numbers of people subject to illegal entry action fell by 31 per cent. in 2002 compared to 2001, the number of removals increased by 33 per cent. in the same period.

  This information and other statistics on the immigration and asylum system are published annually in the Command publication "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" a copy of which is in the House Library and can be found on the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detected trying to enter the UK illegally in 2002; how many of them subsequently claimed asylum; how many were returned before claiming asylum; and how many were removed after their asylum claim was rejected. [152862]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 February 2004]: Illegal entry action was initiated against 48,050 people in 2002. Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected entering, or having entered the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary.

  Information on the number of these persons who subsequently claimed asylum, is not available and would be so by the examination of individual case-files only at disproportionate cost. Measures in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill will make it more difficult for those who only applied for asylum after being notified of an immigration decision to have a credible claim..

  This information and other statistics on the immigration and asylum system are published annually in the Command publication "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Accession Treaty Nationals
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's immigration policy in relation to applicant countries. [154481]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]: Under the Accession Treaty nationals from the 10 new member states joining the EU on 1 May will have the right to travel freely across the European Union allowing them to visit, live and study in any other member state.

  The Treaty allows current member states to restrict freedom to work on eight of the 10 new member states for up to seven years from accession (Cyprus and Malta are exempt from the transition period).

  In line with my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary's announcement to the House of Commons on Monday 23 February, the Government have decided to allow free movement to those who genuinely want to come and work here via a workers registration scheme. They will be required to be self-supporting while they look for work.

  From 1 May, nationals of the new member states will be able to enter the UK through the EU channel at ports of entry. They will be admitted to the UK on production of their national identity card or passport.

  Workers from Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be required to register with the Home Office as soon as they find work.

  Once a national from one of these new member states has been lawfully working in the UK labour market for a continuous period of 12 months, they will gain full EU rights and will therefore no longer be subject to the workers registration scheme.

  The remaining candidate countries (Bulgaria and Romania) are expected to join the EU by 1 January 2007, subject to meeting the EU acquis criteria. Until the date of accession, nationals from these countries will remain subject to full immigration control.

  Interception of Communications
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether operations by law enforcement agencies involving the bouncing of radio beams off window panes to secure the content of conversations taking place within the room require prior approval through a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985; what controls there are on the use of such technology; whether he requires to be notified in advance of each use of such equipment; and if he will make a statement. [158912]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Interception of Communications Act 1985 has been repealed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Part II of RIPA provides for the authorisation of covert surveillance, including surveillance carried out in relation to anything taking place in residential premises by means of a surveillance device. Where the device is not present on the premises, directed surveillance may be authorized—unless the device

  1467W
  consistently provides information of the same quality and detail as might be expected from a device actually present on the premises, in which case authorisation for intrusive surveillance should be granted.

  Deployment of any surveillance device by law enforcement agencies must be lawful and undertaken only after consideration of necessity and proportionality of that deployment. The Secretary of State is not required to be notified. Authorisation of both intrusive and directed surveillance by law enforcement agencies is subject to independent oversight by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether access by law-enforcement agencies to conversations in a private place gained through the use of a person's mobile telephone as a transmitter constitutes an interception of communications requiring express authorisation by warrant. [158913]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: Part III of the Police Act 1997 and Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provide for the authorisation of lawful interference with property and wireless telegraphy, and for the authorisation of intrusive surveillance respectively. Authorisation of such conduct by law enforcement agencies is subject to independent oversight by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. Part I of RIPA provides for the warranted interception of communications only in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system.

  Munby Judgment
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the Munby Judgment, when he will provide a separate escort service for young people sentenced to custody. [154426]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 February 2004]: Although Mr. Justice Munby referred briefly to evidence relating to the escort service, he did not make any ruling or give any opinion whether a separate escort service for juvenile offenders was needed.

  Escort services are provided by private companies under contract to the Prison Service (for those sent to Young Offender Institutions) and the Youth Justice Board (for those sent to secure training centres or local authority secure children's homes (LASCHs)). The secure training centre/LASCH escort service is exclusively for 12 to 17-year-olds. Those sent to Young Offender Institutions may be carried in vehicles with older offenders, but there are requirements in the contract to achieve separation from over-l8-year-olds.

  A tender exercise is currently under way for the next round of Prison Service escort contracts, which are due to commence in August 2004. The Prison Service has asked bidders to include the provision of separate vehicles for juveniles as an option in their bids. Whether this option is pursued will depend upon consideration of the bids as a whole.

  Welfare clauses in the Prison Service escort contracts provide for those at risk. They emphasise the need for care and sensitivity with newly-remanded or -sentenced prisoners; and for recognition of religious and cultural
  1468W
  needs and the needs of those with sensory impairment or disability or problems with communication. Handover procedures are designed to ensure that contractor's staff and other agencies communicate with each other about welfare issues. Operating procedures are kept under constant review; with a view to identifying and correcting weaknesses.

  Police
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the guidelines are for dealing with 999 calls for the police; and what he sets as the expected response time. [158785]

  Ms Blears
  There are no national guidelines for answering and responding to 999 calls. Responsibility for deciding the most appropriate time to answer and respond to 999 calls lies with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to answering 999 calls within times ranging from five to 15 seconds and attending to calls requiring an immediate response within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 243W, on police, how many accidents in the last two years in (a) London and (b) England and Wales resulted in the vehicle being written off; and at what cost. [160210]

  Caroline Flint
  Information is not collected centrally on the number and cost of police vehicle accidents that result in a vehicle being written off.

  Policemen's Helmets
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the design of policemen's helmets; and if he will make a statement. [159390]

  Ms Blears
  The traditional police helmet is currently subject to investigation as to whether the design can be modified to provide a greater level of protection. Alternative headgear is necessary to ensure compliance with Health and Safety legislation and a prototype designed to meet operational requirements is being trialled in three police forces (Dyfed Powys, Greater Manchester and Wiltshire) from 1 March for a period of three months. If the design performs satisfactorily, it is proposed to widen the trial from May to a further two forces (Thames Valley and Dorset).

  The final design will be subject to approval by Ministers. It is not intended that it should replace the existing helmet, but will ensure that officers have appropriate headgear where specific risk assessment has shown it is necessary. It will be the responsibility of individual Chief Officers to decide when it is appropriate for the new headgear to be issued and worn.

  Prison Lavatories
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners do not have access to lavatory facilities and rely on slopping out. [158109]
  1469W
  Paul Goggins
  All prisoners in normal location accommodation have access to sanitation either by means of integral sanitation, electric unlocking, manual unlocking or open access.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have sprinklers fitted in their residential areas. [157067]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Only one prison (HMP The Weare) has sprinklers fitted in residential parts.

  HMP The Wear is a floating structure and as such subject to the Safety of Life at Sea Regulations, which require sprinklers to be fitted.

  "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives"
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give the Probation Service a new name following the publication of the Carter Report. [155612]

  Paul Goggins
  The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised and no immediate changes to the Probation Service are planned.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received from Napo following the publication of the Carter Report. [155615]

  Paul Goggins
  We have received a response from the National Association of Probation Officers to the request made in the "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" document for views from stakeholders.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons underlay his decision not to consult with Napo prior to publication of his response to the Carter Report. [155616]

  Paul Goggins
  Reducing Crime—Changing Lives sets out the Government's initial response to the Carter report.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sought and continues to seek views from stakeholders, including the National Association of Probation Officers, key on a number of issues relating to the effective management of offenders.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for future(a) employment status, (b) job security, (c) pay and conditions and (d) collective bargaining arrangements for the Probation Service following the publication of the Carter Report. [155619]

  Paul Goggins
  The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised and no immediate changes are planned. Any future changes to terms of service will be subject to the usual consultation arrangement with staff and unions. Once this is done, the Department will put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow collective bargaining to take place.

  TETRA Masts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with O2 Airwave on the effect on television reception in the vicinity of TETRA masts following their switching on in(a) Bognor Regis, (b) Chichester, (c) Littlehampton and (d) Worthing. [158544]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has had no discussions with O2 Airwave on the potential effects of TETRA masts on TV reception. This is a matter for Ofcom, which is the regulatory authority on radio licensing and advises the public on interference problems.

  Vehicle Cruise Events
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is issued by his Department to chief constables on policing vehicle cruise events. [159162]

  Caroline Flint
  I recognise the problems that vehicle cruise events can generate and welcome the consideration given to the issue last year by the Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) Road Policing Operations Forum. The ACPO policy is now to:encourage forces to work on understanding the website community through which illegal cruising events are organised;
  apply robust public order tactics to constrain the activity of any illegal cruises, including via the arrest of attendees causing a public nuisance and the seizure of their vehicles;
  support pro-actively alternative functions organised in accordance with local authority requirements for a public event; and,
  meet organisers of illegal cruises who are keen to move their hobby into a legal arena.

  I am pleased that police forces are now adopting this policy. With effect from 1 January 2003, we have given police forces a power under the Police Reform Act to seize vehicles being driven either off-road without authority or on-road carelessly or inconsiderately, and in such a way as to cause alarm, distress or annoyance. We issued guidance at the time on this new provision, which a number of forces are using to tackle cruises.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the law relating to vehicle cruise events. [159163]

  Caroline Flint
  We believe the existing law is sufficient to deal with the problems to which vehicle cruise events give rise. We gave the police on 1 January 2003 new powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles being used anti-socially. I know that a number of forces have been successfully using these to deal with the problems caused by cruises.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police authorities on monitoring of vehicle cruise events advertised on the internet. [159164]

  Caroline Flint
  I am aware that there has over several years been a developing youth culture of attending vehicle cruises. The activity has over 200 websites dedicated to it in the UK. I support the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) policy to encourage forces to work on understanding the website community through which cruising events are organised.

  Vulnerable Prisoners
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what lessons have been learnt from the internal inquiries into serious incidents of self-harm by prisoners on the prevention of recurrences. [155245]

  Paul Goggins
  Serious incidents of self-harm are investigated at senior managers' discretion to identify the cause and lessons to be learned. Preventing recurrence is tackled at the individual level through care plans and case reviews.

  In 2003, 30 in-depth interviews were carried out with prisoners who had survived a severe self-harm incident requiring resuscitation or treatment in outside hospital. The findings included: the importance of staff talking and listening to prisoners, proactive care for prisoners who feel unable to ask for help; increased in- cell and out-of cell 'distraction' activities; specialist support for prisoners with a history of abuse; flexible peer support; and reliable delivery of medication for mental health problems. This learning has informed a number of initiatives: quotes from the interviews in the development of Key Messages cards, posters and an information booklet for prison staff; the training of new prison officers; and development of the second phase suicide prevention strategy planned to be introduced soon.

  More accurate self-harm data recorded since December 2002 is enabling closer analysis of trends at local, area and national levels. A number of intervention strategies have been introduced into establishments for people who self-harm. These include counselling, support groups, and specialised psychological interventions. A network of establishments has been set up to develop interventions, facilitate evaluation and share good practice, and an information booklet for staff on working with prisoners who self-harm has been circulated to establishments. A guidance document for managing and caring for prisoners who self-harm is being prepared.

  Work Permits
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued in each of the last five years. [157456]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of work permits issued in each of the last five calendar years is given in the table.

  Number issued

  1999

  60,743

  2000

  88,651

  2001

  120,823

  2002

  136,151

  2003

  145,351

  Young Offenders
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bodies are used to provide education within young offenders institutions. [158734]

  Paul Goggins
  28 contractors currency provide Learning and skills for young offenders, most of which are colleges of further education. Young Offenders also benefit from the involvement of a wide range of 1472W
  voluntary and community organisations in learning activities. Some of these, such as the Prisoners' Education Trust, provide financial support for distance learning. Others, such as the YMCA, Clean Break Theatre Company and Writers in Prison Network are directly involved in providing learning services.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the latest figure is of the cost per week of detaining a person in custody in a young offenders institution. [159510]

  Paul Goggins
  The average weekly cost of keeping someone in establishments categorised as young offender institutes during the financial year 2002–03 was £535.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average sentence served within young offenders institutions was in each year since 1997. [158732]

  Paul Goggins
  Table 3.14 of 'Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002' gives the average time served in prison under sentence by young offenders discharged from determinate sentences on completion of sentence or on licence, for the period 1997–2002. A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

TREASURY

  Asthma
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths were caused by asthma in each year since 1 January 1906; and how many were caused by sudden onset attacks. broken down by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) health authority. [159784]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Cheryl Gillan dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many deaths were caused by asthma in each year since 1st January 1996; and how many were caused by sudden onset attacks, broken down by (a) age, (b) sex and (c) health authority.

  Numbers of total asthma deaths in England and Wales by sex and five-year age groups are published annually by the Office for National Statistics in the series "DH2, Mortality Statistics, Cause" The latest publication is for 2002 and copies of this, and earlier volumes, are in the Library of the House.

  Asthma deaths caused by sudden onset attacks cannot be separately identified.

  I am placing four tables in the House of Commons Library, showing the numbers of deaths from asthma in Strategic Health Authorities in England and for Wales since 1996.

  These tables respectively show the number of deaths for (a) men, (b) women, (c) persons aged under 65 and (d) persons aged 65 and over.

  Census
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the latest census was broken down by(a) ethnic origin, (b) age, (c) gender and (d) religion;

  1473W
  how many constituents in the Rochdale constituency fall into each category (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total population; and what plans he has to revise classification categories. [157505]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how the latest census was broken down by (a) ethnic origin, (b) age, (c) gender and (d) religion; how many constituents in the Rochdale constituency fall into each category (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total population; and what consideration he has given to revising existing classification categories. (157505)

  The classifications used in the 2001 Census output for ethnic origin, gender and religion are shown in the attached tables. Age ranges are presented in a variety of ways across the prospectus of Census outputs. For Parliamentary Constituencies, data are presented in quinary (five-yearly) age groups.

  The requested information for Rochdale Parliamentary constituency is published in the "Census 2001 Report for Parliamentary Constituencies", and its accompanying CD, which includes both national and constituency level tables. A copy of this report is available in the House of Commons Library and is on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/cn_70.asp

  The National Statistics website also includes profiles of each local authority area from the 2001 Census. Further detail on the population profile of Rochdale local authority, including age and gender breakdowns, is available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00bq.asp A more general profile of the Rochdale local authority area, including information on ethnicity and religion, is available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00bq.asp

  Updated National Statistics guidelines on the measurement and collection of ethnicity data were published in January 2004 and are available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/ethnic_group_statistics

  These guidelines were produced after consultation with relevant government departments and other organisations, including the Home Office and the Commission for Race Equality. They reflect the need for a balance between the prime requirement for comparability with the 2001 Census while, at the same time, acknowledging the fact that classifications are never set in stone. In particular, the perceptions and descriptions of ethnicity are constantly evolving and it is important that the guidance is periodically reviewed to ensure that it reflects these shifts. The ethnic group question and classification will be reviewed in time for the 2011 Census. This process is likely to begin in 2005.

  Ethnic Group Classification

  White

  British

  Irish

  Other White

  Mixed

  White and Black Caribbean

  White and Black African

  White and Asian

  Other Mixed

  Asian or Asian British

  Indian

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Other Asian

  1474W
  Black or Black British

  Caribbean

  African

  Other Black

  Chinese or other ethnic group

  Chinese

  Other Ethnic Group

  Religion Classification

  (People stating religion as:)

  Christian

  Buddhist

  Hindu

  Jewish

  Muslim

  Sikh

  Other religions

  No religion

  Religion not stated

  Gender Classification

  Males

  Females

  Child Care Vouchers
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to publicise information on childcare vouchers to small and medium sized enterprises. [159268]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Inland Revenue will ensure that information and guidance to support the new tax exemption on child care vouchers is available to all employers before the changes are introduced in April 2005. Naturally, this will include all small and medium sized enterprises.

  And, of course, the Chancellor himself has publicised the exemption by writing to all MPs on 16 December last year, and including an information sheet for Members to pass on to businesses in their constituencies.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to his Department of administering(a) child care credit and (b) child tax credit was (i) in total and (ii) per claimant in the last year for which figures are available. [158078]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 161W. On 30 January 2004 there were £6 million families in total benefiting from tax credits.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the additional cost would be of raising the first threshold for those entitled to Child Tax Credit only for the year 2004–05 from £13,480 to £13,600; [159759]

  (2) what the additional cost would be of raising the second income threshold for tax credits from £50,000 to £51,380; [159760]
  1475W
  (3) what the additional cost would be of raising the first income threshold for tax credits from £5,060 to £5,200; [159761]

  (4) what the cost would be of raising the family element of the Child Tax Credit from £545 to £565 for 2004–05; [159762]

  (5) what the cost would be of raising the family element of the Child Tax Credit to £1,130 for 2004–05. [159763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table 4 "Direct effects of illustrative tax changes" on the HM Treasury website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//AAB24/pbr03_trr.pdf

  The figures exclude any estimate of behavioural response to the tax credits changes.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much a family with a joint income before tax in 2004–05 of £52,000 will receive in child tax credit; and how much they would receive in child tax credit if the second income threshold was £51,380; [159764]

  (2) how much a family with a joint income before tax of £14,000 in 2004 will receive in child tax credit; and how much they would receive if the first threshold for those entitled to child tax credit only was increased to £13,600; [159765]

  (3) how much a family with a joint income before tax of £5,200 in 2004–05 will receive in tax credits; and how much they would receive if the first income threshold was £5,200. [159766]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax credit award a family receives depends on a variety of factors relating to their particular circumstances, not just their level of income.

  Company Car Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason a liquefied petroleum gas-powered vehicle is classified as a luxury option within the P11D form under the company car tax regime; and if he will make a statement. [157754]

  John Healey
  A liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) powered vehicle is not classified as a luxury option under the company car tax regime.

  Competitive Tendering
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of best practice in the use of competitive tendering by Government departments. [159453]

  Mr. Boateng
  OGC is working with Departments to produce and update Best Practice and has provided extensive advice on the use of competitive tendering, in particular on evaluation using whole lifecycle cost approaches.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a non-means-tested council tax and rates relief scheme for over 70-year-olds. [159197]
  1476W
  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to introduce a non means-tested council tax relief and rates scheme for over 70-year-olds.

  Debt Relief/Trade Justice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions h has held with(a) churches and (b) church leaders on debt relief and the campaign for trade justice. [159049]

  John Healey
  On 16 February, Lord Carey and Lord Griffiths hosted a conference on "Making Globalisation Work For All: The Challenge of Delivering the Monterrey Consensus" at the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development were among the keynote speakers at the conference which was attended by a number of church leaders and faith groups.

  The conference brought together leaders from faith groups, NGOs, governments, businesses and universities to discuss how to make progress in meeting the Millennium Development Goals and eliminating global poverty. Debt relief and trade justice are central to improving growth and reducing poverty in developing countries, and the UK continues to call for the full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and for a strengthened commitment to ensure that trade liberalisation delivers poverty reduction.

  The conference also focused on the need for extra resources to provide further debt relief, and for additional aid to improve the investment climate and help the private sector in developing countries respond to the new opportunities and challenges created by trade liberalisation. The UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility would provide the much-needed substantial increase in resources that debt relief alone would not achieve and that could be disbursed byway of grants and additional debt relief.

  Departmental Buildings (Asbestos)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [159375]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. gentleman to the answer given by my hon. friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 745W.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials from his Department have been seconded in each of the last five years to work in less developed countries, broken down by country. [159050]

  Ruth Kelly
  According to our records, since 1999 the Treasury has seconded one official to work for the Azerbaijan Finance Ministry. As part of our interchange programme, our officials also go on loan to other Government Departments and may be posted to other countries.

  Economic Activity (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the economic activity rate in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley was in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 1996–97. [157691]

  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 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary Question on economic activity rates in Lancashire and Chorley. (157691)

  The attached table shows the work age economic activity rates for Lancashire and the Chorley Local Authority District. The Chorley Parliamentary Constituency is identical to the Local Authority. The data cover the 12month period ending February 1997 and February 2002. Information for the 12 month period ending February 2003 is not yet available.

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

  Working age1 economic activity rates for lancashire and the Chorley LAD 12 month period ending February each year.

  Percentage

  1996–97

  2001–02

  Lancashire

  78.5

  76.8

  Chorley LAD

  78.5

  80.3

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  1 Includes men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Economic activity rate is the percentage of the working age population who are either in employment or unemployed

  Emergency Protection Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 2 March 2004,Official Report, columns 852–53W, on Emergency Protection Orders, what the population was of each area listed as a county at the most recent date for which information is available; [159695]

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 2 March 2004, Official Report, columns 852–53W, on Emergency Protection Orders, what the population was of the areas served by each family proceedings court at the most recent date for which information is available. [159696]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your questions concerning the most recent population of each county, and of the areas served by each family proceedings court. (159695,159696)

  Attached is a table showing the mid-2002 population estimate of each area listed as a "county" in the Official Report, 2 March 2004, column 852W, in answer to your earlier question on emergency protection orders. These are primarily the former counties rather the current shire county administrative areas,
  1478W
  for example in the table "Hampshire" includes Portsmouth Southampton and the Isle of Wight as well as the current county area.

  The Office for National Statistics does not produce mid-year population estimates for areas served by family proceedings courts.

  Total Populations of 'county' areas 1: all ages, mid-2002

  Thousands

  Area

  Persons

  England

  49,561.8

  Avon (Former County excl N Somerset and S Gloucestershire)

  551.2

  Bedfordshire (Former County)

  570.8

  Berkshire (Former County)

  803.6

  Buckinghamshire (Former County)

  688.5

  Cambridgeshire (Former County)

  716.3

  Cheshire (Former County)

  986.1

  Cleveland and Darlington

  639.1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  508.4

  Cumbria

  488.5

  Derbyshire (Former County)

  962.5

  Devon (Former County)

  1,082.3

  Dorset (Former County)

  696.3

  Durham

  492.3

  East Riding and North Lincolnshire

  471.2

  Essex (Former County)

  1,622.4

  Gloucestershire

  567.0

  Greater London

  7,355.4

  Greater Manchester

  2,513.5

  Hampshire (incl Isle of Wight and Former County)

  1,789.7

  Hereford and Worcester (Former County)

  722.4

  Hertfordshire

  1,036.1

  Humberside (Former County excl E Riding and N Lincolnshire)

  399.4

  Kent (Former County)

  1,589.3

  Lancashire (Former County)

  1,421.9

  Leicestershire (Former County)

  933.7

  Lincolnshire

  657.8

  Merseyside

  1,361.0

  N Somerset and S Gloucestershire

  435.8

  Norfolk

  802.8

  North Yorkshire (Former county)

  755.3

  Northamptonshire

  638.2

  Northumberland

  308.4

  Nottinghamshire (Former County)

  1,023.2

  Oxfordshire

  607.5

  Shropshire (Former County)

  445.8

  Somerset

  503.4

  South Yorkshire

  1,267.3

  Staffordshire (Former County)

  1,047.5

  Suffolk

  671.9

  Surrey

  1,059.9

  Sussex (incl East and West Sussex)

  1,500.0

  Tyne and Wear

  1,073.5

  Warwickshire

  512.7

  West Midlands

  2,575.8

  West Yorkshire

  2,089.2

  Wiltshire (Former County)

  616.9

  1 Areas as listed in Official Report, 2 March 2004, Column 852W

  Source:

  Mid-2002 Population Estimates, Office for National Statistics

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the rate of insurance premium tax. [159270]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: As with all taxes, the future rates of Insurance Premium Tax are a matter for the Chancellor to consider as part of the Budget process.

  Lord Butler of Brockwell
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 575–56W, when (a) Sir Nicholas Montagu KCB, Chairman of Inland Revenue, (b) Mr. Timothy Flesher CB, former Commissioner of Inland Revenue,

  1479W
  (c) Mr. Gabriel Maklouf, former Director of Inland Revenue Internationl Division and (d) Mr. Graham Dean, former Inland Revenue employee, was informed that Lord Butler of Brockwell had joined the advisory board of IBM UK; and who the Commissioner responsible for that department was in each year from 1996–97 to date. [159984]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Lord Butler's appointments are not a matter for the Inland Revenue. Sir Nicholas Montagu has been Chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue since July 1997: his predecessor was Sir Anthony Battishill.

  LPG
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his decision to change the duty on liquefied petroleum gas. [159325]

  John Healey
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) of 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 690W.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many speeches(a) he and (b) the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156144]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers make a number of speeches on a wide range of domestic and international issues. The Chancellor's and Chief Secretary's speeches are available on the departmental website www.hmtreasury.gov.uk).

  Money Laundering
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of new money laundering regulations on small firms of(a) accountants and (b) solicitors. [159251]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Money Laundering Regulations 2003, together with amending orders for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Terrorism Act 2000, came into force from 1 March 2004.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was placed in the House Library when the Regulations were laid, and this is also available on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//4ADBC/fullriamlr03_80.pdf. The RIA contains details of cost estimates and changes to the draft Regulations in light of responses to the consultation undertaken, particularly with representatives of the businesses affected.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to(a) raise awareness of money laundering and (b) ensure businesses are compliant with the 2003 Money Laundering Regulations. [160199]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government continues to raise awareness of money laundering and the controls needed to combat it. Examples of the work that the Government has undertaken to raise awareness include:1480W
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) publishes an annual UK Threat Assessment, which exposes the principal threats posed in the area of financial crime.
  The Government have set up the Money Laundering Reporting Taskforce, which is tasked with working to improve communications with key stakeholders. including industry and consumers.
  Last year the Treasury, Financial Services Authority and NCIS, in partnership with industry, published an information leaflet intended to gain greater public support in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. This leaflet continues to be distributed widely through financial service providers.
  The Treasury expects to launch its money laundering strategy paper soon, which will outline the Government's strategy for tackling money laundering.
  The Assets Recovery Agency provides regular updates on the progress in recovering the proceeds of crime.

  The Government engaged in extensive formal and informal consultation with stakeholders over a long period of time prior to the production of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. This included dialogue with representative bodies, such as the Law Society, The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the British Casinos Association, who have regularly informed their members about the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. The Government are also aware that many of these bodies are producing guidance for their own industry on how to implement the Regulations, which they may choose to submit to the Treasury for approval.

  The Government have been working with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Small Business Service to try to ensure that small businesses are aware of any implications that the Regulations may have for their business.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the 2003 Money Laundering Regulations on small and medium-sized businesses. [160215]

  Ruth Kelly
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was placed in the House Library when the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 were laid, and this is also available on the Treasury website see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//4ADBC/fullriamlr03_80.pdf. The RIA contains details of cost estimates and changes to the draft Regulations in light of responses to the consultation undertaken, particularly with representatives of the businesses affected. The Government have been working with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Small Business Service to try to ensure that small businesses are aware of any implications that the Regulations may have for their business.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the businesses subject to the requirements of the 2003 Money Laundering Regulations. [160216]

  Ruth Kelly
  Regulation 2(2) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 sets out all those professions and activities that are covered by the Regulations.

  National Census
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people identified themselves as Kashmiri in the latest National Census; how many did so in Rochdale constituency; and how many public
  1481W
  sector bodies have requested the identification in the Census of the numbers identifying themselves as Kashmiri. [157857]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people identified themselves as Kashmiri in the latest National Census; how many did so in Rochdale constituency; and how many public sector bodies have requested the identification in the Census of the numbers identifying themselves as Kashmiri. (157857)

  People could identify themselves as Kashmiri in the 2001 Census by writing in that response against the ethnic group question on the Census form. The number of people who thus identified themselves as Kashmiri in England and Wales is 23,197 and in the Rochdale Parliamentary Constituency, 3,489.

  Two public bodies have requested information on Kashmir is specifically.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the latest census results by(a) ethnicity, (b) age, (c) gender and (d) religion for the (i) Chorley constituency and (ii) total population; and if he will make a statement on population growth in Chorley. [157974]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for a breakdown of the latest census results by (a) ethnic origin, (b) age, (c) gender and (d) religion for the (i) Chorley constituency and (ii) total population, and a statement on population growth in Chorley. (157974)

  The information requested for both the Chorley Parliamentary constituency and England and Wales as a whole is available on the CD accompanying the published Census 2001 Report for Parliamentary Constituencies. The information for England and Wales as a whole is also available in the published Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales printed volume. Both these published volumes are available in the House of Commons Library and also on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/cennews.aspat

  The National Statistics website also includes profiles of each local authority area from the 2001 Census. Further detail on the population profile of Chorley local authority, including age and gender breakdowns, is available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/30ue.asp. A more general profile of the Chorley local authority area, including information on ethnicity and religion, is available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/30ue.asp.

  With regard to the population growth of Chorley, please see the answer given in my previous answer (155307) giving mid-year population estimates for Chorley local authority, 1998–2002, the most recent years for which estimates are available. These showed that the population of Chorley has been growing in recent years.

  National Statistics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the death rates for end stage renal failure in(a) England and (b) other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [159783]
  1482W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Paul Burstow, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on death rates for end-stage renal failure in England and other European countries. (159783)

  Death rates for end-stage renal failure are not available as it is caused by a number of different diseases, including diabetes and infections, that damage the kidneys. Deaths will therefore be certified as due to one of these causes, so it is not possible to obtain reliable data on mortality from end-stage renal failure from the routine death registration system.

  Age-standardised death rates for chronic renal failure, mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, are however available. These were 19.4 and 8.9 per 100,000 people for males and females respectively in England and Wales in 2002 (the latest year for which figures are available). Comparable figures are not readily available for other European countries.

  Information on survival rates for patients receiving renal replacement therapy is available from the European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EDTA) Registry. Their website address is: http://www.era-edta.org/erafset.htm

  Pre-tax Family Incomes
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families have incomes before tax of between £5,060 and £5,200; [159767]

  (2) how many families have joint incomes before tax of between £50,000 and £51,380;[159768]

  (3) how many families have joint incomes before tax of between £13,480 and £13,600. [159769]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Sample sizes from household income surveys for families with children with incomes before tax in each band are too small to yield reliable results. The information cannot be estimated from administrative data until all families with children receiving the tax credits have reported their 2003–04 income

  Rubies and Jadeite
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of(a) rubies and (b) jadeite imported into the UK was in each of the past five years. [159883]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the collection of data on imports. It is not possible to identify imports of rubies or jadeite, separately from other precious stones with which they are classified.

  Scottish Transport Group Dissolution Order
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what payments have been received from the Scottish Executive with respect to the Scottish Transport Group Dissolution Order; and on what dates; [160088]
  1483W
  (2) how much has been received to date by the Treasury with respect to the Scottish Transport Group pension fund. [160089]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 364W a reduction in the 2001–02 Scottish Departmental Expenditure Limit of £50 million following the Scottish Transport Group Dissolution Order.

  Organisation

  Period

  Directorate

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  24 June 2003 to 24 October 2003

  Financial Regulation and Industry Directorate

  Deloitte & Touche

  8 September 2003 to date

  Public Services Directorate

  Ernst & Young

  1 April 2003 to date

  Budget and Public Finances Directorate

  Since 2001, the Treasury has seconded an official to KPMG from 8 September 2003 to date, to work in their Corporate Finance Department.

  Sudden Deaths
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken on(a) recording and (b) classifying sudden and unexpected death, where no cause of death can be detected at autopsy but where an underlying cardiac condition resulting in fatal cardiac arrhythmia is suspected. [159827]

  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. John Baron, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the action being taken on (a) recording and (b) classifying sudden and unexpected death, where no cause of death can be detected at autopsy but where an underlying cardiac condition resulting in fatal cardiac arrhythmia is suspected. (159827)

  All deaths in England and Wales that are sudden and unexpected must be referred to the coroner for investigation. It is the responsibility of the coroner to undertake any necessary investigations to ascertain the cause of death and to record the findings.

  When the death is registered, the Office for National Statistics codes the cause according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Currently the tenth revision of this classification is in use. If no precise cause is identified, but the certificate states that the death was sudden, it would be classified to R96, 'sudden death, cause unknown'. If a cardiac defect was identified on the certificate, the death would be classified under cardiovascular diseases, using the most precise and accurate code available for the identified condition.

  Following publication in 2003 of the Third Report of the Shipman Inquiry and the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and the Coroner Service, the Government is committed to taking forward proposals for reform of the coroner and death certification service.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the amount of overpayments of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit made owing to official error; and if he will make a statement. [158769]

  Secondments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers. (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst amp; Young and (d) KPMG have made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156915]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 2001, the Treasury has hosted the following secondments:

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: As set out in its Code of Practice 'What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?', the Inland Revenue will accept that an overpayment should not be recovered if it arose because of their mistake and the person could reasonably have thought their award was right. The total of overpayments during 2003–04 cannot be established until awards for that year are finalised. However, the Inland Revenue may accept during the year that the test of official error is satisfied and adjust payments accordingly. The overpayment will then be finally written off when the award is finalised.

  Unemployment (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unemployed people there are in Wales; and what the percentage change was in the last year in each constituency, listed in descending order of percentage reduction. [157663]

  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. Martyn Jones, dated 9 March 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in Wales and its Parliamentary Constituencies. [157663]

  In the three months ending in December 2003, there were an estimated 65,000 unemployed people aged 16 and over in Wales. Information on the levels or unemployment in each Parliamentary Constituency is not available as the Labour Force Survey sample is too small to give reliable estimates.

  However, information is available on the number of people claiming .Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in each Constituency in Wales. The total number of JSA claimants in Wales as a whole in January 2004 was 45,944. The attached table shows, for each Parliamentary Constituency in Wales, the percentage change in JSA claimants over the twelve month period ending January 2004.
  1485W

  Percentage change from January 2003 to January 2004 in the number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in Wales, by Parliamentary constituency

  Percentage

  Area

  Change

  Wales

  -9.1

  Caernarfon

  -22.9

  Cerediglon

  -19.6

  Wrexham

  -18.0

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  -15.7

  Clwyd South

  -15.6

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  -15.3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  -14.4

  Ynys-Mon

  -13.3

  Llanelli

  -13.1

  Newport East

  -13.0

  Newport West

  -12.5

  Blaenau Gwent

  -12.0

  Gower

  -11.4

  Vale of Clwyd

  -11.1

  Clwyd West

  -10.4

  Cardiff Central

  -10.0

  Cardiff West

  -10.0

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  -9.9

  Aberavon

  -9.8

  Islwyn

  -9.8

  Conwy

  -9.4

  Alyn and Deeside

  -8.2

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  -7.6

  Cardiff North

  -7.3

  Neath

  -7.3

  Caerphilly

  -7.2

  Swansea West

  -7.1

  Pontypridd

  -6.1

  Delyn

  -5.9

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  -5.2

  Bridgend

  -4.7

  Ogmore

  -4.6

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  -4.0

  Monmouth

  -3.0

  Torfaen

  -1.8

  1486W

  Percentage change from January 2003 to January 2004 in the number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in Wales, by Parliamentary constituency

  Percentage

  Area

  Change

  Swansea East

  -1.7

  Rhondda

  -0.6

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  1.0

  Cynon Valley

  3.4

  Montgomeryshire

  16.7

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative system

  Valuation Office Agency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 27th February 2004,Official Report, column 579W, on the Valuation Office Agency, when the Valuation Office Agency made an enquiry of the Public Appointments Unit to seek suitable candidates for the position of non-executive director; how many of the four short-listed candidates were interviewed by the selection panel; and whether the position filled by Miss Grinstead was a new position. [160100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency approached the Public Appointments Unit in the latter part of 2001, and a list of potential candidates was supplied in November 2001. Of the four short listed candidates, three declined and one was interviewed. The non-executive post being filled was an existing position.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159622]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer he received from the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan (International Counter Narcotics Conference)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The Afghan Government, United Kingdom (UK) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) co-hosted an International Counter Narcotics Conference on Afghanistan in Kabul on 8/9 February to support implementation of the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy. I was, in the event, unable to attend, due to planes being unable to land in Kabul because of adverse weather conditions. I was represented by HM Ambassador, Rosalind Marsden. Over 300 Afghan and international delegates attended, including 18 Afghan Governors and 32 Police Chiefs as well as officials from all the key Afghan Ministries, representatives from 18 countries, the European Commission, World Bank and Asia Development Bank. President Karzai opened the conference, which was also addressed by Afghan Ministers.

  The Government welcome the success of this event, which was the first time that Afghans had gathered at such a high level and in such large numbers to discuss implementation of the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy. The plenary meeting and working group sessions were all chaired by Afghans. Active participation from Afghans from the floor demonstrated increased commitment to the counter narcotics agenda from all parts of the Afghan government.

  The Government fully share the view of those members of the Afghan government who spoke out forcefully against drugs and agrees with President Karzai, who stressed that the drugs trade was damaging Afghanistan's efforts to develop into a secure, stable democracy with a prosperous economy; that it was in the interests of all Afghans to fight against drugs; that Afghanistan needed the help of the international community to win the battle but the Afghan government was committed to tackling the drugs problem with its own resources also. International speakers also delivered the message that urgent action was required, including tackling corruption.

  Conference participants discussed draft action plans in five areas: law enforcement, judicial reform, alternative livelihoods, public awareness and demand reduction. These action plans have been finalised and form part of a final report of the conference to be published by the UNODC and circulated in Afghanistan and beyond. They include work to:
  increase interdiction activity, for example by increasing the numbers and effectiveness of the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan and mobile detection teams
  96WS
  tackle corruption and involvement of officials and commanders in the drugs trade
  increase resources for programmes with maximum alternative livelihoods impact and support the design and implementation of programmes to fill existing gaps, for example in pro-poor agricultural livelihoods, rural finance, off farm activities and micro/small enterprise development

  The UK remains fully committed to support the Afghan Government in implementation of its National Drug Control Strategy, which will in part be secured through delivery of the agreed action plans in key areas. We have committed £70 million over three years for this purpose and will also encourage the participation of other international partners to take on specific activity.

TRANSPORT

  GLA Transport Grant 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Secretary of State for Transport has today re-determinded the GLA transport grant at £1,681,932,000 for 2003–04 following consultation with the Mayor of London, as required under section 101 of the GLA Act 1999. This represents a net reduction of £2,408,000, following lower than envisaged ring fenced expenditure by Transport for London on bus innovation projects.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Delivery Grant
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In July 2002 my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be making an additional £350 million available to local authorities over the period 2003–06 to improve the delivery of planning services. The grant is being paid out of additional resources from Spending Review 2002 for planning. We have now decided the basis on which we will distribute the Planning Delivery Grant in 2004–05 and will be informing recipients of their allocations.

  The grant is performance related. Our aim is to enhance the resourcing of the planning system in a way that drives performance improvement and ensures effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities which we set out in the document "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". It is specifically targeted towards meeting the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Public Service Agreements (PSA) 5 and 6. PSA 5 aims to achieve a better balance between housing availability and demand. PSA 6 requires all authorities to have local development frameworks in place (in accordance with agreed Local Development Schemes) and to meet the Best Value development control targets by the end of 2006–07.

  I can confirm today the amount of grant distributed in 2004–05 is $130 million. It will be paid to local planning authorities, regional planning bodies and the Greater London Authority. A small amount of the grant, £2.61 million, will be top-sliced to support a number of national initiatives directly related to improving local authority planning performance. The allocation criteria

  97WS
  have been broadened this year and the grant is not just about speed of decision taking. Local authorities are rewarded for both improvement towards and achievement of Best Value development control targets in the period October 2002 to September 2003. The grant also rewards authorities for having an up to date local development plan or for taking steps to introduce a new plan, or make a significant revision to an existing plan, in the period March 2002–September 2003. Grant allocations are enhanced for local authorities within the high housing demand and growth areas identified in the Communities Plan in proportion to their contribution towards delivering net additions to the housing stock. Local authorities are also awarded £5,000 for each Enterprise Area within their boundary, up to a maximum of £100,000.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been concerned to hear allegations that authorities have been refusing applications or putting pressure on applicants to withdraw in order to qualify for increased grant. We have carried out extensive analysis and have found no consistent statistical relationship between the indicators said to represent these practices and improved performance. We remain concerned, however, to ensure that local authorities are not rewarded for providing a poor service. Where a local planning authority's performance on appeal is poor we are abating initial allocations by 10 per cent.

  In 2003–04 the grant was paid without condition. In 2004–05 two conditions will be imposed on PDG payments. The conditions are designed to ensure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has the power to act appropriately to partly withhold payment or recover part or all of grant paid where there are concerns over the accuracy or proven inaccuracies in the information on which allocations were made. We will be withholding part of the grant allocated to authorities whose Best Value Performance Indicator 109 (BVPI 109) has been qualified by the auditor until we have written to the authorities concerned to investigate the reason for the qualification and the reliability of the data on which grant was allocated. Following this we may seek to recover some or all of the monies paid to those authorities.

  Grant allocations are not ring-fenced and authorities have complete discretion in the way they spend this money. Areas that authorities may consider concentrating on include: contributing to the preparation of regional planning guidance and the future regional spatial strategies; completing current reviews of existing development plans and preparing for the new system of local development frameworks; better resourcing of IT systems; assistance from consultants; outsourcing of certain planning services; increasing staffing levels; training for staff and councillors; supporting mediation services; encouraging a more diverse planning workforce; bursaries for employees to gain planning qualifications and more use of technical staff.

  Regional Planning Bodies receive grant to support their work preparing regional spatial strategies and in recognition of the additional work which the strengthened regional planning function envisaged by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, currently before Parliament, will involve. In 2004–05 this totals just under £7 million. The Greater London Authority
  98WS
  receives grant in recognition of its plan making responsibilities and is allocated funds on its progress towards publishing the London Plan.

  County Councils will receive resources from the grant in recognition of their minerals and waste plan responsibilities. They do not receive direct resources from the grant to prepare structure plans. The counties' planning functions are being changed under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before Parliament. Subject to Royal Assent, County Councils will cease to have a duty to prepare structure plans but their resources will not be reduced accordingly. Therefore as this function winds down they will be able to take advantage of freed up resources. It will be important that these freed up resources, and the expertise available in county councils, are retained and used to deliver other county planning responsibilities and to undertake their function as statutory consultees in the preparation of regional spatial strategies (RSS), which are due to replace regional planning guidance under the Bill, and local development frameworks. Counties can also be engaged to conduct RSS related work on an agency basis.

  Decisions have yet to be taken on the basis of the grant for 2005–06. However, the requirement to meet PSA 5 and 6 means that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to link grant awards to improved planning performance so as to incentivise authorities to reach and exceed the development control handling targets and produce local development documents in a timely manner and to incentivise delivery of housing in areas of high housing demand. Authorities should be aware that they will need to continue to secure improvement in these areas. We will monitor performance in respect of both development control and plan making in order to inform future decisions on this. In 2005–06 we will be rewarding authorities for their progress in implementing e-planning. The nature of this assessment has not yet been decided. We will consult on full proposals for allocations before any final decisions are taken.

  A table showing the amounts payable and letters to all Leaders of local and county planning authorities; Chief Executives of the regional planning bodies; and the Mayor of London are available in the libraries of the House. They set out the details of each recipient's grant.

  Growth Areas Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  "Creating sustainable communities: Making it Happen: Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas" published in July 2003 announced outline plans for a £164 million package for the three newer growth areas of Ashford, Milton Keynes-South Midlands, and London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough. Commitments were made then to fund individual schemes to a total value of £88 million, and a further £63 million was announced on 14 January this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is announcing today a further £22 million of funding, which will support sustainable growth in the London

  99WS
  Stansted Cambridge Peterborough Growth Area. We are providing these resources to help site assembly and remediation of brownfield land, additional affordable housing and essential infrastructure in the growth area. The inclusion of Peterborough it in the area takes into account its history of successful growth and its potential for contributing to the growth area as a whole.

  A full list of the further projects that we are supporting will be made available in the House Libraries. They include over £10 million for
  100WS
  redevelopment and to enable the more rapid delivery of at least 2,000 new homes in Peterborough. It also includes almost £500,000 to open up the River Roding in Ilford as a green space and improve the local ecological environment, and £1.8 million to kick-start a major development at Tottenham Hale, including remodelling the major transport interchange. Other projects will include over £1.2 million to unlocking and improving access to development sites in Walthamstow to provide potential for 500 new homes and jobs.

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.

Palliative Care
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent improvements have been made to the financing of palliative care in hospices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government have met their pledge in the NHS Cancer Plan to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care, including hospices, by an extra £50 million per year by 2004. The £50 million has been allocated to local level by the joint NHS/voluntary sector national partnership group for palliative care, which will undertake a monitoring exercise to ensure the funding is used appropriately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the recent extra funding is welcome and very commendable? But would he comment on a report that the percentage of funding for National Health Service hospice care is lower now than it was in 1997? Could the Government make the funding of palliative care in hospices, and elsewhere, a higher priority? No one who is terminally ill or suffering from pain should be denied palliative care if he or she needs it. The estimates of those people who need it and do not receive it vary between 300,000 and 1 million. Either figure is shocking.
Lord Warner: My Lords, although I gave the answer for NHS increased investment, it is also worth bearing in mind that about £170 million per year is also spent in hospices in the voluntary sector. During the past few years, the New Opportunities Fund has put extra money into palliative care, including into hospices for adults and children.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Minister's original Answer was clear. But, does he accept that palliative care is a principle of care which is not devoted totally to the care of patients in hospices, but extends into the community? In that regard, organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Care, Marie Curie and others make a major positive contribution. Within the initiative to which the Minister referred, are the Government giving priority to proposals relating to the work of primary care trusts to ensure that this community programme goes forward?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, there will be careful monitoring of the £50 million. It is worth bearing in mind that the £50 million will fund an additional 66 consultants in palliative care, 162 clinical nurse specialists and 92 in-patient beds. It will provide additional funding to the voluntary sector, including hospices, and for example, extra Marie Curie nurses to provide practical care to patients.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, to follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, does my noble friend agree that a mix of care is really important when it comes to providing care for terminally ill patients and, indeed, for their relatives? In that regard, funding given by the New Opportunities Fund pioneered some of those domiciliary care services that are very valued by patients so that they do not have either hospice care or care in the home but a mix according to their needs at the time.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I pay tribute to the work that the New Opportunities Fund has contributed in this area under her chairmanship. As I said earlier, about £90 million in total is going into a wide range of care to meet the needs of adults and children in their local communities.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the £50 million given by the Government is greatly welcomed by all those working in palliative care. Do the Government recognise that there needs to be ongoing funding of services, particularly in those areas where there is poor provision of services for patients who have diseases that fall outside the current service provision? Just funding services for cancer is not enough in the long term to ensure that patients have the choice to access the service wherever they are and when they need it, irrespective of where they live or their diagnosis. That needs long-term ongoing funding to ensure that salaries are paid.
Lord Warner: My Lords, of course, the £50 million will continue to meet the service needs of people to whom it is allocated. On top of that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced another £12 million to improve the quality of care services for people who wish to die at home.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, what steps has the department taken to identify those strategic health authorities which, in their criteria for NHS continuing care, have time limits on life expectancy? When it does find them, will there be changes?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall have to make inquiries into the question posed by the noble Baroness and write to her.
Earl Howe: My Lords, following on from the answer given by the Minister a moment ago, is he aware that Marie Curie Cancer Care believes that the NHS could save itself some £200 million a year if more terminally

1115
ill people were given the choice of dying at home? Is he receptive to that message, and to what extent will the Government's money be directed towards that end?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we welcome the Marie Curie Cancer Care campaign. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health spoke at its launch. We look forward to working in partnership with Marie Curie Cancer Care and other voluntary sector providers to improve the services for people who choose to die at home. Moreover, as I said in response to an earlier question, my right honourable friend has announced an extra £12 million to be put into work in this area.

Home Equity Release Schemes
2.42 p.m.
Lord Sharman Lord Sharman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they plan to take to regulate home equity release schemes, in view of the increased use of such schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, mortgage-based equity release schemes, also known as lifetime mortgages, will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority as from 31 October 2004. However, the Government are considering responses to their consultation on whether home reversion equity release plans should also be regulated by the FSA and will make an announcement in due course. Meanwhile, last week, on 3 March, the FSA published a consumer fact sheet entitled Raising money from your home, which I commend to noble Lords.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he not agree that there is now an urgent need to address all forms of equity release schemes? Does he recall that since the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, in which we both participated, I have argued that all forms of such schemes should be included? In the summer, mortgage-based schemes for release were considered. Does he not also agree that a market now estimated by some to be worth £1 billion a year, targeted at—in the Government's own words—elderly and sometimes vulnerable people, provides a huge potential for mis-selling? If urgent action is not taken soon, will we not be attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill and subsequently in pressing for the regulation of
1116
equity release schemes. I hope that he is pleased that the vast bulk of them—almost 90 per cent—which are mortgage-based schemes, will be regulated from 31 October this year.
There is a problem with home reversion schemes because, strictly speaking, such schemes are not financial services; they are sale and purchase agreements. To have them regulated would require other primary legislation. However, the consolation is that reversion schemes are almost dying out, representing only 11 per cent of equity-based release schemes compared with 94 per cent only seven years ago.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I declare an interest and ask whether the Minister accepts that, if operated within proper standards, equity release schemes can be an important way of allowing older people in particular to benefit from savings by translating them into income? Therefore the objective of regulation should be to create confidence so that the market can develop rather than to create conditions which would choke off its development.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. Within the past year I myself have taken out an equity release scheme. As an elderly person—and of course I may be vulnerable as well—I can hardly disagree that, in the right circumstances, they perform a useful function.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, during the consultation carried out by the Treasury into a regulatory scheme, can the Minister say whether there was any opposition to having a single regulatory scheme; that is, one covering both home mortgages and reversionary schemes? If so, can he tell us which organisations argued against such a single scheme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have not published the results of the consultation which finished only last month. We shall publish them with our responses as soon as possible. The answers to the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will of course be contained in those responses.

Kashmir
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will facilitate peace talks between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we commend the statesmanship and courage that President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have demonstrated in moving Pakistan and India resolutely towards substantive talks on all the outstanding issues between them, including Kashmir. As a friend of both countries, we stand ready to offer any assistance that they might request. But at their

1117
root the differences between Pakistan and India are bilateral in nature and will have to be resolved through peaceful engagement between the two countries.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for encouraging both India and Pakistan to talk during the SAARC conference. Does the Minister agree that, in order to reach a lasting solution on the issue of Kashmir, the Kashmiri leadership must be involved in the talks between India and Pakistan and that violence on all sides must stop? Does she also agree that fence building along the line of control has to stop if we are to secure the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people? Finally, military personnel in residential areas of the Kashmir valley must leave as soon as peace talks begin.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging words about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I very much agree that the views of the Kashmiris must be taken into account if any settlement of the issue of Kashmir is to be durable. Of course it is not for us to go into the nature of that settlement, but we welcome, for example, the announcement made by the Government of India of an inquiry into the killing of five civilians in Bandipore on 8 February. It is important that the inquiry is thorough, transparent and independent, and that any perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister rightly indicated, it is obviously not for Britain to tell India and Pakistan how to resolve their differences. However, does she agree that the Indian cricket tour of Pakistan which is just beginning—an historic development—and the moves towards talks are promising signs? Will she undertake to ensure that, while we do not interfere, we extend to both governments every possible offer of facilities and encouragement, not merely to talk about Kashmir and its difficulties over the years, but also to discuss mutual disarmament and de-escalation, in particular on the nuclear side?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his words of encouragement in regard to the cricket tour. My noble friend the Leader of the House knows more than I do about the intricacies of who is up and who is down in cricket, but certainly a unique tour is about to begin.
We very warmly welcome the announcement that the Indian and Pakistan Governments have made in regard to agreeing an agenda and timetable for substantive dialogue to begin following the Indian general election. I agree that this is a promising start after many years of anxiety world wide about the situation in the region. It builds on the highly significant breakthrough in relations announced by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee at the beginning of January. We welcome the agenda and timetable; we wish it well and encourage it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while endorsing the welcome given by the Minister to the signs of progress that we see between India and Pakistan, particularly the cessation of shelling across the line of control, how can the views of the people of Kashmir be taken into account? Does she think that, notwithstanding the fact that we have no direct role to play in the negotiations between India and Pakistan, we could encourage both countries to allow greater freedom of expression in the parts of the territory which are under their own jurisdiction? This would enable the people of Kashmir to exchange views, both among themselves and across the line of control, on a future constitutional settlement.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the views of the Kashmiri people must be taken into account if a settlement is to be sustainable. As to his point about freedom of expression for the people of Kashmir, we welcome the steps taken by the Jammu and Kashmir state government to address human rights grievances, including the disbanding of the police special operations group and the release of leading political detainees.
Lord Paul: My Lords, when I was in India recently I met the Indian Prime Minister, who was cautiously optimistic about the new negotiations. Will my noble friend the Minister congratulate Mr Vajpayee? He has been working on this for four years, persevering with every new initiative despite the setbacks. The final negotiations have now started and Mr Musharraf has responded very well. Will my noble friend congratulate them on this start? Does she agree that any outside interference can only damage the negotiations that they have started and that we should refrain from doing so?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that a solution to the problems of Kashmir will be through direct bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan. I agree that Prime Minister Vajpayee is to be congratulated on the hard work that he has put into reaching the position we are now in, where there is an agenda and substantive timetable for talks to begin after the Indian elections. I also of course congratulate President Musharraf.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister also agree that there is a strong element of urgency in this matter as people are dying every day it goes on? The bloodshed which has already taken place is heartbreaking. We should all recognise that there is a real need to settle the matter.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness about the urgency of the matter. That is why we welcome the detailed talks that

1119
are taking place between Deputy Prime Minister Advani of India and the leaders of the moderate separatist Kashmiri groupings called the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. The noble Baroness will know of the ceasefire along the line of control. We encourage the confidence-building measures that are taking place, such as the Muzaffarabad and Srinagar bus link which will bring benefits to people living on both sides of the line of control.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, if the voices of the people of Kashmir are to be heard, the guns must be silent. Is it not the case that, in this instance, the less the Government try to do the better?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think I made it clear in my earlier replies that I believe an appropriate line is to be drawn between encouragement and intervention.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I endorse much of what the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said about the negotiations that are taking place at the present time. Not only the cricket tour but also the opening of airways between India and Pakistan, better trade links between India and Pakistan and better links for surface transport between the two countries are steps in the right direction. Does the Minister agree that we should congratulate both countries on having the courage to move in a peaceful manner?
Baroness Crawley: Absolutely, my Lords. The opening of transport links is a very encouraging start to what we all hope will be the beginning of a real solution.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in view of the fact that yesterday was Commonwealth Day, does not the Minister feel that it would be a considerable encouragement to Pakistan if it could now be brought fully hack into the Commonwealth family?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the decision on lifting Pakistan's suspension from the counsels of the Commonwealth is ultimately a matter for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, as the noble Lord will know. However, Her Majesty's Government consider that Pakistan has met the criteria laid down by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and support its readmission to the counsels of the Commonwealth as a result.

Intelligence Services: Recruitment and Foreign Language Studies
2.57 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their announcement concerning expanded MI5 recruitment, whether they are content that there are sufficient graduates of non-European
1120
languages to meet MI5's requirements and the continuing needs of MI6 and Government Communications Headquarters.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the intelligence services all run active and successful recruitment campaigns which attract candidates with qualifications in hard non-European languages and from various ethnic backgrounds. Where necessary, the security and intelligence agencies work closely together to bolster language capability, and of course language graduates are not the only source of recruits with fluent foreign language skills.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Nevertheless, is my noble friend worried that some universities are closing courses teaching non-European foreign languages, not because of a lack of suitably qualified students but because the courses are expensive to run? Is she further worried by the closure of the East Asian Studies Department at Durham University, which currently produces one-sixth of our Chinese and Japanese linguists? This will make it even more difficult to recruit suitable applicants for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety in relation to this matter, but I can certainly assure him that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has a programme of support for minority subjects to provide special funding where it is satisfied that continuing provision is in the national interest but might be at risk. As to the University of Durham, I am aware that it closed its Department of East Asian Studies in September 2003 and that this has generated a deal of publicity. However, universities are autonomous organisations with responsibility for their own financial and academic decisions. I understand that the provision of language training in this regard is an issue which is still under consideration at Durham.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it not the case that even more serious than the dearth of British graduates is the dearth of British teachers in these subjects? In a letter only last week, Sir James Craig, Arabist and former ambassador, tells me that in Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and SOAS, the professors of Arabic are all Syrian, Palestinian, Dutch or German; and that of the entire membership of the British Society of Middle Eastern Studies—the "British" society—barely one-third are home-grown British scholars. Will the Government address this whole issue with a sense of urgency—and, indeed, the whole issue of foreign language teaching in general in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking the matter very seriously. I have already referred to the work undertaken by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Over the past three years, it has provided

1121
£3 million of funding for 35 minority subjects in different institutions. The Higher Education Funding Council for England intends to undertake a review of the arrangements for minority subjects in 2004—that is, this year. As a result of the review, I understand it is likely that institutions will have the opportunity to bid for additional funding to support subjects of strategic importance. The figures may have dipped, but I understand that those for people undertaking these studies have started to rise, which we are very pleased about.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the balance of experience over the last few years is that intelligence gathered from human sources is of greater value than that gathered from satellite and technological sources and that in that regard language ability is crucial? Does she further agree that beyond intelligence gathering, if we are to have a real dialogue between cultures, it is essential that the learning of Arabic is greatly strengthened in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of language, particularly as we are living in a very multi-cultural, multinational community. That is why the Government have made such strenuous efforts to enhance the learning of various languages and wholly support its promotion.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the intelligence agencies benefit from a new recruit only after a substantial period of learning the job, and that the time to train linguists is before they are needed? Is work being done to ensure that we know the linguistic skills that are likely to be needed over the next decade?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already mentioned the strategy that we have taken in terms of learning additional languages. That strategic approach has started to bear fruit—the figures indicate an upward trend, having gone down for a number of years. We congratulate all those who are involved in the teaching and promotion of an interest in others' languages.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given us a number of very interesting figures for England and Wales. Does she not have in her brief the very important figures for Scotland, where a good deal of this goes on and there are problems?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have the figures for Scotland. As the noble Baroness knows, the Scottish have the benefit of their own education system, and I am unable to give those figures in relation to England and Wales.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can we safely presume that there is no age limit on recruitment and therefore that everyone is welcome?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, for the security services, the age limit is between 18 and 60. I can reassure noble Lords that if they have specific linguistic qualifications, then all will be considered, irrespective of age.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking sufficient steps to target vacancies in the security services among British citizens with mother-tongue knowledge of the languages in which there is currently a shortage of recruits?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can. There are a number of opportunities for recruitment to the intelligence and security agencies. They are interested in recruiting a diverse workforce, and vacancies are advertised regularly across a broad spectrum of the press, including the ethnic minority press. The Security Service runs regular recruitment programmes employing recruitment consultants and attending recruitment fairs. It has also notified Jobcentre Plus of its requirements for those with a linguistic skill. Those interested in joining might also visit the Security Service website. So I encourage noble Lords to entertain the prospect.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in view of the critical situation, the time has come to appoint another Parry-style inquiry into the extent of the provision in this country of overseas centres? I suspect that many of those centres, in Durham and elsewhere, have atrophied over the last three decades. The time has come for something more than having the universities funding council look at the issue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, and I am sure that my colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills will take it into account. However, I reiterate what I said earlier: a strategic approach has been applied, and it is bearing fruit. The figures are going up—at last, some people will say—and the trend seems to be being sustained. That must be something to celebrate.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, pursuant to the question of my noble friend Lady Carnegy, since MI5 is a national body, is it really sensible for the Government not to know what resources are available in Scotland?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not that I do not know—I do not answer questions in relation to educational establishments. Noble Lords will know that I am not able to answer for other reasons in relation to the strategies used by the Security Service to get its information and recruits from elsewhere. I cannot, therefore, identify specific matters. I am very happy to write to noble Lords to give such information as I may, in future, be able to disclose with propriety, in due course.

Uganda
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What requests for assistance they have received from the Government of Uganda, in the light of recent developments in the campaign of the Lord's Resistance Army across northern Uganda; and what advice or assistance they have offered.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government of Uganda have not made a direct request for assistance from the UK or the wider international community following recent developments. We are deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in northern Uganda. The UK provides significant humanitarian assistance. We have disbursed £8.4 million over the past 12 months to meet the emerging needs of the north. At the same time, we continue to urge the Government of Uganda to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that among the claims of the wide range of political, ethnic and religious coalitions not only among the Acholi but right across northern Uganda, would be that the place should be regarded as a disaster area and that the Government should be seeking outside assistance in a much more organised way?
I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government have been talking about a non-military, political, humanitarian solution. However, when the President was here at the end of January, did the Government raise with him the pressing questions of the continuation of the law of amnesty and the inclusion, or the exclusion, of the LRA in its terms? Have the Government recently raised with Uganda continuing human rights violations and child abduction and use by Ugandan forces as well as by the LRA? Have they talked about the wisdom of creating local militias? Have they talked about the continuing activity in the Congo and the effects of that upon the effectiveness of Ugandan forces?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. The Prime Minister raised a number of issues that the right reverend Prelate covered in his meeting with President Museveni on 29 January. The right reverend Prelate will know, from his great interest in the region, that our High Commissioner in Kampala is in constant touch with the Ugandan President on this issue. We have a very open relationship with Uganda—it is not uncritical, but it means that there is a great deal of dialogue. We have said quite openly that we believe that the military option favoured by President Museveni simply is not working. We are encouraging the Ugandan Government to consider all options to resolve the conflict, including dialogue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the depredations of the Lord's Resistance Army are not confined to northern Uganda, but are spreading into the provinces of neighbouring countries? This is not only a tragedy for the victims of the brutal assaults and killings; it is also a stain on the reputation of Uganda at a time when that reputation has been growing within the international community because of the considerable progress that has been made in building its economy and democracy. Therefore, should we not reconsider providing more logistical support, short of sending military personnel? We could at least give advice and support and encourage the process of dialogue to which the Minister referred.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we believe that Uganda's reputation has been growing, which is why we have developed a constructive relationship, especially in the areas of health and education. However, we will continue to tell the Government of Uganda that we believe that military intervention is not the only way forward. One great way forward would be to ensure that the local communities affected by this brutal gang of insurgents could become part of the solution. They are the very people who wish the dialogue to take place. We are supporting that dialogue through peace and reconstruction initiatives and initiatives designed to help return former child soldiers to the community. Some of them have taken part in the most dreadful acts of violence. It is therefore a very complex reintegration procedure, but we are doing our best.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on the role of the local communities, did the noble Baroness note the remarks made by the Catholic archbishop of northern Uganda, John Baptist Odama, that it was dangerous to arm villagers because it would make them targets for the LRA? Is that not precisely what happened on 21 February, when 200 displaced people were atrociously massacred because they were guarded by local militias? Would it not be better, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested, to help the Ugandans to improve their own military capacity?
What has happened about the donor review of the Ugandan armed forces? Has a meeting been scheduled to discuss the outcome of that review with the Ugandan authorities?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a sorry fact that military intervention by the Ugandan Government has sometimes led to a response that is dreadful for the people of northern Uganda as far as the Lord's Resistance Army is concerned—it is conflict building on conflict. However, the noble Lord is right, the Ugandan Government have undertaken a comprehensive defence review, which the UK has supported, aimed at defining Uganda's defence priorities and, based on that, the optimum size and capability required for Uganda's armed forces. Indeed, we are encouraging the

1125
Government of Uganda to discuss implementation of the review's recommendations with the donor community as soon as possible.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not the position that this war has now been going on for 18 years, with Joseph Kony's terrifying so-called Lord's Resistance Army displacing half a million people and, as the noble Baroness confirmed, committing unspeakable and unending atrocities? Although one recognises that negotiation sounds the best way forward, it does not sound very hopeful against people who commit these sorts of acts.
Is it not also the case that military authorities in neighbouring countries, such as Sudan, are beginning to intervene? Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister's commitment to Africa is one of his highest priorities as regards development, should the Government not be rethinking our policy along the lines suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Avebury?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, our response to what is happening in northern Uganda is under continual review. I agree with the noble Lord that Sudan has a key role to play in the resolution of this conflict. The UK's special representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, has visited the region several times. In August he discussed the LRA question with President Museveni in Uganda and has urged the Sudanese Government to enforce their decision to no longer provide assistance or shelter to the Lord's Resistance Army. That message was reinforced by Hilary Benn in his meeting with President al-Bashir during his visit to Sudan on 10 December. He was assured that Sudan no longer supported the Lord's Resistance Army. Our ambassador in Khartoum is also in regular contact with the Sudanese authorities on this issue.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, later this afternoon, after the two Northern Ireland orders, the duration of which I cannot predict, my noble friend Lord Whitty will repeat a Statement on GM policy.

Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
3.17 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 February be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
1126
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 February be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Laird Lord Laird rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 10 February".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is an important piece of legislation for Northern Ireland and my colleagues and I remain in favour of the rating of vacant property. The proposal provides a clear benefit to society as a whole. However, I cannot help but feel that the Government have not fully considered the arguments against the phased removal of industrial derating despite a full discussion of the order in the Grand Committees of both this place and another place. Therefore, as the order stands, it fails to offer the people of Northern Ireland the reform package most suited to its particular economic circumstances.
In its present form, the impact of these legislative proposals would have a severely detrimental effect on many businesses throughout the Province. The Government have simply not given sufficient consideration to the potential impact on employment figures and on Northern Ireland's manufacturing industry. Our fear remains that the Government's calculations on employment figures have been solely based on a study by DTZ Pieda Consulting for the Department of Finance and Personnel. This suggested that the impact on profits that firms generally make would be no more than 2.7 per cent. However, as has been pointed out to the Government on numerous occasions, other stakeholders argue that the impact would be much higher. For example, the CBI Northern Ireland has indicated that the impact of rates could be between 15 and 20 per cent. According to the CBI, the agri-food, clothing, manufacturing, engineering and electronics sectors will be hit hard by these proposals.
The Government have argued that there is no evidence actually to support the argument that I am reiterating on behalf of my colleagues and the relevant stakeholders in Northern Ireland. The Government point out, however, that any job losses would be a matter of great regret, yet jobs are created and lost all the time for a variety of reasons. I feel that it would indeed be a matter of extreme regret if jobs were lost in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the Government's refusal to acknowledge and consider the evidence that my colleagues and I have highlighted, both in this House and in another place.
It is also the Government's view that those who claim that 30,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this legislation are wrong. I am glad that the Government are so eager and confident in their proposals. However, I should be much happier if the Minister would give a guarantee to this House that the phasing-in period will be extended to 10 years to allow for any unforeseen negative consequences, as it will be Northern Ireland's industries that will have to carry the consequences should the Government's calculations be imprecise.
If manufacturing profits do fall by the more negative estimates of 20 per cent, then, of course, we are going to see excessive job losses in Northern

1127
Ireland. There can be no doubt about this. The Government have admitted that the impact of this move will,
"depend on the circumstances of individual firms and on a range of other factors".
Obviously this indicates that the Government's assertion that there will be no negative impact on Northern Ireland's employment figures is ill founded and that their modernisation programme has not been properly thought out. I am disappointed that the Government have not seriously considered the points my colleagues and I have made. As such, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 10 February".—(Lord Laird.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I spoke at some length in Grand Committee and indicated that I was not happy with certain parts of this rates order. In particular, I pointed out both the strength and the fragility of the Northern Ireland economy and its fragility in competition with the Republic of Ireland for inward investment and other matters.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches will support this order. As I said in Grand Committee, it is an attempt to modernise the rating system in Northern Ireland. It has been introduced with sufficient understanding of the industrial situation in Northern Ireland. At the moment, Northern Ireland is much more prosperous than previously. It is not the worst region in the UK. Now is as good a time as any to introduce this reforming measure. We shall support it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is an issue that we discussed at some length in Grand Committee. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that the decision was not taken on the basis of the DTZ study. The policy proposal to phase out industrial derating was subject to a regulatory impact assessment that concentrated on the impact on the manufacturing sector. A separate assessment was carried out on the quarrying sector. Full account was taken of the current economic climate and of the concerns about competition that were raised in the consultation.
A number of figures have been quoted about the percentage of profit that would be lost. The figures include that of the DTZ study, 2.7 per cent, that of Invest Northern Ireland, 8.5 per cent, and the CBI's figure of 15 to 20 per cent. It is our view that the Invest Northern Ireland study is likely to be the best available indication of profit impact but this does not mean that profits will fall by 8.5 per cent as a result of the phasing-out of industrial derating.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the point of the impact on jobs and the claim that some 30,000 jobs could be lost. The claim does not take account of the fact that rates are being phased in over a prolonged period of time. The noble Lord asked for an extension
1128
of that period from eight years to 10. There will be ample time during the eight-year phasing-in period continually to look at the impact on the economy in Northern Ireland. If we have to think again, we shall have an opportunity to do that over the phasing-in period. Given the consultation that has already gone on in relation to this order and the fact that the phasing-in has been agreed, it would not be right to move from eight to 10 years at this time.
Rates are but one element of firms' cost structures and cannot be considered in isolation. There is no evidence to support the argument that a large number of otherwise sustainable jobs will be lost as a direct result of having to pay rates in seven years' time. I note the concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord but I hope that, in the light of my explanation, he will feel able to support the order.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for her remarks, which I have taken into consideration. I shall look at those remarks in more detail. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GM Policy
3.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government's approach to the technology of genetic modification, including its use in crops.
"The tool of GM has been used for at least 10 years across the world in the production of food and medicines, both human and animal. In the UK, only a handful of foods have been approved for use: GM soya, tomato purée and some forms of maize. The first two were approved under the previous administration and the maize was approved in 1997 and 1998. At present, no GM crop has all the approvals needed for commercial cultivation in the UK. Decisions as to what can be consumed or grown in the EU as a whole have throughout been taken by member states collectively under a regime of safety testing, monitoring and control which itself dates back 10 years.
"This legal framework has recently been substantially strengthened and that much strengthened regulatory regime came into effect in the UK last year. It is firmly based on the precautionary principle as applied on a strictly case-by-case basis. Every GMO for which authorisation is sought must receive a comprehensive prior assessment of any potential risk to human health or the environment.

1129
"In 1998 this Government decided to go further. We were advised by English Nature of its concern about the effect of current GM herbicide-resistant crops on biodiversity. It was agreed that farm-scale trials would be conducted to assess these risks. Those trials were largely completed and reported by the end of last year and their results referred to our independent advisory committee for its assessment.
"In the mean time, another advisory committee had advised the Government to fund an independently run public debate or dialogue on GM issues. I accepted that advice and in May 2002 announced that the Government and the devolved administrations would sponsor such a dialogue with three strands: the debate itself, a thorough review of the science and an economic costs and benefits study by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.
"The public dialogue reported general unease about GM crops and food and little support for early commercialisation of GM crops. People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were more open-minded and anxious to know more, but were still very cautious and it was suggested that if they learnt more their hostility deepened.
"The costs and benefits study concluded that the GM crops currently available offer only some small and limited benefits to UK farmers but that future developments in GM crops could potentially offer benefits of greater value and significance even in the United Kingdom.
"The science review concluded that GM is not a single homogenous technology and that applications should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It reaffirmed that there are some gaps in scientific knowledge and, in particular, that it is important that the regulatory system is kept under review so that it keeps pace with any new developments. But it concluded that there was no scientific case for ruling out all GM crops or products.
"It examined all the concerns generally raised. In particular, it reported no verifiable ill effects from extensive human and animal consumption of products from GM crops over seven years and concluded, too, that current GM crops were very unlikely either to invade the countryside or be toxic to wildlife. The most important environmental issue identified was indeed the effect on farmland wildlife which was the subject of our extensive trials—the largest in the world.
"Our independent advisers have now reported to us on those trials, and on the basis of that advice and having consulted the devolved administrations, I have concluded that the UK should oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape anywhere in the EU using the management regime tested in the farm-scale evaluations, but that we should agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, but only subject to two further important conditions.
1130
"The first is that restrictions should be imposed on the existing EU marketing consent, which expires in October 2006, so that it can be grown and managed only as in the trials or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment.
"Secondly, in response to concerns which have been raised about the phase-out of atrazine in the European Union, the consent holders should be required to carry out further scientific analysis to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional maize and to submit new evidence if they seek to renew the existing EU marketing consent when it expires in 2006.
"Before commercial cultivation of GM maize can proceed, separate approval will also be required under seeds legislation, and under pesticides legislation for the associated herbicide use. Chardon LL will not be added to the UK national list until the necessary amendments to the EU marketing consent are in place. We also anticipate that coexistence measures will be in place before any GM crops are grown commercially. I do not, in fact, anticipate any commercial cultivation of GM maize before spring 2005 at the earliest.
"The farm-scale evaluations also raised much more far reaching questions about crop management and the environment—questions which, incidentally, reinforced the value of the case-by-case approach. There was no blanket difference between GM and non-GM crops. The trial crop with the 'best' results for the environment was a conventional crop. The one which was 'worst' was also a conventional crop. Yet we have nothing like the influence over the growing and management of conventional crops that we have over GM crops, even though the effects may be just as far reaching. We are giving very careful consideration to these issues.
"I believe that the approach I have outlined today is the right one. It is precautionary. It is evidence-based. In practice, it means licensing one application, which runs until October 2006, and is subject to two further conditions.
"Apart from the scientific decisions that flow from the trials, there is the related issue of GM and non-GM crops being grown in the same area—so-called coexistence. The AEBC has recently produced evidence on this issue. I propose that, as the AEBC advises, farmers who wish to grow GM crops should be required to comply with a code of practice based on the European Union's 0.9 per cent labelling threshold, and that this code should have statutory backing.
"There are particular concerns for organic farming, for which the Government have much increased funding and to which we remain committed. The AEBC argued for a lower threshold for organic farming but could not agree on a figure. We will explore further with stakeholders whether a lower threshold should be applied on a crop-by-crop basis.
"I will also consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who suffer financial loss through no fault of their own.

1131
But I must make it clear that any such compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than by government or producers of non-GM crops. The Government will also provide guidance to farmers interested in establishing voluntary GM-free zones in their areas, consistent with EU legislation.
"This is a difficult issue bedevilled by confusion. There are many legitimate concerns—concerns about gene stacking, cross pollination, and much else. Reports which combine comment on all of these matters can be misleading. People worry that a GM crop could affect wild relatives and hence the gene pool. Maize, which is the crop we are prepared to license, has no wild relatives in the UK. It is highly unlikely that any stray remaining plant or seed would survive a winter here to raise concerns about a subsequent crop. Equally, there is very little organic maize grown here. So many of the concerns usually raised do not apply. This reinforces the value of a case-by-case approach.
"Some GM crops are already used, though not grown here, for animal feed. Several GM veterinary medicines are in use and much vegetarian cheese is produced using a GM processing aid.
"There is no scientific case for a blanket approval of all the uses of GM. Safety, human health and the environment must remain at the heart of our regulatory regime and rigorous and robust monitoring must be maintained. But, equally, there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM. I know of no one who argues, for instance, that the GM tool alone can solve the problem of the developing world. But it is less than honest to pretend, especially against a background of climate change, that GM has not the potential to contribute to some solutions.
"This, too, was part of the outcome of the public dialogue. I thank those who ran it and those who took part. From that process and many other attempts to assess public opinion it is clear that most people believe that the use of genetic modification should be approached with caution. They want strong regulation and monitoring, and in addition farmers want a framework of rules for coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, and customers want a clear regime for traceability and labelling so that they can make their own choices. I believe the rules that we now have and those which we shall put in place in the months ahead meet these criteria as well as being soundly based on the scientific evidence before us. I commend this approach to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today. The Government have indeed had consultation; the noble Lord referred in the Statement to the public dialogue exercise and the consultations. Quite rightly,
1132
he said that the public have expressed great concern about GM products. Up to 90 per cent of the public have expressed such concern.
The three reports on the four trials are in the public domain. However, when will the report on the fourth trial, on oilseed rape, be completed? Why has it been delayed? Was the Minister not concerned by the concern expressed by the Environmental Audit Select Committee? It had great concerns about certain aspects of GM.
We welcome and support the Government's case-by-case approach to the consideration of GM releases. However, what follow-up mechanism will be put in place to keep a check on this GM crop once it can be grown? Moreover, how do the Government intend to solve the cross-border position? As I understand it, Wales and indeed Scotland have shown they are currently not inclined to allow the growing of GM crops.
The Statement includes a section which says that the current GM crop is,
`very unlikely … to invade the countryside or be toxic to wildlife'.
If it is "very unlikely", rather than not possible, what will be our equivalent to the EU's 0.9 per cent labelling threshold? Will it be 1 per cent, or 5 per cent? Do the Government have a figure in mind?
While we are maintaining a GM-sceptical status in the wider domain, as the Minister said, what arrangements will be put in place to ensure the purity of imported seed? Has that been considered?
The ACRE report says that comparison of organic farming methods was not included in the trials. Was that a deliberate decision or an oversight? If it was an oversight, will there be a direct study to address those concerns? We should also like to know why no direct study of species such as earthworms or minute soil organisms was incorporated into the study.
The Minister referred to organic farmers, who obviously have shown concern. I should like to refer also to conventional farmers who are farming under an assured scheme status. The Minister indicated that the Government would not fund any form of compensation in that regard. How will those farmers be protected if there is any cross-contamination in future? I understand that that is not likely to be the case regarding the scheme that we are discussing at the moment, but I wonder to what extent the Government have considered the matter.
As I say, the Environmental Audit Select Committee raised one or two questions. Will the Minister therefore explain why the Cabinet went ahead and approved the growing of GM herbicide-tolerant forage maize 24 hours before that committee unanimously recommended that that should not be done? Is it not the most extraordinary way to treat the recommendations of a Select Committee—not only to dismiss its findings but to do so before even having had a chance to read them? The committee also raised some very serious concerns about the validity of the farm-scale evaluations that have taken place. Have the Government considered that they should conduct new trials to compare the effect of GMHT forage maize with its non-GM equivalent, grown without the use of

1133
atrazine? The few trials that took place were on too small a scale to produce any conclusive results. When do the Government intend to publish the results of the winter-sown oilseed rape trials?
We welcome the Government's recognition that there needs to be a clear framework governing separation distances and liability before plantings take place. It has been suggested that legislation may be needed to establish the rules. Is that so, and in what framework will that be brought forward? Will it be in the form of an order, or will the Government take advantage of my honourable friend's Private Member's Bill being introduced in another place to debate the necessary safeguards against contamination that we all want to see?
Will the Minister confirm that both the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have decided that no GM maize planting should take place for the foreseeable future? How, therefore, does he intend to obtain their agreement for the inclusion of GM maize on the national list?
I have two final questions. In the event that anyone plants GM maize following the approval after April 2005, will they have to inform Defra? Is that a part of the planning regulations that Defra envisages? Will Defra monitor what happens to those crops? Is the Minister aware that according to the "Today" programme this morning, farmers on small and medium-sized farms in Canada wish that they had not begun to grown GM maize as over time their yields are not as great as those gained with conventional crops, or are much less than anticipated? What research have the Government carried out on that matter?
I turn to a smaller but still very important point. I have mentioned organic and commercial crops. Have the Government any plans regarding separation distances of GM maize from crops grown on allotments, in private gardens and, of course, in all horticultural enterprises?
Although we welcome the clarification of the Government's position on the matter, I should be grateful for a response to the questions that I raised.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for spelling out the Government's intentions in this regard. However, he will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches cannot welcome them.
The rationale for taking this decision seems to be lacking. The Statement referred to three strands of government consultation, strand one involving economic benefits. As the Minister said, the Government's report did not disclose strong short-term benefits for this country. The report highlights the benefit of increased knowledge for our knowledge economy. Of course, we agree with that. However, knowledge can be increased by conducting the experiments in a controlled environment. Commercial planting is not required to increase knowledge in that regard. Where is the economic benefit to the knowledge economy? British agriculture is not dependent for commercial gain on prairie-style farming. Indeed, the Curry Commission
1134
took the view—I believe that the Government support this—that our farming is more likely to benefit from niche markets and the production of specialised quality food, both of which may be threatened by the measure that we are discussing. I shall return to that matter.
Strand two of the Government's consultation concerned the GM public debate. As the Minister said, the public were overwhelmingly cautious and, the more they learnt, the more cautious they became. The Government's decision to undertake this commercial planting will produce deep cynicism in the public that there can be big debates and public conversations, or public debates and big conversations, but no matter what the public say, the Government then seem to do the opposite. To hold such debates and then to appear to take scant notice of them does not do the public a service.
Strand three of the Government's consultation concerns the environment. Here especially the rationale is lacking. The British countryside is being exposed hastily to a scientific experiment of which the field-scale trials have been examined and found to be seriously flawed by the Environmental Audit Select Committee. The findings could not be more damning. They state that "unsatisfactory indeed invalid comparison" was made with regard to the very forage maize that the Government intend to license for commercial planting. We would welcome a decision not to go ahead with the planting of GM oilseed rape and beet. It is a mistake to go ahead with the commercial planting of GM maize. It does not take into account the problems that have arisen with such planting in North America. Have the Government taken those problems seriously? The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, talked about problems arising in Canada in that regard.
I draw to the Minister's attention an article in the Washington Post in February that pointed out that the US supply of ordinary crop seeds has become contaminated with strands of engineered DNA. The purity of our seed supply is likely to be threatened if the measure that we are discussing goes ahead. Given such environmental considerations, I am not clear about the Government's rationale for going ahead with the measure. We are a small island and our biodiversity is dependent on our farmland, as the Minister has often said. Farmland bird indicators have shown how wrongly we have treated the environment in the past. Conclusion 23 of the Environmental Audit Select Committee report highlights the serious implications of the measure that we are discussing. I emphasise strongly that we should not be taking those risks with our countryside when our farmland biodiversity is so dependent on agriculture.
The Government continually perpetuate the myth that the growing of GM crops will help the developing world. However, we would not grow these crops in similar conditions to those that exist in the developing world. The conditions in the developing world are so different that the comparison is not a useful one in the scientific context. I label that assertion emotional blackmail.

1135
I turn to buffer zones and insurance. The Statement states that compensation schemes would need to be funded by the GM industry. However, given the degree of concern among conventional and organic farmers that the buffer zones are ill defined and that the scheme has not been spelt out by the Government, those farmers will be very concerned that the measure has been given the go-ahead with no framework having been spelt out. We are talking about forage maize to be fed to cattle. Cattle fed on GM maize is not labelled, of course, so what will consumers in Britain do, if they do not want to eat meat from cattle that has been fed with GM forage maize?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank both spokespeople from the opposition parties for their response. I think that I can summarise it by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, welcomed the case-by-case approach but queried the basis for the particular decision, while the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that she did not welcome the Statement.
It is important that we spell out the basis for the Statement, which is hugely precautionary. It recognises that not only are there some uncertainties in the science, but an important issue of public opinion has to be taken into account. The balance of the evidence indicates that this single crop can be cultivated in a way less damaging to the environment than the conventional equivalent.
I shall immediately move to the accusations made by both the Environmental Audit Committee in another place and some of the press reports. They claim that the trial is not valid because we are comparing the crop with conventional crops treated with atrazine, which is about to be prohibited. In two senses, it is valid. First, parts of the comparator—rather more than the Environmental Audit Committee suggested—were treated with other continuously legal herbicides. Secondly, there is an obligation on the grower—the consent holder, following his consent—to continue to compare the way in which the environment is affected by the use of GM crops with the equivalent current conventional treatment. In other words, there is a continuing requirement that they must show that the GM crop is better for the environment than the conventional method, which will then be atrazine-free. What has been revealed, as the Statement indicated, is that there is a pretty negative effect on the environment from current herbicide use for conventional crops, and we should take that to heart.
Both noble Baronesses raised a number of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked when the fourth study, on the winter-sown oilseed rape, would be available. I cannot give an exact date, but it should be around the turn of the year. That will give us an indication on the matter. She asked several questions that related to the devolved administrations. It is clear that the devolved administrations have been fully consulted and agree with the policy. They have indicated, particularly the Welsh administration, that
1136
they wish to be restrictive in terms of their public policy and the interpretation of that policy, but that they give us their support.
The nature of the coexistence rules, on which we will consult, will allow the devolved administrations to express a view at that point. The basis for the coexistence rules and for the control of all the regimes will be the EU rule, which is that the final product must not contain more than 0.9 per cent of GM material. That will apply to imported seed as much as to European-grown seed, which answers another question. An argument is still outstanding on whether the threshold for organic produce and its protection should be at a lower level. That is being pursued in consultation here and within Europe. However, it is important that, if we have a differential threshold, it must be verifiable. Some of the figures mentioned are not detectable and therefore probably not verifiable.
I shall state the position on the coexistence legislation that we are proposing. We already have the primary legislative powers to make rules on coexistence. However, the relevant regulations would need to be put before both Houses for consideration. We expect that the rules will have gone through the procedure before any GM maize is grown, which, as I said, is not expected before spring 2005. The position would therefore be one in which both general rules and the constraints applying to the planting of the particular crop were in place.
So far as the impact on assurance schemes is concerned—I know that the noble Baroness wishes to return to the matter—clearly the general requirements on cross-contamination would be those that continue to be sustained through the assurance scheme. Again, particular issues relate to organic produce, but those restrictions would ensure that the assurance scheme's provision on excluding more than 0.9 per cent of GM produce would be maintained.
I return to the report of the Select Committee in another place. As I said, the basis of its main criticism is not valid, so we do not need new trials on the produce.
Both noble Baronesses referred to the existence of differing reports on the success or otherwise of GM crops in various parts of the world. No doubt there are differing reports. Some indicate a very positive outcome—for example, in relation to cotton in China—while others report different outcomes. However, in the main public anxiety—food safety—nowhere in the world is there an indication that GM crops have had a detrimental effect on human or animal health.
It is true, of course, that the public consultation and the strands of inquiry that the Government commissioned indicated that there was no great benefit immediately, in scientific, environmental or economic terms, of growing such crops in the UK. They also indicated a strong unease among the public. Much of that unease is addressed by the combination of the coexistence rules that we are proposing, and the labelling and traceability rules that are in place, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is good enough reason to ban this crop. On the basis of scientific evidence, we do not consider that there is. Whether people wish to grow it

1137
and use it for fodder for animals is, of course, a matter for them, not the Government. However, there is not sufficient reason to ban it.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the matter is, of course, for the United Kingdom and the devolved authorities in the European Union context. I note the prudent, not to say cautious, approach of the Government. However, what is happening elsewhere is relevant, particularly because maize is an extremely widely traded product. There will be effects from whatever we do in due course on trade. What percentage of the maize grown in the United States and Canada is already genetically improved? What other people do will in due course affect some interests of the United Kingdom. If the Minister does not have the figures now, I would like to see them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures now. The noble Lord is correct to say that a large proportion of maize—not the majority—in North America is already GM, as is an even larger proportion of soya. That does not necessarily affect whether we in Europe should accept that such crops are useful to be grown or used here. We need to make our own judgments on the basis of our own scientific evidence.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the assets committee of the Church Commissioners, and of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group, which has advised that committee. The precautionary approach that the Minister outlined, which has led to the point that he has reached today, is broadly speaking the one that we have judged it right to follow. However, he will be aware that the matter continues within the Churches to be very vigorously debated.
Will the full background to the Government's decision announced today be made available, particularly to those who have to make decisions in the not-too-distant future about making available land for the plantings that will arise from it? Clearly, the more information that is in the public domain about what led the Government to their conclusions the better. Broadly speaking, the constituency which I represent—the assets committee and so on—will welcome his conclusions, but we would like to know how much of the material behind those decisions will be made public to assist future decision making.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the results of the farm-scale trials are already in the public domain, as is the view of the advisory committee. The Government's response to the advisory committee is, in essence, being issued today, as well as the Government's response to the public dialogue. Therefore, there is a reasonable amount of information available. Other studies and commentaries that support the decision are also in the public domain.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, what is the precise legal situation regarding the growing of GM
1138
crops in Wales, where the National Assembly has invoked—and wishes to continue—a ban on growing GM crops, including trials? Will it be prevented doing so through existing EU legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom has to take a position as a whole on the matter. The Welsh Assembly says that it supports the general policy of approaching the matter on a case-by-case basis, but it wishes to be as restrictive as possible within the terms of the EU legislation regarding its interpretation within Wales. In a discussion of the coexistence rules, there will be scope for voluntary GM-free zones. I will leave the question of whether such a zone could robustly apply to the whole of Wales until we see the results of that consultation. But there is scope for parts of the country to be GM-free, on a voluntary rather than a legislative, basis; and the coexistence rules will cover that option.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that farmers and growers will, at least, he relieved that the Statement from the Secretary of State in the other place has been read here. She has shown some courage in making that Statement, given the tremendous opposition that exists against growing GM crops. I rise to support all of the questions put by my noble friend Lady Byford, some of which the Minister has answered. But the opposition to GM crops is incredible and the disputes will continue. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept responsibility for giving answers to all concerns raised on the issue.
For example, I was horrified when I went into the dentist's recently and saw a lady holding a newspaper whose front page said, "Genetically modified crops (Frankenstein food) can cause meningitis". The lady put down the paper, looked at me and asked. "What do you think of all this?", and I gave a politician's reply, saying, "Madam, it is more important that you tell me what you think". She then told me that she was horrified and said that she would not have such food in her house. Looking at me, she said, "I know who you are; we will not have cow's milk in our house, only organically produced soya milk".
When I asked the lady where that came from she said, "Oh, it is British". I replied, "Madam, you say that you know who I am, so I hope you will accept that unfortunately we can't grow soya in this country. Your soya must have come from the United States of America where 90 per cent of soya is genetically modified", although the Minister may dispute that figure. I added, "If I may say so, madam, you look extremely well on genetically modified soya milk". When I saw the dentist, she looked at me and said, "Will you stop upsetting my patients?".
That is an example of how people react to the issue and that is important. My question is: will tighter labelling be used to make sure, when we import such products, that the consumers know what they are buying? If they buy non-genetically modified soya

1139
milk which is not labelled as such, I shall have some questions to ask, because I fail to see how it can be separated when it is imported in such large quantities.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I went to the dentist on Friday and it was nowhere near as exciting or as dangerous as the visit made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. The lady he met at the dentist's surgery reflects a general public anxiety and there are issues upon which the media seize which raise that anxiety. Every such report has to be taken seriously, which is not always the way that the matter is treated by the media.
I repeat that, so far, there has been no proven ill health effect of GM food compared with conventionally grown food. A huge amount of soya grown in North America and elsewhere is genetically modified. It is still possible to have soya that is GM-free above the 0.9 per cent threshold. It is available and it may well be that the lady referred to by the noble Lord was able to acquire it. It will continue to be the case, as I told the noble Baroness, that thresholds may be imposed on imported soya beans and other materials, in the same way as can apply to crops grown in Europe. It is certainly the case that a significant amount of soya consumed in this country is already, knowingly or unknowingly, genetically modified.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that 10 years of experience of extensive growing of genetically modified foods in the United States has led scientists there to conclude that there are no consequences of any significance for human health? Is he aware that the British Medical Association's board of science and education, after an extensive inquiry chaired by former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Sir David Carter, has just published a supportive report that withdraws reservations that the BMA has previously expressed about the risks to human health of GM foods?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. I indicated that I am not aware of any proven case of ill health caused by soya or any other GM crop in North America or anywhere else. In general, the same conclusion has been reached by medics in Britain and Europe. There are some unanswered questions in relation to particular cases, which need to be properly investigated, but they should not be treated with hysteria in the way that occasionally happens in the media. However, the issue we were generally addressing was not public health but the less clear question of the impact on the environment. Three of the trials had a negative impact and one had a positive impact on the environment, which is why we have now given this approval.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will my noble friend make clear that the Government are not -undertaking commercial planting", as was suggested by one of the Front Bench contributions? That is an important distinction. We are not running huge collective farms that are changing to GM maize production. We are
1140
talking about the role of the Government as a regulator. It is important that we understand that as a regulator they must be even-handed and that their responsibilities include taking decisions that are based on science. That is why it is important and appropriate that decisions, such as that taken today, are made on a case-by-case basis.
Will the Minister say more about the passage in the Statement that pointed out that, as a regulator, the Government have nothing like the same powers over conventional crops that cause more environmental damage than GM crops? Is it not important that we stop demonising GM production and have a level playing field, where we look across the board at any aspect of health, environment, food or crop production?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's description of the role of the Government. It will be up to commercial farmers, growers and users to decide whether they want to grow it. On the basis of the scientific evidence, the Government see no reason to ban this crop and we will address others on the same basis.
As regards conventional cultivation, some environmental issues need to be addressed more generally in relation to some of the patterns of herbicide use and its effect on the soil and on biodiversity. The merging at this stage of the two regimes used on GM and conventional crops is probably a step too far because public anxiety about GM crops must be addressed. In that sense, we need double assurance. However, the issue highlighted by the crop trial for maize was the detrimental environmental effect of the way in which we have hitherto conventionally cultivated this crop.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. The Minister mentioned the phasing out of atrazine. It was used in the GM trials and it is being phased out because of its overall biological effect. I understand that of the herbicides approved in 2003, nine could be used on maize and that atrazine was one of them. Do the Government have evidence that the other products have a less biological effect? If they found that the other products were more beneficial than appeared in the GM trials, would the Government reconsider their GM approval?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the trial was conducted using not atrazine but herbicides which will continue to be legal. The relative effect as between GM and conventional crops was diminished in that the alternatives were better than atrazine, but there remained an advantage for GM. As part of our consent, we have required that the consent holder will continue to judge the GM cultivation against the current use within the conventional field at any given time. If it were the case that a pesticide regime in the conventional area proved to be better for the environment than the GM, we would

1141
obviously have to reconsider it. But that is not the situation now and it is not the situation with any of the alternatives to atrazine currently in use.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I find this whole situation extremely complicated. Will the Minister confirm that the devolved administrations could go entirely their own way and against the policies of Defra? Bearing in mind what was said by my noble friend Lord Walton, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, do we not need a much better informed public debate on the whole GM policy? I am tilled with horror when I read about "Frankenstein foods", because they are far, far from that. Will the Minister ensure that Defra can help to promote the good effects of GM?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have put a lot of information into the public domain. I am not sure that the public have entirely appreciated it and information does not always change people's minds. There is an ongoing responsibility on government and other major players to ensure that the facts are brought out rather than hysteria or over-exaggerated claims in the other direction. Therefore, I would accept that responsibility.
The devolved administrations will be applying the same policy. The issue of whether there could be GM-free zones and how they would be operated will be dealt with in the consultation on the coexistence rules and the liability rules which relate to them. We would therefore see the basis on which a GM-free zone could be designated in England or within the devolved administrations.
Lord Soulsby of Swaftham Prior: My Lords, we should welcome the announcement on GM crops. It will it give a tremendous boost to those people working on the modification of crops. Despite the criticism in this country that we do not need these crops in the United Kingdom, there is no doubt whatever that we need them throughout the developing world. Unfortunately, work in the United Kingdom in this area has lagged behind because of the antagonism to GM crops.
This Statement will provide an enormous stimulus for those people working in this area because the whole GM issue has suffered from the antagonism brought against that science. I am sure that many people in plant and animal genetics will greatly welcome the announcement and help to drive forward this research, which is so urgently needed in this country and overseas.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the scientific effort here needs to be retained and to operate at the highest level. We have indicated that on the basis of scientific evidence we will take positive decisions. It is to be hoped that the biotech industry, in particular the GM part of it, will continue to see the UK as a good base for that forward research.
1142
The antagonism to GM is not confined to the UK. If anything, it is greater in parts of Europe. Therefore, the transfer of technology out of this country would not be to the rest of Europe. Equally, we hope that Europe, within its new framework of legislation, can allow that research to continue.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I want to pick up a point made by other noble Lords. One can add to the point made by my noble friend Lord Plumb. The chances are that all of us who are wearing cotton shirts are wearing GM cotton. The noble Lord mentioned China, but the countries which grow cotton have overwhelmingly gone over to GM because they see the advantages.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the question of how the public debate was conducted. I welcome the fact that the Government have firmly pinned their flag to the scientific mast, but I hope that they will learn the lesson that when there is scientific advance it is no use trying to catch up afterwards. It is no use trying to catch up afterwards if the genie has escaped in the sense that the propagandists against the new scientific advance are half way around the world before its defenders have got their boots on.
There is a lesson for the scientific community to learn. I pick up the points made in the Select Committee report, Science and Society. The scientific community, whether it is in the universities, business or government, must recognise that if there is to be a proper public debate it must start right at the beginning. It is no use having a public debate when the public are already thoroughly stirred up by "Frankenstein foods" and other nonsense that has appeared in the media. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that part of the lesson has been well and truly learnt.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the timing and nature of public debate are always difficult matters. It is important that the debates are well informed and scientifically based. But it is also important that at all stages the Government recognise public anxiety in the development of certain scientific technologies. It would have been negative if at an early stage the Government had appeared as a propagandist for GM technology and GM crops. Indeed, at one stage they were accused of so doing and acting in the interest of Monsanto and other companies. That would have been hugely damaging.
It is not an easy, straightforward issue. The Government must be seen to be even-handed and to take on board the concerns of the public. After all, at the end of the day our job is not to support one technology or another but to act as a regulator in order to ensure that the anxieties of the public and the dangers to them and the environment are effectively regulated and that decisions are taken within that framework. It is hoped that that will be against a background of rational public debate.
Regrettably—I believe to some extent on both sides in this issue—debate has not been hugely rational. On the one hand, as I have said in this House before,

1143
people claim that GM crops will save the world. They may make a contribution but they will not do so on their own. On the other hand, people say that they will destroy agriculture and our society as we know it. Neither claim is true. Therefore, we must focus on much smaller decisions—that is, whether a particular crop growing in particular circumstances can be authorised or whether there is a sufficient scientific basis for banning it. That is the Government's role and I believe that we have fulfilled that in the decision made today.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [The offence]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 29, after "offence" insert "of being responsible for the death of a child or vulnerable adult ("V")"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to the next group of amendments, which stand in my name—Amendments Nos. 11, 15 and 16. I had given advance notice of this intention to the Front Benches and to the Clerk of the House, and it may assist progress on the Bill today if I do so.
Clause 4 creates the new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. Amendment No. 10 would redefine that offence as one of being responsible for the death of a child or vulnerable adult. We now reach one of the most innovative and controversial parts of the Bill, and I believe that it would be helpful if I summarised the general view of these Benches of the objective behind Clauses 4 and 5. I hope that that will save me repeating myself in our later debates today.
In Grand Committee, I made it clear at col. GC 329 of the Official Report of 21 January that I support the objective of Clauses 4 and 5 in as much as we agree with the Government that it is unacceptable that a child's killer should go unpunished. A way should be found to address the problem that exists when a child is killed in a household when more than one person is present and it is not clear which of the carers has directly caused the death of the child. As the law stands, as a result of the Court of Appeal's ruling in Lane v Lane, it is likely that a trial will not proceed beyond a defence submission of "no case to answer" at half time. As a result, neither parent nor carer can be convicted and one or other of them may literally get away with murder.
As the Law Commission points out in paragraph 1.2 of its consultative report No. 279, Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Serious Injury (Criminal Trials), even though one parent may not have struck the fatal blow or blows, he or she may be culpable through having participated actively in the killing or by failing to protect the child. In many cases of this type, it is difficult or, indeed, impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt who did what, and therefore no one is convicted. Therefore, I agree that we need to take action, but I am not convinced that the Government have the solution right just yet. I believe that some amendments need to be achieved.
I considered very carefully the Government's responses in Grand Committee and I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and others on 26 February to discuss Clauses 4 and 5. As a result, I am close to agreeing the drafting of Clause 4, but I am still convinced that Clause 5 is unacceptable and I have tabled later amendments to reflect that view.
Amendment No. 10 tackles the basic issue of the nature of the offence created by Clause 4. I believe that the title given to it by the Government is ambiguous as it refers to:
"Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult".
One has to consider the situation where a jury must decide whether a person is guilty of such an offence. The members of the jury will face a very difficult, if not impossible, situation at that stage. How can the prosecution ask a jury to find that the defendant caused or allowed an event to take place? The two are different in meaning and the degree of culpability is, prima facie, quite different in degree. The jury may be able to find that one of the two took place but may not be able to decide which one.
My amendment offers a solution. It makes the offence one of being responsible for the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. That, I think, removes the ambiguity. It makes it clear that this is not a composite offence but a single offence. I believe it assists the jury by giving them a more straightforward opportunity to assess culpability on the evidence. It still achieves the Government's overall objective of making it clear that someone is to blame and that that person should be convicted. For me, it also has the added advantage of ensuring that Clause 5 is then simply unnecessary.
I turn briefly to my other amendments. The objective of Amendments Nos. 11, 15 and 16 is to define more clearly the type of relationship that should lead to someone having a responsibility under Clause 4 to prevent the death of a child or vulnerable adult. Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances under which a person is guilty of an offence of allowing or causing the death of a child. It draws the net very widely and applies to all members of the household who had frequent contact with the victim. It makes the assumption that a person who has had frequent contact should then be responsible for the death.
Amendment No. 11 would redraw the definition of those who can be caught as a defendant by this provision. It states that the contact must be not only frequent but must also be "close personal" contact.

1145
My concern is as follows. Frequent contact can simply mean that a person visits the house on a regular basis but is not in a position to be aware that there is a problem in the condition of the child or vulnerable adult.
In Grand Committee, I explained that I was particularly concerned about the position in communities where the mode of dress would mean that the child's arms and legs would be covered and therefore it might be difficult, if not impossible, for someone to tell whether that person had been physically abused. In response, the Minister said at col. GC 347 of the Official Report that physical abuse was quite often manifest in emotional disturbance. She said that one may not see the marks on a child's body but one notices the behaviour of the child change. That can be true in some, but not in all, cases. Indeed, as the Minister recognised herself, it is not always the case. One should also take into account that in some cultural groups it would be expected that children would behave in a rather more controlled manner in front of adults than they would in others. It is the old Victorian maxim of "be seen and not heard", which still exists in some cases.
In redrafting my Committee stage amendments, I also took note of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, at col. GC 345 that one must take care not to exclude from the net some people who arc very often perpetrators of this kind of abuse. By that, she explained that she meant the boyfriends of the mother of the child. I agree with her entirely and I believe that my new amendment meets her point. It resolves the problem by removing references to those terms and referring instead to "close personal con tact".
Amendment No. 16 follows the same line of thought as Amendment No.11 and amends subsection (4) so that a person is to be regarded as a member of a household if he or she has had such close personal contact with the other persons resident in the household that it is reasonable to regard him or her as a member of that household. This tries to resolve the problem caused by the current drafting of subsection (4), which is very wide indeed. It states that someone is to be regarded as a member of a household,
"if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it".
Of course, membership of the household makes a person possibly culpable of the death. In Grand Committee, I pointed out that that will cause problems in deciding how to define what is meant by "so often" and, in particular, how to define "such periods", as the clause is currently drafted.
Amendment No. 15 probes further the definition of the nature of the contact that brings a person into the danger zone and makes him a member of the household. The amendment would alter subsection (4) to state that a person would have to have visited the household,
"within three months of the notification of the death",
so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of the household.
Of course, I recognise that my amendment is defective, just as I allege that the Governments wording is defective. By stipulating a set time, I am simply inviting the Government to ask me why I have chosen a period of three months. It is simply a tool to probe how we may achieve better drafting.
My objective in these amendments is most definitely not to exclude from the new offence those who have a responsibility for the child or vulnerable adult in the usually accepted sense—that is, those who are in a position to know what is going on, who do know what is going on, and who should take action but do not. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my name is to this amendment. I support Amendment No. 10 and should like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 11, 15 and 16. I apologise for being rather late on parade, but I did hear the substance of what was said.
The most important of these amendments is Amendment No. 10. When there are other offences referred to in the Bill, such as murder and manslaughter, one has to define the offence. Without pre-empting future discussion—we come to that later—that is my main reason for supporting Amendment No. 10.
I heard my noble friend's comments on the other amendments and wholly support the reasoning When creating a new offence it is important to get the details of the definition correct and tight. The amendments achieve that object without in any way derogating from the purpose of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, on these Benches we too are generally supportive of the amendment. It is vital that we get right the definition of people who may be guilty of committing the offences. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for ensuring that the category of people to whom I referred during Grand Committee, the boyfriends, who are often the perpetrators, would be included if the amendments were passed.
I have one small question on the wording of Amendment No. 15. The way that it is worded suggests to me that "within three months" could mean three months before or after the death. It would be complete nonsense if that referred to a person visiting three months after the death as clearly that person would not have anything to do with the death. I wonder whether the words "prior to" might be more appropriate when perhaps this is voted on at some stage. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, could explain.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 10. It is important to underline the fact that this is a single, indivisible offence. Much of the discussion in Grand Committee seemed in a rather novel way to regard it as two offences rolled into one; that a person could be guilty of the two offences and that a jury could be asked to

1147
say which. That was never intended—at least, I assume that it was not—and Amendment No. 10 makes clear that that was the case.
On the last point regarding the words "prior to", I am sure that it would not matter to insert those words. However, juries are not stupid; nor are judges. I think that most judges would point out that visiting the family for three months after the death was not exactly a good basis for responsibility.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, what is certainly intended and I thought had been achieved in Clause 4 was the creation of, as he put it, an indivisible offence; that is, an indivisible offence consisting of either causing the death or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult as a result of not taking adequate care and seeking to protect that child or vulnerable adult.
As regards the main point, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has brought together two sets of amendments for discussion. If she will forgive me, I shall refer also to her Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall not discuss them at length; that would not be right. However, if we were to put together the amendments the noble Baroness discussed and Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 I would be concerned that we would be creating a larger number of difficulties for the success of the prosecution under this indivisible offence than would perhaps be desirable.
The noble Baroness very fairly described what Clause 4 seeks to achieve. The use of the word "responsible" is very helpful. Let us suppose that there is a man, a woman and a child; that it is the child that is killed and that both the man and the woman have a degree of responsibility. One does not know which one killed the child. That is the problem that Clause 4 seeks to address.
The noble Baroness seeks to add to the definition of who is a member of the household; to add not just "frequent contact" but also "a close personal contact" and to delete "ought to have been" in Clause 4(1)(d). I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, wants to have cumulatively all those amendments. The purpose of the clause, as she put it, is not to let someone literally get away with murder or at any rate not to let them get away with being convicted of the offence of allowing the death of a child. I fear that by adding those various amendments and putting them all together cumulatively, the task of the prosecution will be made unduly difficult.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Anelay in her Amendment No. 10. It seems to me that adding after "offence" the words,
"of being responsible for the death of a child or vulnerable adult"
does not in any way alter the intention of the clause but clarifies it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson said.
If one were to read it at present, one would read the words
"A person … is guilty of an offence".
1148
One would pause and ask, "What offence?" Answer: "The offence of being responsible for the death of a child or vulnerable adult". I should have thought from a drafting point of view and because it does not change the intention of the clause, that the amendment is sensible.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I have reservations about Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. With great respect to my noble friend Lady Anelay, I believe they substantially affect the intention of the clause. It seems to me that by removing the words "ought to have been" or "ought to have foreseen" one is narrowing the area in which the clause will act. I for one should like to hear the Minister's response before deciding whether we are right to pursue the amendment at this stage or to give it further consideration before Third Reading.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am tempted to join in the debate, although I had not intended to do so. From a practical point of view it seems that if you state what the offence is at the beginning, it makes it very easy to draw up an indictment saying what the offence is: "Statement of offence: being responsible for the death of a child or vulnerable adult". Otherwise, it is necessary to construe the clause in a particular way. No doubt the editors of Archbold or someone would give a pro forma for it, but surely it is far better from a practical point of view to say what the offence is.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the effect of Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. However, we shall come to that in due course and I shall express my reservations then.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for tabling the amendment. They are rightly trying to clarify in our debate what the new offence does. I welcome the opportunity to put that clearly on the record.
I shall deal with the amendments in sequence. First, in relation to Amendment No. 10, what the noble Baroness really says is that in Clause 4 "causing or allowing" is in some way ambiguous. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie regarding the cumulative effect of the amendment.
The noble Baroness suggests that the title of Clause 4 is ambiguous because the prosecution will need to prove whether the defendant caused or allowed the death. Subsection (2) makes it explicit that the prosecution does not have to prove which alternative in Clause 4(1) applies. It needs only to show that the defendant must either have caused the death himself or allowed it culpably to have happened. "Causing or allowing the death" is therefore an accurate description.
The offence makes clear who is responsible for the death of a child. Both a person who abuses or neglects a child and a person who fails to take reasonable steps

1149
to protect a child must bear some responsibility for the subsequent death. I am very grateful for the comments the noble Baroness made in her opening remarks. She affirmed that that would be her desire too. We are very clear about that. I think we all agree about it.
The new offence is intended to extend responsibility for the welfare of the young and vulnerable to household members who have frequent contact with the victim. That reflects our belief that we all have a clear responsibility to take action if we are members of a household in which abuse and neglect takes place and if we have frequent contact with the person at risk from serious harm. If we are aware of a risk or in a position where we should be aware of a risk and we do nothing then we may indeed be held responsible for the harm which ensues. The offence should leave no one in any doubt about their responsibilities and that we intend to hold them to those responsibilities.
However, I am reluctant to agree to Amendment No. 10 in relation to Clause 4. I think that it is an unnecessary addition. It does not add anything to the offence, and it is always better to keep legislation as simple and as clear as possible. Most important are the circumstances in which the offence is committed.
I turn to the next two amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness. Here again I fully appreciate the reason for these amendments and the desire to pin down the definition of household, but I do not think that they are necessary. They introduce some elements which are not integral to the definition such as personal contact with other household members. They introduce an extra element to prove that is not necessary to the offence. On this issue I echo the comments made by noble friend Lord Borrie.
I shall briefly go through the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 11 would add the need for "close personal contact" with the victim to our definition of the person who is eligible for the new offence. Some difficulty might be caused in deciding what we mean by "close personal contact". It is not the same as a caring role within the family. It is presumably intended to reflect the relationship the defendant had with the victim. But that is difficult to define, too.
The key issue here is the fact of the frequent contact with the victim and the knowledge that the victim is at risk. Such contact might come from being in the same room as the victim on frequent occasions and seeing his bruises, or actually witnessing the abuse. It does not seem necessary for the person, for example, actually to have talked to the victim or, in the case of a baby—and regrettably many of these cases involve babies—carried him, fed him or undertaken any form of care. That would place a limitation on the offence which we do not think would be right.
I understand the concerns which have been expressed that our offence goes too wide in some respects, and in particular in applying the offence to a member of the household who has frequent contact with the victim. One reason for including the term "frequent contact" was that we wanted to ensure that, for example, the mother's visiting boyfriend could not escape responsibility for the death of a child by saying
1150
that he had no responsibility for that child. I know all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate agree with that.
The scenario of the mother's new boyfriend is quite common. But we are clear that if the boyfriend is in a position to know the child is at risk, he has a responsibility to protect that child, just as much as other members of the household. If we are to include the words "close personal contact" we may be allowing that boyfriend to escape justice, because he may say his "close personal contact" is with the mother and not with the child. Even the lodger, who has no "close personal" contact with the victim, has a duty to protect that child from harm in certain circumstances if he is aware of the risk. And we have drafted the offence to reflect that. So, if one asks: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Our answer is that I am if I am in the same household.
Amendment No. 15 would require that the visitor who is to be regarded as part of the household should have visited it within three months of the death. It is indeed possible that someone who was once a frequent visitor ceases to be so, either because he has split up with the particular member of the family that he used to visit, or because he has moved away, or for other reasons. And it is right that depending on when he ceased visiting, he should not be covered. However, we do not think that we need a special safeguard for this purpose. The provision as drafted states that someone can be regarded as a member of the household,
"if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it".
I understand why the noble Baroness put the period of three months in the amendment to generate discussion—and I do not seek to hold her to it—but I must say that cases will vary greatly. In thinking about the issue it popped into my mind what should we do about service families who are away for long periods and then return. They may be away for a period of three months, but they knew of the difficulty before they went. It did not abate in the three months when they were away, and the child is killed shortly after they come back. It is very difficult to be prescriptive because one size does not fit all. We have to look at the individual facts of the individual case and ask the questions that we set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 16 would remove the words which would allow a visitor to be treated as a member of the household,
"if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it".
Instead it substitutes a provision which would mean that a person could be regarded as a member of the household if he has,
"close personal contact with other persons resident in the household".
But that is confusing. It introduces a new—and in our view unnecessary—element to the offence. The important point is the contact with the victim, not the other household members, and the awareness of the risk. The relationship with or contact with other household members does not seem to be relevant. It

1151
could arguably draw in people who are, in common sense terms, not members of the household but who have contact with the household members outside the home environment, such as the mother's boyfriend who has his own flat and never comes into the family home. It might even draw in the nursery nurse who sees the child's bruises and has a close personal contact with the mother who brings the child to the nursery and picks the child up on a daily basis and perhaps becomes friendly with the nursery nurse in the process. I do not think we want to widen the scope of the offence in that somewhat open-ended way.
I can certainly assure noble Lords that while understanding entirely their anxiety to pinpoint each of these factors precisely we have fully taken them into account. We believe that the provision we have crafted is sufficiently flexible but, by the same token, sufficiently acute and specific to enable us to target those who should properly be held responsible for the death of a vulnerable person or a child in these circumstances.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. Whether or not Amendment No. 10 is agreed, is not the accused entitled to know, either on the face of the indictment or in a request for particulars of the indictment, whether he is charged with having caused the offence or with having permitted or allowed it? Let us leave aside the semantics and consider the broad principle that the accused must know the substance of what he is charged with. Do not the Government and my noble friend accept that principle? If so, provided that that is adhered to, there would be no problem with this aspect.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we say that he or she is entitled to know. We have drafted this clause sufficiently explicitly for those cases, because we have made it clear that the person concerned either caused the death himself or herself or allowed it culpably to happen. The very mischief that we must address is that in many cases the only people who will be able to say definitively which part of the clause they fall under are the individuals themselves. Therefore, in this offence we have set out the criteria that would have to be satisfied by the prosecution before they were entitled to ask a jury to find that the offence was proven. We think that, as currently expressed, it has sufficient particularity to do just that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I shall not argue on Report, but the explanation that she has given is wholly unsatisfactory.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, allows the Minister to sit down, perhaps I may seek a little help on Amendment No. 10. As I understand it, the noble Baroness is saying that, if as a lawyer you work your way through Clause 4, it becomes clear that this
1152
is a single offence with two alternative legs. I agree. But is she also saying that, where experienced practitioners such as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, say that it would be a real help to those drafting indictments and directing juries to have it all in one introductory sentence or even part of a sentence, you cannot move? If so, regretfully, I am reminded of something that I said during the debate yesterday: debates in a Committee of the whole House—we have not had a Committee stage in the ordinary sense—and on Report are a confrontational exercise, which they were never meant to be.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that in how I have handled the Bill I have sought to avoid confrontation. I believe that all noble Lords who have so far participated in the Bill have only one cause in mind; we are jointly and severally intent on ensuring that appropriate protection is given to vulnerable individuals, some of them children, who are being literally killed without any of us being able to bring those responsible to book. I understand absolutely that that is the sole intent of all those who have spoken so far in any of the debates on the Bill. If I may respectfully say so, that has been one of the joys of the Bill. In our different ways, we are trying to make the legislation as robust, clear and sound as possible. It is very much in that spirit that I welcome the amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite, and look forward to our debates.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that we are all working as one, but that on occasions we come from two different directions in trying to reach the same objective. That is precisely the basis of the debate on this group of amendments. I thank all noble Lords who have taken this matter a good deal further forward in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, wanted to look at the global nature of all my amendments. His concern—which would be justified, if what he said were so—was that the cumulative effect of my amendments would be so to constrict the operation of Clause 4 that those guilty in any normal, accepted sense of causing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult might go free, despite all our best efforts. I assure the noble Lord that that is the reason that I tabled my amendments in different groups. Perhaps I gave the noble Lord extra cause for concern by putting the first two groups together, in an attempt to save a little time on the Floor of the House. By separating my groups of amendments, I was trying to show that I do not want all the amendments on the face of the Bill. I agree with him that if each and every one of them were agreed, the Bill might still be defective. I am trying to search carefully for what might be a common agreed approach. Of the amendments in the groups today, some are essential and others need more than a little tweaking before they would be right. Others would overburden the Bill and make it too weak in its approach to people who cause or allow the death of a child or a vulnerable adult.

1153
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the care that she has taken in her response. I shall have to think carefully about her response to Amendment No. 10, about which I feel strongly. I listened carefully to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. In this issue there is the core of something important that we must consider further before Third Reading. We were not able to discuss the matter in Grand Committee, so in a sense we are coming fresh to this way of solving the issues.
I accept entirely that the approach of my other amendments to the definition of "household" has not been successful today. I must confess that I did not expect that they would be, as I recognise that it is extremely difficult to define "household" appropriately. I give notice that I shall need to return to the matter, particularly because I notice, for example, that the Children's Rights Alliance for England, in its briefing to noble Lords, has pointed out that it and other bodies such as the NSPCC think that the Government's definition of "household" in Clause 4 goes far too wide and far beyond what the organisations had originally envisaged would be the definition.
I shall ask the noble Baroness one question, to which I hope she may respond on another occasion. Interestingly, she raised the question of the position of service personnel, where somebody is posted overseas, serves there, and, after their return, there is a death. As I understand it, the Minister's argument is that such a person should be held culpable of that death, if he or she is a member of the household. Perhaps she could consider before Third Reading the position where the death of the child occurs while the service member is serving overseas. As I read the Bill, a service member, even when overseas, could be held as a member of the household and therefore liable for the death of a child. I need to reflect further on the matter and would be grateful if the noble Baroness could consider it before Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, leave out "or ought to have been"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Both amendments are also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
The purpose of these amendments is to change the mental element of the offence in Clause 4 so that it is limited to what the defendant actually knew or suspected. The offence in Clause 4 is widely drawn, and while it must be so in order to reflect the offending behaviour, the Law Society has pointed out in its helpful briefing to noble Lords that the clause could be narrowed and still be effective. The Law Society points
1154
out that there could be some narrowing of those persons who might be caught by the offence. This amendment is one way of achieving that.
The basis of the offence that the Government provide is objective. It applies where the defendant ought to have known and foreseen a risk, rather than just where the defendant actually knew or suspected that something was going on. It is arguable that there should be a positive duty of care on all of us to protect the vulnerable in our society, but it could also be argued that using an objective test in this matter goes too far. To couple this objective test with a definition of household that would include persons who had no involvement or nexus with the child is, it is argued, unnecessarily wide. For example, in the circumstances of a child's death, a jury might consider that a person on the same premises ought to have been aware of family arguments—going back to the lodger argument in Grand Committee—and ought to have been aware of the risks that those arguments posed to the child. In practice, many persons do not make that connection, bin it is those people who might be caught both by the wide definition of household and then by the objective limb of the mental element.
In Grand Committee and today, we have tried to give detailed consideration to the definitions of household and relationship. However, there is still a concern that the drafting of the Bill does not properly reflect current behaviour in relationships and that it will catch people who do not have a real connection with the child or the vulnerable adult. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we support this amendment. The defendant may be guilty on two bases—as we have previously discussed—first, because he caused the death of the child or vulnerable adult, and secondly, because he was aware of the risk, or the act occurred in circumstances of a kind that he foresaw. Then the clause adds,
"or ought to have been, aware of the risk",
and "ought to have foreseen". That introduces an objective element. He may not have been aware of the risk, and he may not have foreseen it, but he is still going to be convicted of an offence carrying 14 years' imprisonment.
We have visited this area of objectivity in criminal law on a number of occasions. I recall well the Caldwell case. That was decided in the early 1980s, and it has taken something like 20 years for that decision to be reversed. There again, an objective test was introduced in the offence of arson and committing criminal damage, and it was all on the basis that the person ought to have foreseen a risk. The House of Lords Judicial Committee overruled that recently, and we are now back in the position where the subjective mens rea is an essential clement of those crimes. Here too, it should be for a person who had actually foreseen something to be found to have the guilty mind that renders him liable to such severe punishment.
As a matter of principle, it is highly objectionable to punish someone for negligence in a criminal court—that is what it is. If we introduce an objective test, as

1155
this clause seeks to do, we are punishing someone for being negligent, sentencing them perhaps to a term of imprisonment of 14 years because they failed to do something or failed to foresee something that they ought to have foreseen. It is highly objectionable.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support this pair of amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I think that it is wrong that individuals should be sent to prison for up to 14 years either because they lack common sense, which is something that you either have or do not have, or because he or she was insufficiently alert.
There are professions—for example, train driver, pilot or navigator of a ship or foreman on a building site—for which alertness is a prerequisite. In those cases, failure to remain alert, leading to the injury or death of a third party, can be properly prosecuted, but that cannot apply to the wider public in their own home. The subsection is too draconian.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment, not only for all the reasons given, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but because the concept has been brought straight from the civil law into the criminal law and made an ingredient of a criminal offence. It is an act of omission. Although it is an extraordinary situation and one must make some concessions, in order to protect the vulnerable adult or the child, one cannot go to the extent of maintaining the clause in its present form.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, Clause 4 is, as the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, have agreed and stated, meant to deal with the mischief of a situation in which, inherently, somebody—the man or the woman—has caused the death of the child, but it is not known which. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, who wants a clearer definition, as she put it, used the word "responsible". It must be generally agreed that the man and the woman, if they live in the same household et cetera, are joint carers, jointly responsible for the protection of the child. The child has been killed, but one does not know who has caused the death and who has simply failed in their responsibility to give adequate protection.
Presumably, if one gets rid of the words,
"or ought to have been",
the prosecution must prove the mind of the individual man or woman. One does not know whether the man or woman killed the child, and one must get into the mind of that person and say that that person was responsible for the failure to protect the child.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, suggested that the way in which Clause 4 is worded might not reflect the degree to which one of the adults was in contact with the child. Why not? If the phrase is, as at present,
"D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk"—
1156
the risk to the child of being killed—the words "ought to" surely embraces the degree to which that adult was in contact with the child and with the household. Was the contact occasional? Was it casual? Was it much more frequent and regular? "Ought to" will embrace all those, in relation to the particular "D"—the defendant—that we are talking about.
It worries me that the deletion of "ought to have been" and "ought to have foreseen", as proposed in the amendments, would result in a heavier burden of proof and might well damage the point of the remedy by which the clause intends to deal with the mischief.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could help me. He said that "ought to have been" is appropriate. What is the source or nature of the duty which gives rise to the "ought"?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is being a member of the same household as the child who is killed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is not a question of being aware of the risk. The duty must give rise to the awareness of the risk. Merely being in the household is not of itself sufficient. There must be some other obligation on the person. I just wonder how the way in which it is defined gives rise to this particular duty.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am not the Minister and perhaps I cannot help further. My own view is that the issue depends on this, that or another member of the household. Households are obviously different. In Grand Committee, we discussed how very varied households are in the modern world. I think that the "ought to" very properly must reflect the particular household to which we are referring and the particular relationship between the adults and the child concerned.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords. I did hope to support the Minister. I think that half of her problems here arise because she will not put "responsible" at the beginning of Clause 4. I f she did, it would then fall into place. I should have thought that there was no transfer of civil law into criminal law if the relevant offence is being responsible for the death of a child against a background where the person concerned knew or ought to have known.
On a less theoretical basis, I strongly suspect that if "ought to have" is left out, there will be a large number of wide-eyed defendants saying, "Oh dear, oh dear. Of course I never foresaw this. It is all a great tragedy". Of course, they foresaw it. "Ought to have" sweeps that in. I cannot find any problem—.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that that is the sort of issue that juries try all the time? When a person says, "I did not know", the jury are there to decide whether he did know. That is really the basis of the element of mens rea in almost every criminal offence.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I appreciate that. But I think that there are many

1157
conscientious juries who might be really bothered about the difference between their obviously knowing, their almost certainly knowing and, what is really the same thing, the fact that they ought to have known. To that extent, that is really an essential part of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that it is really monstrous that someone who has been negligent, even grossly negligent, should be sent to prison for 14 years. It certainly would be. But it is not the jury who decides the single offence of guilty or not guilty to responsibility; it is the judge who would be concerned with the culpability of it. In a case where it really was "ought to have" but maybe really did not, the sentence would reflect that.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I come to this Bill as a virtual stranger who certainly has not had frequent let alone close personal contact with it. I am therefore very prepared to be told that what I am saying is even more rubbish than usual. I confess that I am very puzzled that these two amendments are treated as though they are a pair which ought to stand or fall together. I can see why grammatically that is the position, but logically, it does not seem to follow at all.
I see the very strong force of the argument in favour of Amendment No. 12. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, it is wrong to convict someone when the jury does not say, "Oh, of course they knew. They may say they don't, but how on earth did they think that child had cigarette burns over it five times a week for the last month?" or whatever. I see great force in Amendment No. 12.
I confess that I do not see any logical force in Amendment No. 13. Clause 4(1)(d)(iii) refers to a defendant who knew that the child was at risk and failed to take any steps. It states that the person can also be guilty only if,
"the act occurred in circumstances",
which they "ought to have foreseen".
Why should the person need to have foreseen those particular circumstances? A person may have a boyfriend who is violent to a child—burns him, hits him and so on. The boyfriend gets particularly cross with the child, throws the electric fire into the bath where the child is bathing, and the child is electrocuted. The person ought not to have foreseen those particular circumstances. But why on earth should he or she not be guilty anyhow?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all those who have participated because some of my work has been done for me. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for explaining so cogently why "ought to have been" is necessary, albeit that I take his chastisement that my task would have been so much easier if I had just succumbed to the noble Baroness's lures in relation to her Amendment No. 10.
I was very interested to see this amendment. It is an issue that troubled us and we looked at it very carefully. I fully understand that there may be concerns that a person in a household was not aware of a risk. So why have we done it? I am also aware that
1158
the offence could therefore impose, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, an unfair burden on that household member. He or she may have been too young or naïve to see the signs of risk; may have not been there at crucial times to see the signs; may be out at work for much of the time; or may have chosen not to see the signs.
We must be absolutely clear about the sort of circumstances with which we will usually be dealing in such circumstances. We none of us want to believe that our loved ones are capable, for example, of abusing a child. Still less do we want to persuade ourselves that a close and loved member of the household may pose a grave danger to that child.
We do not of course envisage that a member of the household who could not have reasonably foreseen the risk would be caught by this offence. For example, it may be that an elderly grandmother in the household was too confused to recognise and act on any sign of risk. But I do not think that such a case would fall within the offence. It would be difficult to argue that in her circumstances the confused grandmother could have foreseen the risk, much less ought to have clone so.
The words "or ought to have foreseen" are very important to the operation of the offence, as was recognised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and, in part, by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Whether someone did indeed foresee a danger is very difficult to prove. But that they "ought to have foreseen" it, that they were in a position and had such information that a reasonable person would have foreseen the harm, that can be proved. To limit the offence to those who did not in fact foresee the harm, and can be proved to have foreseen the harm, would leave a very significant loophole. We also have to face the fact that many individuals in those circumstances say nothing at all.
We should remember too that we are talking about "a significant risk of serious physical harm". That is quite a high threshold. The signs of that risk would be very evident. In many cases, the risk of harm is all too evident from previous harm that a member of the household has inflicted on the child or on others. In some cases we know about, the child or vulnerable person has awful and very obvious signs of previous abuse, sometimes inflicted over a long period. I do not think that we are putting an unacceptable burden on the defendant to recognise that risk in these circumstances and to take whatever steps he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect the victim from the risk.
We have identified the mischief we are seeking to cure and we have identified the means that will be adopted. We feel that this is a proper and balanced response. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—
Lord Northbourne: My Lords—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall give way as soon as I have finished my sentence.

1159
This is obviously a question of nature and degree. One of the difficulties we face is that no two sets of circumstances will be precisely the same. The families with which we will often have to deal will be very different in nature, the households may be multifaceted and contain large numbers, and they may have varying flows. That is why we have crafted the provision so that the individual circumstances of the case can be looked at when deciding whether any of these criteria have been satisfied. We think that this will enable us to make a clear distinction between those who have responsibility, who knew or ought reasonably to have known that there was something they could do to avoid the risk, and failed so to do.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I want to clarify a point. In explaining the phrase, "ought reasonably to have known", the noble Baroness cited the example of a grandmother who was confused. These circumstances do arise in families where one party has learning difficulties. Would they also be excused?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not want to prescribe precisely what would happen in each case, but I must emphasise that it would be absolutely essential to look at the particular circumstances of the individual case and ask the questions that we have clearly set out in Clause 4 before being able to establish any individual culpability. The reason I cited the grandmother is that I felt that that was a clear example of where one could exclude such a person. Many other examples could be given.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for dealing with my question. I would like to be as certain as I can be that I have properly understood what she said. I think she said that the word "ought" means that there is a duty to be aware of the risk that arises from the previous experience of the person in question. They know what has happened in the past. Thus the nature of the history that the person charged is familiar with is of such a character as to give rise to a duty to infer that risk may recur.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is so. One of the things we looked at was the nature of the cases that, in the main, gave rise to these cases. The feature one saw time and again was that this was a known risk. The signs and indications were there which were either ignored or not acted upon. That is what gave rise to framing the offence in this way.
There are many who say that, by so doing, we do not go far enough because it does not deal with the spontaneous event. We think that it is fair to exclude those cases because the responsibility must rest on the knowledge of what has happened before so that it is
1160
reasonable to say that the person should have taken a step or steps to avoid the consequence that flowed from their omission.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, in particular for the many other strands relating to Clause 4 that have been so helpfully brought out in this debate. I can give notice that I shall not need to move Amendment No. 19 later.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for pointing out that we now have something borrowed from civil law and put into criminal law. It is perhaps a feature of this Bill and is not something to which I shall object overall. It is a case of: if it happens then we need to be clear about exactly how and why it happens, so providing clarity for those prosecuting these matters and those who will be subject to prosecution.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked why Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are together and whether they stand or fall together. The answer is that this was a matter of grouping for convenience. I agree with the noble Viscount that they do not stand and fall together. One can argue that they could stand separately.
I am tempted to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that once again he is right. If I could seduce the Minister with my arguments, not only would it solve a lot of my problems, but also those of the Government. However, obviously I have to put more careful arguments on the matter.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she addressed the questions put by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They go to the heart of the matter: from what event or experience arises this duty? I shall have to consider that carefully between now and Third Reading, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d )(ii), in determining the reasonableness of the steps which D could have been expected to take, the court shall have particular regard to the extent to which D has been subjected to domestic violence or is in fear of being subjected to domestic violence."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 stands in my name and in those of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I have brought this amendment back from Grand Committee to probe further the protection that the Government intend to provide in this part for those who have themselves suffered from domestic violence and who are members of a household where a child or vulnerable adult

1161
suffers a non-accidental death that results in a prosecution. The full debate is reported in Hansard of 21 January 2004 at cols. 353 to 358, and I do not seek to replicate it. However, it is important to point out that this amendment reflects the greatest concern that has been expressed to noble Lords by organisations outside the House which are devoted to protecting and seeking to protect the victims of domestic violence, both adults and children.
The amendment would provide protection by ensuring that domestic violence is made an explicitly relevant factor in considering the reasonableness of the defendant's failure to act. My concern is that a victim of domestic violence is required under Clause 4 to take reasonable steps to prevent the death. Yet their ability to take what others might consider to be a rational decision and rational action against their partner or spouse could be severely limited by their own experience of or fear of violence against either themselves or against another person in the household, most commonly a fear that violence might be exerted against a child in the household.
There can be a real fear of this if you are the mother of a child who is suffering abuse at the hands of your partner. You fear that if you try to bring in social workers or the police early on, you may cause the behaviour to escalate into something even worse. Nobody would condone actions that allow a child or vulnerable adult to suffer any abuse whatever, but we should try to understand the pressure and stress under which those who suffer from domestic violence live from day to day.
I believe it is important that the protection and clarification afforded by this amendment should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment because the reasonableness of taking steps is the gateway to guilt. Although the court might well be said to take this into account in determining what is reasonable to enter the gateway, one cannot be certain. It is because of the essential importance of the drafting of subsection 1(d)(ii), leading to guilt, that I have put my name to this amendment. I do not think it would be right to assume that without this provision on the face of the Bill, it would be safe.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise on behalf of these Benches to support the amendment.
Those who work in women's refuges know that many women who cannot protect themselves from domestic violence are certainly not in a position to protect either a child or a vulnerable adult. Many of the women—and it usually is women—who have been subjected to this sort of abuse have their total confidence destroyed; they are quivering wrecks. They lose confidence in their own judgment as to whether they are making the right decisions about themselves, their household or their children.
I can envisage a situation where a man with a very strong personality might be able to convince the mother that unreasonable chastisement of a child
1162
could be for the child's own good in order to teach the child how to behave. We know that that is not reasonable but, in circumstances where the mother has been so demoralised by violence from the same perpetrator, one can easily envisage a situation where she was simply not in a position to protect the child.
Without the amendment, the Bill as it stands does not recognise the very close connection between violence against the woman and the child in the same household. Research shows that in up to 70 per cent of cases the same perpetrator abuses both the mother and the child. In the vast majority three-quarters—of cases where children are on the child protection register, there is domestic violence against the mother also present in the household. It is for these reasons that we support the inclusion in the Bill of the proposed new paragraph.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord for the way in which they have approached this issue. I say straightaway that I recognise the description given of the impact that domestic violence can have on women, who are effectively robbed of their sense of self and wellbeing. Although we discussed the matter at some length in Committee, the issue has caused a great deal of concern and it is right that we should return to it.
That concern has quite properly been vested in the difficulties suffered by people who are themselves vulnerable. The noble Baroness referred to domestic violence, but there are other situations which make people vulnerable so that they have less ability than others to be as robust as we would like in the burden that we are placing on them to act or face the possibility of prosecution.
The Bill is about domestic violence in all its aspects. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Anelay, are absolutely right that violence against a child may all too often mean there is violence or the threat of violence against the mother too. Anyone living in a violent household is likely to be frightened and dispirited and there will be cases where the defendant is vulnerable, because of violence or for other reasons, and there is very little they could do to protect themselves, let alone protect the victim. They might be the victims of domestic violence themselves, or the defendant might be young and uncertain, unfamiliar with the social services, frightened of the police, mistrustful of teachers or doctors or others in authority, and simply not know where to turn.
We knew that we had to take all this into account when formulating the offence. We had to make sure the offence would not place unjustifiable burdens on people. That is why the offence will only apply when a child or vulnerable person has been killed by someone in the household and the defendant was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the risk and failed to take reasonable steps—I emphasise reasonable steps—to protect the child or vulnerable person from the risk. It is the concept of reasonable steps that is at the very heart of the offence and which is crucial to ensure that

1163
it does not place an unacceptable burden on other vulnerable people in the household. I shall turn to this in more detail in a moment.
We hope that the offence, together with the procedural measures which accompany it, will help to solve the "which of you did it?" cases. But the new offence goes beyond that. We would not be justified in introducing an offence only for that purpose; it must be justified in its own right. The behaviour which it covers must be sufficiently reprehensible that we would regard it as criminal regardless of the other considerations we have outlined. The Law Commission was very clear on this and we agree with its reasoning.
The offence will change the way in which we view responsibility within a domestic setting and the way in which we deal with it in the criminal law. It makes it clear that it is not acceptable to be a member of a household in close contact with a vulnerable person, knowing that they are at significant risk, and do nothing. It is not an acceptable position for a parent—no matter how vulnerable or fearful they are for themselves—to do nothing for a child who is at risk. The offence of child cruelty or neglect is based partly on this principle: that to stand by and do nothing is not acceptable.
The new offence will make that position even clearer. It makes the responsibility bite on all members of the household who have frequent contact with the child or vulnerable adult and who are, or should be, aware of the risk to it of serious harm. We think that this is right morally and as a matter of law. It is right that people in this position should be liable to prosecution and, indeed, that prosecution should normally take place if the case is made out.
But, as I said earlier, the concept of reasonable steps is fundamental to the formulation of the offence. It is a crucial part of the way in which the offence works and it provides an important safeguard. In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the Crown Prosecution Service will have to consider what the person did in the light of what they could reasonably, in the circumstances in which they found themselves, have been expected to do. If the Crown Prosecution Service believes that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, it will then be a matter for the jury to decide whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps.
We talked in Committee about guidance to be issued by the CPS to prosecutors dealing with these cases. We shall return to this when we get to the later amendment about guidance tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The question of what steps were reasonable for a victim of domestic violence is, of course, ultimately an issue for the jury, albeit that the prosecution will have to identify the steps that the defendant could have reasonably taken as part of the Crown case.
As in all cases, the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the two-step test for prosecution: that is, is there sufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of a conviction; and is a prosecution in the public interest. In
1164
a sense, the offence itself defines the public interest in creating a duty on members of a defined group to protect children and vulnerable adults. The public interest will normally lean strongly towards prosecution. It will be the exception rather than the rule if it is decided not to proceed with prosecution.
I sympathise with the concerns behind the amendment. However, we must be clear that protections and safeguards are in place for victims of domestic violence and others who are vulnerable. We believe that the new responsibility we are creating must be weighed in the balance.
We think, too, that we would be wrong in singling out victims of domestic violence in the way proposed by the amendment; others will be vulnerable. When you single out a particular group in this way you inevitably give the impression that other vulnerable groups are less important. Just as we are saying that the victim will be protected if they are vulnerable for whatever reason, so we must say that those who neglect a clear responsibility will be punished.
We believe that the way in which we have phrased the provision gives enough of a safety net to make sure that the sort of protection that we wish to see will be in place. However, that protection must be given first to the vulnerable child and/or the vulnerable adult who, because of their demise, will have no one else to speak for them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate; it was, of course, foreshadowed by a much lengthier one in Grand Committee. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and her understanding of the situation in which people may find themselves in an abusive household, which was echoed by the Minister. Again, we are speaking with one voice in recognising the appalling difficulties that can be the day-to-day, minute-by-minute experience of people in abusive households. That is why I brought forward the amendment.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his support. As he said, the whole point about the reasonableness of taking steps means that it provides the gateway to guilt. Because of that, I think it vital that we have on the face of the Bill the certainty that inexperience of domestic violence should be taken into account when one is considering how reasonable are the steps that have been taken. I came to that conclusion by listening to people from organisations such as Refuge, Women's Aid and the NSPCC. I listened to them both before Grand Committee, and subsequently, since when they have had the opportunity properly to consider the Minister's response. Therefore, I do not think she will be too surprised if I say that I do not want to use the amendment to prevent others arguing that they had a reason not to take or to take steps. But in a domestic violence Bill, I think there is a special case for saying there should be consideration of those who suffer from domestic violence. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Ashcroft, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Attlee, E.

Laird, L.

Barker, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Biffen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blackwell, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Luke, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buscombe, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Byford, B.

Maddock, B.

Caithness, E,

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marsh, L.

Chadlington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chester, Bp.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Courtown, E.

Moynihan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Noakes, B.

Denham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dholakia, L.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northover, B.

Dundee, E.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palumbo, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Parkinson, L.

Fearn, L.

Patten, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Flather, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Quinton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Razzall, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennard, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roper, L.

Henley, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Home, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharples, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

1166

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Skelmersdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Waddington, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Swinfen, L.

Walmsley, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thatcher, B.

Windlesham, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Howarthof Breckland. B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bhatia, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Billingham, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chan, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Pitkeathley. B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prashar, B.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Radice, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Robertson of Port Ellen, L

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rogan, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Golding, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskins, L.

Tomlinson, L.

1167

Triesman, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walpole, L.

Warner, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert "and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last Thursday afternoon, while discussing an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we had a lively dingdong about new modes of drafting, grammar, clarity and the correct use of the English language generally, involving the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the Minister and others. I hope that this modest drafting amendment is less contentious. It is designed to make subsection (3) of Clause 4 more comprehensible to those who will eventually have to interpret it when it becomes law, whether they be professionals or lay persons.
Subsection (3)(a) stands alone. It is not dependent on subsection (3)(b). However, the reverse is most definitely not true. Subsection (3)(b) on its own is complete nonsense. It is wholly consequential on subsection (3)(a). At first glance, the reason for including subsection (3)(b) in the Bill at all, seems to be to allow for the prosecution of a 15 year-old who happens to be—as sometimes happens—six feet two inches tall and weighs 10 stone, and who was therefore deemed to have no excuse for not intervening when the person causing harm to the vulnerable adult or child is only five feet four inches tall, weighs seven stone and lacks a black belt in a martial art.
The Explanatory Notes categorically state that:
"Subsection (3) provides that only those who are 16 or over may be guilty of the offence, unless they are the mother or father of the victim. Members of the household under 16 will not"—
and I stress the word "not"—
"have a duty of care or be expected to take steps to prevent a victim coming to harm".
If that is the case, and it seems pretty categoric, I can see no reason whatever for the existence of subsection (3) (b). It only sows confusion and muddies the waters.
There may be some arcane reason for the subsection of which I am unaware, but subsection (3) as a whole forms a single sentence and, if read as such, it will be seen how necessary the insertion of the word "and" is. Admittedly, even with the inclusion of "and", I do not think that the subsection will win any awards from the Plain English Campaign—except perhaps the wooden spoon—but it is probably too late at this stage to redraft the entire subsection. At least this amendment makes it more grammatically accurate and, above all, more comprehensible to those destined to study and refer to it in years to come. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment. As the Minister will remember well, I was very worried about the drafting
1168
of Clause 4 with its endless references to "V" and "D". However, when I redrafted it leaving out those letters, I tried to keep it as close as I could to the original drafting. Therefore, I did not insert the word "and". However, the noble Lord is quite right to have suggested its inclusion, and I warmly support him.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. The minutiae of drafting are always important and I agree that we need to get them right. I must confess that I have never been tempted by a career as a legislative draftsman, but, if I were, I should want the noble Lord by my side. I understand where his difficulty lies with this clause. Both subsections (a) and (b) are intended to apply when the defendant is not the mother or father of the victim. In other words, the offence will not apply to anyone under the age of 16 except the parents of the child. That reflects the special responsibility that parents have towards their children.
When the defendant's 16th birthday takes place partway through a pattern of abuse, he will not be expected to have taken reasonable steps before attaining that age. Once he is 16, if there are reasonable steps for him to take on or after that date, he will be in the frame for the offence. The noble Lord's amendment is intended to confirm that. However, I respectfully tell him that it is unnecessary. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) both apply when the defendant is not the parent of the victim, but there is no necessary connection between the two propositions.
The next subsection—subsection (4)—is drafted in exactly the same way. This contrasts with subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1)(d) in which an "and" is needed to show that each of those three conditions must be satisfied. It also contrasts with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5), when an "or" is needed to show that those paragraphs are alternatives. Therefore, invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear why the additional "and" is not necessary.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her flattering words, but I do not think that subsection (4) (a) and (b) are comparable because they both stand on their own—one or the other could be eliminated and the subsection would still make sense. That could not be done, however, with subsection (3): paragraph (b) on its own would be total nonsense. Obviously, I will not divide the House on this matter, but the clause is pretty incomprehensible. The best thing would be to eliminate paragraph (b) altogether because it seems to be wholly superfluous. It does not make any difference at all. I cannot twist the arm of the Minister on this, but it would be splendid if she would have a look at this wording before the next stage. It would be an improvement if it were changed, not necessarily in the way I suggested with Amendment No. 14A, to make it easier to understand. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) No person who is a member of the household as provided by subsection (1)(a) and (b) and (4) above shall be interrogated by the police as to the circumstances in which an offence under this section may have been committed unless cautioned that if charged and tried for such offence an explanation may be required from such person as to the circumstances in which V died; and if so failure or refusal to answer any question as to such circumstances under interrogation shall constitute evidence on which an inference of guilt may be drawn either of having caused the death, or of having failed to have been aware of the risk of serious physical harm of which he ought to have been aware and to have for seen and that no reasonable steps were taken to avoid such risk, subject to such directions as may be given by the trial judge.
( ) No such inference may be drawn unless such caution has been recorded as and when given."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 have been degrouped. Amendment No. 17 is on the form of caution used in a police interrogation of a member of the household who is liable to be charged with an offence under Clause 4, about the circumstances of a death. That offence can be committed only by a member of the household. The amendment has a very limited application and does not affect the form of caution for others interrogated about the circumstances of the death.
It is required because the extraordinary provisions of Clause 4(2) expose the householder, who exercises the right of silence, to the double jeopardy of an inference of guilt on either limb, without knowing on which limb he was convicted—unless the suggestion I made to the noble Baroness is dealt with at some time. At the moment, as I construe the Bill—but I may be wrong—the trial judge is inhibited from seeking a special direction from the jury about the basis on which the householder was convicted. He will never know what he was convicted of unless further steps are taken.
There is no distinction of gravity. On conviction, either limb carries the maximum sentence. As there is no means for the judge to know on which limb the householder was charged or convicted, he will have some difficulty in deciding how to sentence. If the householder did the act, there is the element of intention. If he did not do the act, we have already considered the element of omission. If he ought to have been aware of the risk of serious harm and took no reasonable steps to avoid it, there is, or may well be, an important distinction of gravity about the limb of the offence on which he was charged.
One must accept that we must have this, or some similar, extension of law in these exceptional circumstances, to break the wall of wilful silence of the household. I accept that. But some members of the household may well be wholly innocent, and they have the presumption of innocence. These exceptional circumstances create a situation where the procedures of the general application to the right to silence do not apply to a Clause 4 offence. This is apparent from a letter dated 27 January, written by the right honourable Home Secretary to the right honourable Jean Corston, the chair of the JCHR, which is exhibited in a JCHR report. The risk of an inference of guilt being drawn from silence is greater for a Clause 4 offence than for any other offence.
1170
The complexity of the reasoning affecting an indictment on charges of murder or manslaughter in Clause 4 is quite staggering. In the new scheme, the Clause 4 approach, which affords far less protection to the accused than the ordinary approach, is used as the gateway for there being a case for murder or manslaughter. The justification for the special form of caution proposed by this amendment is that the risk to the householder is so much greater.
I do not want to take time but I must draw your Lordships' attention to two extracts from the Home Secretary's letter, which is in an annex to a JCHR report. In relation to this matter, he says:
"For an adverse inference to be drawn, in relation to a charge of murder or manslaughter, under clause 5, the prosecution will have to establish that there is a 'case to answer' on a charge of the new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult (clause 4). To establish a 'case to answer' on the clause 4 offence, the prosecution must have evidence to show that the defendant was a member of the same household as, and in frequent contact with, the victim, and that either the defendant caused the death or he was aware of a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to the victim and failed to take steps to protect the victim. We believe",—
that is, the Minister—
"this situation calls so clearly for an explanation, that it is fair that adverse inferences may be drawn, where it is proper to do so, not only on the clause 4 offence where the case to answer has been established, but also on any accompanying charge of murder or manslaughter, where this may not yet be the case but where the existence of a case to answer on the clause 4 offence is itself a significant factor. I should make clear that an inference would only be proper, as is the case under the current law, where the only sensible explanation for the defendant's silence was that he had no explanation or none that would stand up to cross-examination".
Really, that is far from an accurate, sensible or, frankly, intelligible explanation. The letter continues:
"This means that the strict requirement of Cowan"—
that is a case—
"which held that before drawing an adverse inference from silence at trial, the jury must find a case to answer on the prosecution evidence, does not apply in these circumstances. This is because we do not consider that in all circumstances, there need be a technical 'case to answer' for it to be fair to draw an adverse inference".
I do not know how a "technical case to answer" differs from a case to answer. I do not understand the reasoning in the letter. I do not accept it as an accurate explanation of the situation save as to this. First, it is totally clear that it is being maintained that an extraordinary situation is arising as regards an inference of guilt against the householder, which is different from that which arises as regards anyone else. In those circumstances, it is suggested, it is only fair that the householder should be put on express notice, as proposed by the amendment, of that extra risk in these extraordinary circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment and—when he comes to it—the subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 18, which has been degrouped. I think that the amendment builds upon the debate we had in Grand Committee and takes us further forward in discussing the difficult relationship between Clauses 4 and 5. As he rightly says, we are going into new waters here. I am interested

1171
in the solution he tries to put forward, which is the need for a special caution. I am also grateful to him for raising the questions he did on the Fourth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I hope that the Minister will be able to take us further forward by addressing those questions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not seen the ministerial correspondence to which my noble friend referred, so it is rather difficult for me to comment on the drafting of his amendment. However, I think that he has pointed out circumstances in which offences may be committed, and which should be covered within the Bill. I hope that the Government will respect his attempt to cover those circumstances.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I think that this amendment is most unfortunate, because it assumes that Clause 5 will be accepted by the House, and Clause 5 is a monstrosity. There is no justification for this amendment unless Clause 5 survives. The ordinary position is that if someone is being questioned under caution, they are told that if they do not answer the question an inference of guilt might be drawn. So it might. It would be an inference of guilt of an offence under Clause 4. I return to my original point. Clause 4 is a single responsibility offence. One cannot use Clause 4 to inquire whether the accused killed or did not do the things he ought to have done—there is no need to elaborate them again—in paragraph (d). It cannot be done.
It is Clause 5 that starts grafting on something that is contrary to every normal canon of law. There is justification for the amendment only if that clause sticks. I therefore respectfully suggest that the thing to do is not to press this amendment now. However, let us get rid of Clause 5. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in summoning the troops for a much less important amendment, will not have exhausted her good will.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a caution, if ever I heard one.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made it plain in Committee that he would bring back Amendment No. 17 at Report stage albeit with a revised form of wording. I thank him for that. The amendment would place a statutory obligation on the police to give a special caution to a suspect when investigating the new offence proposed in Clause 4. I am grateful to him for raising the issue again and allowing us to explore whether the amendment might be useful. However, I still do not think that we will be able to accept the amendment. We still do not think that it is needed.
I set out in detail in Committee my reasons for coming to that conclusion. That can be found at Hansard for 28 January, vol. 657, at cols. GC138 to GC141. I do not want to detain your Lordships unnecessarily by covering all that ground again. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway,
1172
nodding his assent in the usual way, for which I am most grateful. I do not think that it would necessarily help if I outlined how we see the adverse inference because the position has not changed from that which I outlined in Committee.
I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, says about Clause 5, which I think he described as "a monstrosity". I regret to tell him that, on this occasion, I cannot agree with him either in his description or the import of his comments. We think that Clause 5 is sound.
When we come to debate Clause 5—which we soon will when we debate Amendments Nos. 20 to 25—I anticipate that we will be dealing extensively with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other matters. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would find it convenient if I responded to some of the detail on those matters when we have reached that stage. I notice that he has degrouped Amendment No. 18. Perhaps that, too, could fall within the discussion that we will shortly have in that regard. I think that Amendment No. 18 would render ineffective the procedural measures we are proposing in Clause 5. As such, I will, unfortunately, not be able to accept that amendment either. However, I can see that it would be very beneficial for us to have what I anticipate will be an extensive debate on Clause 5.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Of course, I expect that he appreciates that, in effect, this amendment survives in its present form only if Clause 5 survives. I agree with the noble and learned Lord. I thought that was apparent from all our discussions and everything else in Grand Committee. He could have taken it for granted that there would be a Division and the Question would be whether Clause 5 should stand part. Against that, this is inevitably a probing amendment and must be treated as such. I certainly propose to treat it as such. In those circumstances, I will deal with certain matters, at the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in the debate on Amendment No. 18, when I have moved it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Trial of an offence under this section shall be conducted according to procedures of general application; such offence may not be tried on an indictment on which charges of murder or manslaughter are laid on which a submission of no case to answer may not be made before the close of all evidence at the trial."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is again in essence a probing amendment. If Amendment No. 26—which seeks to leave out Clause 5—were accepted, Amendment No. 18, certainly in its present form—and much the same applies to Amendment No. 17—would not be retabled. Originally I was the sole name to Amendment No. 26. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns who will open the discussion on that amendment, and to the noble

1173
and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who put his name to it quite recently and who will support it.
As regards Amendment No. 18, subsection (2) of Clause 4 recognises that "D" may wear two hats and also provides that the Crown does not have to prove which applies for the purpose of conviction. I have already mentioned the following matter so I shall do no more than refer to it—that it must be made plain in some form or another what the accused is charged with. He is entitled to know the substance of the case that he has to meet. Supposing he were charged with an indictment that contained the wording set out in Amendment No. 10, he would be entitled to ask the particulars of the offence and whether he was being charged with doing the act or permitting the act to be done. As a matter of plain justice, in some way or another before he goes into court, he has to know exactly what he is charged with.
Before a person is convicted, the judge has to direct the jury that it must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged. One cannot leave this matter in a state of limbo and say, "Oh, it is all a very extraordinary situation and we have to make this concession and that concession, or this or that alteration to procedure". Certain alterations may be made, but never the fundamental derogation from the right of an accused to know what he is being charged with and convicted of.
My next point, or the effect of it, is referred to in the amendment—that the Crown should have to elect whether to charge the accused with murder or with a lesser offence under Clause 4. You should not have both offences on the same indictment. The same consideration applies to a charge of manslaughter. If the accused is charged with murder, the jury may, of course, if properly directed, convict him of manslaughter. The effective election here would be between murder and the offence under Clause 4. If the Crown has any doubts about what to charge the accused with, or whether to charge him with murder, it should not charge him with murder. If there were such doubts, the charge under Clause 4 should be laid. That would have been the case in the old days certainly if there had been a Clause 4 offence then. Regarding the circumstances set out in the depositions, one will have to elect which offence to charge the accused with. That form of direction is still available to be given by trial judges today and is often dealt with on pre-trial hearings.
Those are the reasons that I give in support of the amendment. In those circumstances I wish merely to treat it, as I say, as a paving amendment pending resolution of Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much appreciate the way in which the noble Lord expressed those comments. They very much form part of the whole debate that we shall have on Clause 5. I believe that I made clear in Committee why we believed strongly that Clause 5 was merited. Noble Lords will know that the assent of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to these provisions seems to
1174
be supportive. I shall seek to address those issues when I reply to the main debate that we shall have in a very short time. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that way of dealing with things.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not meted.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Carter): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 20, I should inform the House that if it is agreed to. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 on the ground of pre-emption.
Clause 5 [Evidence and procedure]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to the monstrous clause. I speak to Amendment No. 20. Grouped with it is government Amendment No. 21, which is an attempt to improve the wording of Clause 5. Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, are also an attempt to improve the wording of the clause as it stands. Amendment No. 26 seeks to leave out the whole of the clause. That amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay" is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and myself, and we have added our names to it.
We on these Benches support the need for a new offence as set out in Clause 4. There are very rare circumstances—but they do occur—where within a household it is impossible to say who has been responsible for the death of a child or another victim. In such circumstances where all parties in the household remain silent, it is very difficult to prove who is responsible for the death. Murder cases have therefore failed, so we support the need for an offence, as set out, of causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. However, we disagree with some of the wording and have tried to improve it. No doubt we shall return to that task.
Clause 5 is an entirely separate and different matter. The title—"Evidence and procedure"—is a misnomer, to start with. It does not deal with evidence and procedure specifically related to Clause 4—in other words, on how Clause 4 is to be proved and what procedures are to be adopted. Actually, it extends Clause 4 to murder and manslaughter. As I said in Committee, it seeks to create a new form of murder or manslaughter to be proved by different rules and under different procedures. I should like to develop my theme from Committee that, in Clause 5, the Government have simply extracted the solution that the Law Commission put forward in its draft Bill to deal with the problem of silence within the household. However, that was only for the scheme of that Bill and not in any wider context.
Adverse inferences of guilt may be drawn from silence in an ordinary case where the defendant has no answer to the prosecution's case that has been made against him—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made the point a short time ago—or that will stand up to examination when he is interrogated by the police or cross-examined at trial. If he says nothing to the police or at trial, providing that a case is made against him it is possible for the jury to draw the inference that he cannot answer that case. It can then draw the further inference that, as he has not chosen to answer the case, he is guilty of the offence.
The problem that arises in the circumstances with which Clause 4 is concerned arises because there may be no case against a defendant at all. As I pointed out, it may be impossible to say whether one or the other of two partners in the household is guilty or responsible for the death of a child. In my experience and as a matter of common sense, silence can derive not simply from guilt, but from a sense of loyalty or love and affection between partners in the household. Alternately, it can arise from intimidation. We referred to all those matters earlier.
The Law Commission was concerned to work out a way in which silence could be used to establish guilt, even though there was no other case against an individual, so that it could be compatible with Article 6 of the European convention and the concepts of the fair trial. If noble Lords will forgive me, I think it helpful to go to the Law Commission's report to indicate how it drew narrowly the circumstances that, under its scheme, would give rise to a proper inference of guilt. At paragraph 5.52, it stated:
"If the defendant chooses not to give evidence, the questions are whether it could be fair for the jury to draw an adverse inference from his or her failure to do so and whether a jury could be relied upon to approach the matter fairly".
That second limb is important, because the death of a child is a highly emotive affair. One is constantly concerned to deal with the prejudice that simply arises from the photographs, the facts and the pathologist's report, which may apply to a baby or a small child.
The Law Commission went on:
"As to the fairness of permitting the jury to draw an inference, the hurdles which the prosecution must surmount before the scheme—
its scheme—
"applies are onerous. They must establish that a crime has been committed, that the defendant from whose silence at trial an adverse inference may be drawn is a person with responsibility for the child and that they can narrow the field of suspects to a known group of individuals. In many cases this will involve narrowing it down to one or both of two.
"We have noted above that the court sill, no doubt, wish carefully to consider whether the evidence which narrows the field places the defendant so close to the offence that it is proper for an inference to be drawn and, if so, whether a jury could properly convict. We reject the contention that the court will permit this to occur almost routinely … We consider that a person who is close to the commission of the offence and is responsible for the child. could be expected to give an explanation for their involvement or non involvement such that its absence may constitute an 'eloquent silence' from which in the absence of any plausible innocent explanation an adverse inference could properly be drawn".
1176
Whereas in the ordinary case guilt may be inferred because a person cannot answer the case on interrogation or at trial, in the circumstances of the offence that the Law Commission was concerned to develop the inference could be drawn in the absence of a plausible innocent explanation from a person who is close to the offence and responsible for the child. It is in those very narrow circumstances that the Law Commission put forward the proposal in its scheme.
Clause 5 seeks to extend a mechanism that was devised for a particular scheme, where persons were designated as responsible and were close to the offence, to ordinary murder and manslaughter charges. Clause 5 means that a person may be convicted of murder or manslaughter simply from his silence. There is no justification whatever for attempting to convict a person of murder or manslaughter by drawing inferences in one type of case that could not be drawn in all the other types of murder or manslaughter that arise in the courts.
Proposed new subsection (2) in government Amendment No. 21 states:
"Where … a court or jury is permitted, in relation to the section 4 offence, to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question, the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty".
The inferences that may appear proper in relation to a Clause 4 offence are not necessarily proper inferences in relation to murder and manslaughter. They arise in a different way. As I said, they arise from the closeness of the offence and the responsibility of the individual.
We were all grateful to the noble Baroness when she explained that the use of "ought" in Clause 4, which we criticised, indicated that a person who had knowledge of the history of abuse that may have taken place was a person who ought to know the risk and ought to foresee the circumstances in which harm happened to the victim. That was a very important concession, and we will be considering it very carefully in relation to whether to pursue the criticisms that we made earlier. That type of inference may be acceptable within this very limited and specific type of offence. What is so objectionable about Clause 5 is not even that its terms confine a charge of murder or manslaughter to the particular offence or death, but that, in the wording of the Clause, all one has to do in a murder or manslaughter case is to add a section 4 offence and then convict a person simply as a result of his silence.
In Amendment No. 20 I have simply excluded subsection ( I ), but I am fully behind the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her Amendment No. 26 to leave out the whole of that clause. We hope that the Government will consider the matter further. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his Amendment No. 20, to which I have added my name. Grouped with it is my Amendment No. 23, which is intended to have the same effect—different drafting but the same result. Also in the group is my Amendment No. 25, to which I shall refer only briefly, because government Amendment No. 21 tries to

1177
resolve the mischief that I have raised with Amendment No. 25. So, I shall leave that issue to be covered by the Minister when she speaks to her Amendment No. 25.
I entirely agree with all of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, so noble Lords will be grateful that I shall not repeat them. One could either say that there is a need to tidy up the drafting of the clause or that the clause is beyond redemption. My amendments try to take both of those approaches, on the basis that I want to test how the clause might be improved so that it is acceptable, while saying that I have not yet been convinced by any arguments that the clause could be acceptable.
I note that the Minister and the Government have been in correspondence with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for whose work I am grateful. They have addressed themselves specifically to the question of whether Clause 5 would give rise to incompatibility with Article 6 of the ECHR. They passed the clause—but they did so in intriguing circumstances. They acknowledged, in paragraph 2.12, that in jury trials,
"it will be impossible to be sure that a conviction is not based wholly or mainly on an inference of guilt drawn from a failure to give evidence, in breach of the right to a fair hearing under ECHR Article 6/".
The committee then says, I am sure to the Government's relief, that there is protection enough in the trial judge not being able to invite a jury to draw an adverse inference unless there is a case to answer for the defendant on a charge of causing or allowing the death to occur.
My problem is that I then find myself wholly behind the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and say that that is no answer to the problem, the mischief, in Clause 5, because it would still do damage to those people who should not be charged under Clauses 4 or 5. So Clause 5 is unnecessary in trying properly to solve the evil of people escaping punishment for causing a death. There is a mischief in it that the House should not be tempted to accept, and we should be in a position to amend Clause 4 to provide a sufficient solution to the problem.
I am still in listening mode, because I do not wish to excise from the Bill any provision that might be necessary if there was no other course for solving the problem of the killing of children and vulnerable adults. But if the clause is broader and more improper than is acceptable, and if it could be applied more extensively in future, it would breach a principle to which so far we have held regarding inferences drawn from silence—and I would be very concerned. There is still time for the Government to give their arguments, but they have a steep mountain to climb.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise only in the hope of trying to shorten the proceedings, because it is agreed by both sides that subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 5 should be left out. The only question that arises is whether Amendment No. 21, moved by noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to replace subsections (1) to
1178
(3) is acceptable. My noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, have already suggested some reasons why we should not accept all of the new subsections (1) to (3) moved by the Minister. I do not wish to take up further time, I simply point out that our task is quite simple.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I am always happy to try to shorten proceedings, but I ask, with regret, whether he agrees that the Government's amendment is not satisfactory—because at the end of their new subsection (2) there is still reference to an inference being drawn from silence, even when there would otherwise be no case for him to answer. I hope my noble friend will not think that I am trying to extend proceedings when he is trying so valiantly to shorten them. My initial reservations about the clause remain.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I shall try to clear the undergrowth. I do not believe that it really matters whether the issue is contrary to ECHR. It is contrary to all the precedents of English criminal law. That is what matters, because it would be a great mistake if we were to turn the Human Rights Act upside down by saying that anything that is not prohibited by the convention is acceptable—it was never drafted from that point of view.
I am quite happy to address, for our purposes, the Minister's Amendment No. 21. Subsection (2) says:
"Where by virtue of section 35(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33) a court or jury is permitted, in relation to the section 4 offence"—
that is, the offence of responsibility—
"to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question, the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty … of murder or manslaughter … or any other offence".
It probably could draw an inference of manslaughter. One can think of plenty of circumstances in which one cannot pinpoint for certain—or with sufficient certainty—whether murder/manslaughter, or merely neglect or failure to protect, which is the second limb, is involved. That involves the offence of responsibility. The prosecution's evidence could well be such as to entitle the jury at that stage in the absence of any explanation to draw an inference of manslaughter. There would be much more difficulty in drawing an inference of murder. But manslaughter—gross negligence leading to the death—seems to be a perfectly intelligible proposition.
However, the amendment then goes on to provide:
"even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer in relation to that offence".
If apart from this clause there would be no case to answer, what on earth are we playing at? It is a monstrous clause. At one stage I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General had come in to tell the Minister that she could not go on with it, but my hopes were dashed by his disappearance.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be in Grand Committee. However, as the

1179
proposer of the original amendment with my noble friend Lady Gould, who I am happy to see in her place, I want to support Amendment No. 21, but not as a lawyer. We put forward the first cockshy amendment so that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, a child's killer should not escape justice. We were aware that this was innovative law, but we had the basis of the Law Commission proposals to give us confidence.
Reservations were rightly aired and the Government have met them. They have satisfied the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Clause 5 is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is a member of that Joint Committee.
I am relieved that the Government have put forward a provision which makes it possible to convict the killers of children. It puts right a long-lasting injustice against the most vulnerable members of our society. If we lose Clause 5, we have lost all that.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, we had a long debate on this matter in Grand Committee. I have done my best to read what was then said, in particular what the Minister said in reply. I realise the difficulty that exists. If one chooses to try murder, together with an offence under Clause 4, it is arguable that Clause 5 is inevitably required, as the Minister has argued.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, Clause 5 is contrary to any other provision of that nature in the criminal law of this country. The real question is: are we not asking this Bill to do too much? We began with the agreed intention of evading the present situation in which a child can be killed and because it is impossible to say which of two people committed the offence both walk totally free of any offence.
Clause 4 tries to deal with that situation by saying that the child is dead and one of two people may either have caused the death or been responsible in the way set out there. It goes on to say that rather than both of them walking free at the halfway stage, and although the prosecution has been unable to prove which of them committed the murder, both are guilty—if there is evidence against both—in the death of that child.
If that is so—if Clause 4 is aiming to create a new offence—tried alone there becomes no need for Clause 5 and the normal rules of law, of submissions at the halfway stage and of inference drawn by silence can relate, provided that there is no attempt to join together the offence of Clause 4 with the offence of Clause 5.
I know that I am putting the case badly, but ultimately we must return to the basic issue of what we are trying to do. If we are trying to show that although we cannot prove which of the two people committed the murder, they should not both be able to walk completely free and the court should have power to convict them of the new offence of responsibility, with a maximum sentence of 14 years, that is one thing. But if we go further and say that although the prosecution
1180
cannot say which of the two committed the murder, it will ask the jury to say who did it, we will get into all the problems created by Clause 5 and the need to change the general law of this country in the way proposed.
I ask the Minister to consider whether we need Clause 5. Should we not accept that the purpose of the Bill is to create the new offence of responsibility for the death either because the person caused the act or for the other reasons set out in Clause 4? We should go no further and should not attempt to say that by means of changing the rules of procedure the prosecution is trying to get a verdict of murder when it is not in a position to say which of the two people committed the murder.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, has said, particularly in emphasising that the most important provision in this part of the Bill is Clause 4 and the way in which the indivisible offence—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, called it—is set out there. It has the possibilities and deterrent value that we discussed at length in Grand Committee and on Report.
However, the noble and learned Lord stopped short of one matter. Let us suppose that in the course of the case and in the course of any proper inferences that may be drawn from failure to answer questions, it appears that, and it is proper to put to the jury that, one of the adults concerned may be guilty of murder or manslaughter. Although guilt and a conviction under Clause 4 is a serious offence and a substantial maximum punishment is therefore attached to it, it is none the less not quite the same as a conviction for murder. I therefore felt that what the noble and learned Lord said was missing something; namely, that if someone is sufficiently culpable to be labelled a murderer, that possibility should in certain limited circumstances be available. That is what Clause 5 provides.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, a number of important questions have been posed and, clearly, they need to be answered. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked whether we need Clause 5 and will not Clause 4 suffice to cure the mischief which we have all identified and which we all agree needs to be cured. To the first part of his question, I have to give an unequivocal "yes", and I am afraid that I shall take some time in explaining the reason.
I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says that the provision presents an uphill struggle and that she wishes to hear fully the Government's argument for it. I hope that I may even be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that Clause 5 is not the monstrosity that they fear it to be.
My noble friends Lord Borrie and Lady Whitaker put their finger on the issue. We must all decide whether we consider it right and proper to allow

1181
people to get away with murder, because that is precisely what we are talking about. We are not talking in terms of a colloquial saying but in terms of fact. The truth is that, after proving the case to the halfway point—the prosecution on a Clause 4 offence—it is possible that each of the defendants will choose to give evidence at that stage. They may give evidence one against the other and, by their evidence, there may be clear information upon which the jury, properly directed, can rely in order to find either or both of them not simply responsible for the Clause 4 offence but responsible for, culpable in law and properly culpable of, murder. The question with which we must grapple is: are we content that they should avoid such a charge if such a charge is proper?
Before going into the detail, as I shall have to do in order to satisfy noble Lords, I also remind your Lordships that it would still be possible at the end of the hearing of the evidence for the judge, if he or she believed it to be right, to withdraw from the jury the options of the offence of murder or manslaughter if there were no evidence upon which the jury, properly directed, could safely rely in coming to a decision on guilt or innocence. We are not expunging that from the framework.
Therefore, the spectre that noble Lords must consider is: are they content with the scenario that I have described—that is, that of the parties going into the box and giving cogent evidence which demonstrates the guilt of one or either of them in relation to murder? Are they content that the only offence for which the parties will be held responsible will be that of Clause 4? Our answer is that that would not be just or proper and it is not what we set out on this journey to deliver.
I have listened with interest to the debate. Amendment No. 20 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would, with others that have been tabled, fundamentally dilute our proposals, and I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot accept them. Our scheme aims to stop those who kill children and vulnerable adults in a domestic setting from escaping justice as they are currently able to do. That is something upon which we all agree.
With leave, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 21. This amendment meets some of the concerns which noble Lords raised and which, I expect, other amendments that have been tabled seek to address. Where my amendment achieves what I believe to be the same aim as another, I shall endeavour to draw noble Lords' attention to that fact. I also want to acknowledge the sense of discomfort echoed by both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about changing a system to which we are accustomed. We are all more comfortable with things with which we are familiar.
I begin the detail of my response by explaining why I tabled this amendment, which is intended to replace subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 5 as they currently appear in the Bill. As I shall explain in more detail in due course, this amendment contains an important
1182
change, which I hope will meet some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords when we last met to debate these measures. We have taken this opportunity to clarify and simplify the drafting of the clause as a whole.
The new offence will help to ensure that more people who have caused or allowed the death of a child or vulnerable adult are brought to justice. But we also hope that it will help to solve the "which of you did it?" cases. We believe that that can be achieved only by the new offence under Clause 4 and the procedural measures included in Clause 5 working together.
Where charges on counts of murder or manslaughter properly reflect the culpability of the defendants in cases where a child or vulnerable adult has been unlawfully killed, we believe that we should aim to pursue them in order to ensure that justice is truly done. I sincerely believe that we cannot do so without the scheme that we are proposing.
We have linked our procedural measures closely to the circumstances of our proposed new offence. This we believe, produces a coherent and effective package of measures targeted at the core cases of familial homicide. The aim is to allow more charges of murder or manslaughter to be safely left to the jury in these difficult cases. It is both desirable and necessary to pursue that aim
In its fourth report of this Session, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that a failure to take the steps necessary to identify those responsible for causing death might,
"violate the rights of the victim and his or her close relations'',
under Article 2 of the ECHR, which, as noble Lords will know, sets out the right not to be intentionally deprived of life,
"by making it systematically impossible to carry out an inquiry into the death which will establish the cause of death and allow the guilty party to be punished".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised various points about the new procedures and the duty of the state to ensure that the child's death can be fully investigated under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. In that context, it is important that we remember what the Law Commission argued. It stated that the fact that new rules of procedure have been proposed in order to remove a present obstacle for the proper conviction of the guilty must be a legitimate matter for the legislature to consider if the procedure adopted can result in a fair trial.
When we last met to debate these measures, some noble Lords expressed concern that we were making major changes to fundamental principles underpinning criminal trials. This evening, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, "Well, it's all very well to satisfy the ECHR, but what about our common law? I am not going to besmirch that by simply satisfying other criteria". My answer to that is that we are not besmirching it but are asking for changes to do what the common law has always done. The common law has always sought to give justice to the people of this country, and that is a tradition of which we are all rightly and properly proud.

1183
Change often prompts an outcry. In 1967, the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—then Home Secretary—put forward a proposal to allow majority jury verdicts. That was roundly condemned as an unacceptable incursion into civil liberties which would lead to gross injustice. There is no evidence that that has happened. A similar reaction greeted the proposal of another distinguished former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, to put an end to the right of pre-emptory challenge to jurors. Again, the claim that that change would undermine the criminal justice system and result in a serious reduction in liberty has not, subsequently, proved true. I remember it well—it was almost said by the criminal Bar at that time that it would be the end of the world as we knew it, but not much has changed.
For the reasons I have set out, we are proposing significant changes to proceedings. We believe that these particular crimes demand it. But the fundamental principles of hearings being fair, defendants having a proper opportunity to have matters tried against them and being presumed innocent until proven guilty remain totally undisturbed.
In its fourth report of this Session the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that with regard to the right to a fair hearing and to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, Clause 5 is sufficiently limited to be unlikely to give rise to an incompatibility. Although I had every confidence that it would, nevertheless I confess to your Lordships that I was delighted that the Joint Committee endorsed our view, which is based on the conclusions reached by the Law Commission.
I turn to the detail of the amendment, including the important changes we have made, and illustrate how we intend the evidential and procedural measures included in Clause 5 to work. As my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has returned to his place, I should assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that he does so in support, not in censure.
Clause 5 contains, in short, two procedural measures. The first would enable the jury, in considering its verdict on a count of murder or manslaughter, to draw such inferences of guilt as appear proper from the failure of the defendant to give evidence or to answer any question without good cause, even if the prosecution has not led evidence which would suffice to found a conviction if no inference is drawn. This measure is limited by the requirement that for such an inference of guilt to be drawn in relation to the charge of murder or manslaughter, the provisions of Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 must permit such inferences to be drawn in respect of the Clause 4 offence.
The second measure would postpone determination of a submission of no case to answer until after all the evidence on behalf of the prosecution and all the defendants has been given. I emphasise that the opportunity to make such a submission is postponed, not expunged.
1184
Our proposed new subsection (1) will make it explicitly clear that the procedural measures included in the clause apply to the trial of a defendant on a count of murder or manslaughter only when the defendant himself or herself is also charged in the same proceedings with the new offence. The amendment narrows slightly the range of individuals that are caught by the scheme as currently drafted. We are talking about only those people who are in the closed household who really should give an explanation for what happened.
Where a defendant remains silent in circumstances that clearly call for an explanation from him or her, we believe that the jury should be able to draw an adverse inference from the defendant's silence where it is proper to do so. I emphasise the words "proper to do so". That is why we have linked the drawing of an adverse inference on the charge of murder or manslaughter to the circumstances of the new offence.
For the inference provision in Clause 5 to apply, the prosecution must already have established that there is a case to answer on the Clause 4 offence; that is to say, the prosecution will have adduced evidence that a crime has been committed and that the death of the child or vulnerable person was not accidental and that the death was caused by a member of the victim's household who had frequent contact with the victim.
A noble Lord: Or by the defendant.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord says, "or by the defendant". The prosecution will also have produced evidence showing that the defendant was such a member of the household and evidence to show that the defendant either caused the death of the victim or was aware of a serious risk to the victim and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the death. We believe that that situation so clearly calls for an explanation that it is fair to draw an adverse inference on both the new offence and an accompanying charge of murder or manslaughter if the defendant fails, without good cause, to provide any explanation.
Because we believe that subsection (1) makes the position explicitly clear, we do not think that Amendment No. 22 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would add anything to it. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Bill already provides for what she seeks through that amendment.
We have also decided that the postponement of the decision on a submission of no case to answer should also be linked to the circumstances of the new Clause 4 offence being made out, not just in relation to any of the defendants in the proceedings (as was our position previously) but in relation to the defendant himself or herself. That will mean that those who are charged only with murder or manslaughter and against whom the prosecution cannot establish a case to answer in its own time will be acquitted at that stage. So, where someone cannot come within Clause 4, is not part of the same household, and cannot therefore

1185
be caught by the new responsibility to give an explanation, that person will not be in a position where one could postpone "no case to answer". In effect, they would be allowed to leave the proceedings even if subsequently on giving evidence on Clause 4 matters further or other evidence indicated that they may have a level of culpability.
We have listened very carefully to the concerns raised on that point by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We wrestled with whether or not this should be changed and have come to the conclusion that it should. This would achieve what we believe is being sought in another way by Amendment No. 25 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The detail of the procedural measures is set out in Amendment No. 21 in a revised form in subsections (2) to (3A). However, I can assure noble Lords that the changes come with very clear and effective safeguards to ensure that hearings remain fair. Where counts of both murder or manslaughter and counts under Clause 4 appear on the indictment together, subsection (3) prevents the charge of murder or manslaughter proceeding to trial where the charge under Clause 4 has been dismissed. That is necessary because in our scheme, to tackle the problem of "Which of you did it?", the case against the accused on the charge of murder is founded upon there being evidence of a Clause 4 offence calling for an explanation. Similarly, at half-time—
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She has twice said that if the prosecution makes good the various criteria in Clause 4, it calls for an explanation. Surely, that is not right. If you do not give an explanation you may well be found guilty of responsibility, but it certainly does not call for an explanation in that sense. That is the difference between that and what the Law Commission had in mind.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with respect, I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord and have tried to make clear why that is. We have some very powerful circumstances. We have a situation where there is a dead child; evidence that that was an unlawful killing; there is evidence that the child died as a result of something done by someone in the household in which that child lived, and further, evidence that each of the defendants were members of that household. I respectfully suggest that that calls for an explanation.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in fact the ingredient of the offence under Clause 4, which every one agrees should be part of the Bill, is the responsibility or the child's death either by causing the murder or on the terms set out. What the Minister is really saying is that, while we can prove that, if the person is charged only with murder he goes completely free although he would have been responsible for an
1186
offence under Clause 4. Is she not attempting to use Clause 4 merely as a second charge to a charge of murder—which she accepts she cannot prove, because if it was brought on its own the person would be acquitted—so as to get from the jury a verdict of murder which the prosecution does not have the evidence to prove?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, what we are saying is that the prosecution prove a Clause 4 offence which calls for an explanation. At that stage, in order for the defendants to differentiate between their participation, if any, it may well he that they will choose to give evidence at that point, and further and other evidence will be led or may be led. Until the close of the defence case it will be impossible to make an assessment of whether there is sufficient safe and satisfactory evidence on the charge of murder or manslaughter to leave that issue to the jury. At the end of the case for the defence it may be that it would be absolutely proper at that stage for an application to be made of no case to answer in relation to the murder or manslaughter because counsel would argue that no further evidence had been led and that the inference sought to be drawn was insufficient on its own to justify the murder or manslaughter.
At that stage it would be for the judge to determine whether the inference for all those reasons—with all the safeguards I have already outlined in some detail—could be properly left to the jury. If he does consider that it is proper to leave the matter to the jury the jury would then be entitled to make a determination.
I am saying that similarly at half-time proposed new subsection (3A) in Clause 5 would make the trial judge duty hound to direct the jury to acquit the defendants of murder or manslaughter, should be decide that in relation to the Clause 4 offence there was no case to answer and direct an acquittal on that charge. Proposed new subsection (2) allows inferences from silence to be drawn in circumstances which. hitherto, have not been possible. However, Section 38(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will still apply in these cases. That means that if there is any possibility that an adverse inference may form the sole basis for a conviction of the defendant, the judge could not safely leave the charge of murder to the jury.
Under our scheme the prosecution would have had to establish a case to answer in relation to the charge of causing or allowing the death of the child contrary to Clause 4 before the inference from silence could be used to help to establish a case to answer in respect of the charge of murder. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights states in its report, and we agree:
"In this important respect, there is a protection against conviction of murder or manslaughter wholly or mainly on the basis of an inference from silence … the trial judge will not be able to invite a jury to draw an adverse inference unless there is a case for the defendant to answer on a charge of causing or allowing the death to occur, and that is a suspicious circumstance which, taken together with the other safeguards attaching to inferences from silence, should be sufficient, in our view, to rein in any tendency a jury may have to draw an inappropriate inference from silence in relation to the charge of murder or manslaughter".
We unreservedly agree.

1187
Proposed new subsection (2) also extends the provision to draw adverse inferences to cover those occasions where the jury decides upon an alternative verdict to murder. This brings the provision to draw an inference by virtue of this clause into line with the provisions on inferences under Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Without the measure included in Clause 5, cases will fall at half-time and the killer of vulnerable people will escape. We believe that that would not be true justice. I would therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and to support our Amendment No. 21.
Lord Thomas of Gresford:My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and for the attempted rewrite of this clause.
Perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. She said that she supports a measure that will make it easier to convict a child killer. I am paraphrasing, but she used words to that effect. Certainly this measure will make it easier to convict a defendant. But is that defendant a child killer? That is the whole issue.
The prosecution under these provisions has no case against the defendant. The jury cannot convict on the evidence but only on the silence of the defendant. It is easier to convict the defendant—that is the whole point of our objection—but it does not mean that the defendant is the person, the one of two or three members of the household, who is charged with an offence under Clause 4.
I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said about this Clause 5. It is doing too much. There is a problem to be resolved. Clause 4 does it—perhaps not ideally in the way that it is phrased—in dealing with the situation that arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was supportive of everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, but he posed the situation where a cut-throat defence occurs towards the end of a case. It emerges in the cutthroat defence that one party blames the other. He is informed by his counsel, "If you are silent the jury may draw an adverse inference". What is more likely than that to induce one party to blame another? The jury believes one as opposed to the other party, or the other party remains silent. Why should a murder conviction not follow?
That is an argument for my Amendment No. 20, which would leave out subsection (1) of Clause 5. It is an argument to maintain the position set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in proposed new subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 21; that is, leaving the question whether there is a case to answer to the end of all the evidence. If during the defence case, induced by all sorts of pressures put upon him, one defendant starts blaming the other, then of course there is a case to answer.
1188
That position, which I can understand, is not addressed at all by proposed new subsection (2) of Amendment No. 21. It is not concerned with where a cut-throat defence arises and where one defendant blames another defendant. Proposed new subsection (2)—that to which we have objected and have objected from the very beginning—deals with convictions based on silence, not on cut-throat defences.
There would be a case for a person to answer if one defendant gave evidence against another defendant. Therefore, proposed new subsection (2) has nothing to do with the situation postulated by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and adopted or perhaps expanded upon by the Minister in her later reply. Subsection (2), under which a person can be convicted of murder and manslaughter even when there is no case against him or her, simply because he or she does not give evidence, is objectionable at common law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, and under the convention. Nothing that the Minister has said in her reply or in her redrafting of the clause deals with that fundamental point.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not want to stop the noble Lord in his flow, but I think that he says that proposed subsection (2) refers only to silence. I invite his attention to the third and fourth lines, which state that a court or jury is permitted,
"to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if the defendant refuses to answer a question, he is silent. I do not understand the Minister's intervention.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the defendant may give evidence; he may then choose not to answer certain questions when giving evidence, and one would be entitled to draw an inference from his refusal to answer those questions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it still amounts to convicting him because he has failed to answer the question; he has remained silent in response to a question that has been put to him in the course of the trial. That is the basic, fundamental point. If there is no case to answer on murder or manslaughter under subsection (2), the defendant may be convicted because of his silence. That is fundamentally opposed to principle; nothing that the Minister has said can alter that.
I do not propose to press Amendment No. 20 at this stage. I hope that we will have further discussion. The noble Baroness can be assured that we accept Clause 4, but Clause 5 goes too far. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, I must tell noble Lords that if Amendment No. 21 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 to 25.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 35, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
"(1) Subsections (2) to (3A) apply where a person ("the defendant") is charged in the same proceedings with an offence of murder or manslaughter and with an offence under section 4 in respect of the same death (-the section 4 offence").
(2) Where by virtue of section 35(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) a court or jury is permitted, in relation to the section 4 offence, to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question, the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty—

(a) of murder or manslaughter, or

(b) of any other offence of which he could lawfully be convicted on the charge of murder or manslaughter, even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer in relation to that offence.

(3) The charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be dismissed under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (unless the section 4 offence is dismissed).
(3A) At the defendant's trial the question whether there is a case for the defendant to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence (or, if at some earlier time he ceases to be charged with the section 4 offence, before that earlier time)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.34 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Women
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the status of women in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased that, once again, we have the opportunity to have a debate on the status of women to coincide with International Women's Day. Last year, we had a wide-ranging debate covering many aspects of women's role and participation in society, and I am sure that we will again today. I thank all noble Baronesses—all the speakers are noble Baronesses—for coming to speak tonight, although I would have appreciated some views from our male colleagues and perhaps a little more participation from the opposition Benches. I thank, in particular, the Minister, who is foregoing her dinner break in order to reply to this debate, having spent many hours on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the practical issues of employment, pay, pensions and access to services. Before doing so, I shall refer to two achievements over the past year, both designed to improve the lives of women and girls. The first is the
1190
enactment of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, which took effect last week, on 3 March, and which we hope will reduce the misery and pain of many young girls under threat of FGM. The second is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which is now, I hope, in its final stages, and steered so effectively by my noble friend the Minister. Again, it is a Bill to protect against the threat and fear of violence. However, I have one concern: research shows that one in five men and one in 10 women believe that violence towards a partner is acceptable in some situations. Such perceptions must be challenged and changed, so I ask my noble friend what actions are planned to do just that?
Over the past year we have also seen the biggest review of our equality institutions and an announcement of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights to tackle discrimination and to promote equality and diversity. I await with interest the White Paper, which is due out at any time now, on the detail of how the commission will function. However, at present, one essential element is missing. Throughout the many meetings in which I have participated on the establishment of the commission, I have constantly argued for consistent equality legislation across all strands. I appreciate that the Government are taking a strand-by-strand approach, but I would like to hear from my noble friend that, by not applying the same legislative framework to gender as to race and disability, sex discrimination will not be downgraded.
Consistency of legislation is particularly necessary in respect of access to services, in which we recognise that women still have different needs and life experiences from men, and different strategies may be required. I shall cite just two examples. On crime, men's greatest fear is vehicle theft; women's is rape and physical attack. On health requirements, there are considerable gender differences in the access to primary healthcare that needs to be built into mainstream services, performance targets and monitoring strategies. A public sector duty built into legislation would ensure that those differences of need would be met.
The Government recognise the difference, because in their report, a very helpful document, Delivering on Gender Equality, they state:
"The Government needs to tackle inequalities in every area of life. We will only do this successfully if we are honest about gender inequalities where they exist, and then take specific action to tackle them".
The document goes on to acknowledge that women's opportunities are still constrained by their caring responsibilities, the lack of affordable childcare, the scarcity of flexible working options, assumptions about traditional women's work and the continuing unacceptable level of the pay gap, at 18 per cent.
I appreciate that low pay has been improved marginally by the Government's introduction of the minimum wage, but that has not had an effect on part-time workers, where the gap stays stubbornly at 40 per cent, unchanged for 25 years. The reasons for the pay gap are complex and inter-connected. Key factors include differences in skills and training, the length of work experience, part-time working and occupational segregation.
I shall look first at the latter point. The Equal Pay Task Force identified that employment in the UK remains strongly delineated by gender, involving both horizontal and vertical segregation. What do we mean by that? Horizontal segregation concentrates women in low-paid occupations and limits their access to other roles. Vertical segregation is the career barriers to women's individual development, the glass ceiling. That ceiling may have cracked in some cases, but it seems somehow to be made of toughened glass and remains shatterproof. That is not to say that there have not been some improvements. The number of women MPs has risen from 5 per cent to 18 per cent, although it has taken 20 years to achieve that, and almost a quarter of top management positions in the Civil Service are held by women. But only 13 per cent of local authority chief executives are women, even though nearly three quarters of the workforce is made up of women. Women's average representation at the top of business remains at 11 per cent. Last week, the Fawcett Society published its findings on the judiciary and the role of women, which showed that there are only five women out of 43 chief constables, only 31 women out of 138 prison governors, and that only one sixth of chief Crown prosecutors are women. We must not forget the real breakthrough in your Lordships' House, with the appointment of the first woman Law Lord.
Overall, women's progress is still blocked at all levels by prejudice and misconceptions. Horizontal segregation ensures that women are concentrated in the five lowest-paid employment sectors, and 60 per cent of women continue to work in just 10 occupational groups. That is no improvement on the figures that I identified last year. At the same time as there is a serious skill shortage in engineering, science and technology in this county, only 9 per cent go into skilled trades.
There is continuing sex stereotyping in schools, which places young women on a path to lower-paid occupations and the prospect of pay inequality. Some 34 years ago, I had a row with my daughter's physics master, who said, "Science is not for girls". Of course, I had taken sciences myself. That divide, which is created in schools, continues into apprenticeships. Only 4 per cent of girls go into engineering; 21 per cent become computer analysts and programmers and, surprisingly, 14 per cent become primary or nursery teachers. There is an urgent need for improved advice to girls on non-traditional career choices by careers advisers, teachers, employers and directly by the Government.
Some 43 per cent of women employees work part-time, as opposed to 9 per cent of men. The reasons for the necessity to work part-time could be overcome if more employers were prepared to provide flexible working. The Employment Act 2002 introduced a new duty for employers to consider requests for flexible working, but much of Britain's business is still missing that opportunity, and is still trying somehow to shoehorn workers into outmoded practices. Farsighted employers, using flexible working to meet their own and their employees' needs, understand that
1192
family-friendly policies will reduce the cost of absenteeism, often resulting from stress-related sickness or from employees taking unauthorised time off for caring responsibilities. A more relaxed atmosphere can also increase motivation, loyalty and productivity. Flexible working must not bring with it the fear of lower pay, less job security and less access to promotion, which is currently too often the case for the 42 per cent of women who work part-time.
Many women could more easily balance work/life responsibilities if they were confident about their security in retirement. Being poor in paid life almost certainly guarantees being poor in retirement, creating a lifetime of income inequality. There is no question that pensioner poverty is a women's problem. The current system is clearly not providing security and comfort for many women in old age. This is a clearly identified discrimination in the present system, and a reform of the national insurance system must be considered for women to be able to have a pension in their own right.
I am conscious of the time, although I do get 10 minutes as opposed to everyone else's three. In the time allowed, I have been able only to skim the surface of the question of women's inequality in training, in the workplace and in pay. It is absolutely clear that a great deal more needs to be done to break down the barriers and remove the burdens that women still face. Only then, when that has been achieved, can we truly celebrate international women's day and say that we have come to the end of a journey started many years ago by the women who began this struggle. I hope that that time will not be too long away.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords. I thank my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for initiating this debate, and I express my admiration for the significant ground that she covered in the 10 minutes. It is grace for all of us who have three minutes, because she covered much of what we would have wanted to say.
We have made progress—there is no doubt about that—as the content of my noble friend's contribution to the debate shows. We have a wide agenda, and we have good frameworks in place. We come from a proud history. One of my heroines, Barbara Castle—now deceased, of course—brought in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. On the Front Bench tonight is a Minister who is equally committed. We all feel proud of that, but it does not come down to women Ministers and the departments looking after women's issues: it comes down to every government department.
I must suggest something constructive that the Government could do with public money in one area. I was chairman of the Housing Corporation. Of the 100 largest housing associations in the country, 13 had women chief executives. Yet, over 50 per cent of their tenants and residents were women. That is not facing up to the issues, and it is that kind of instance that I am talking about. We may have frameworks in place, but we must make them work. Clearly, they are not working across the board at the moment.

1193
I grew up in an era when we challenged for equal pay and equal opportunity. It is testimony to the progress that we have made that we now talk about a range of issues, of which the Bill that we were considering before this debate is one. We have made progress, but there is still a long way to go. Today, there are many good role models for young women, something that we did not have years ago. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we must ensure that, in schools, the aspirations of young women are continually raised.
Having said that, I must raise one negative point. It is not something that the Minister or the Government can deal with: it relates to the House's Administration Committee. I am ashamed to say that that committee has refused to agree to the erection of a statue dedicated to Sylvia Pankhurst. There is one for her mother and one for her sister. The committee in the House of Commons has agreed, and Westminster City Council has given planning permission. It is being held up by the Administration Committee of this House. Members, myself included, have written letters on the subject and have been told, "No", but I do not think that we will leave the issue there.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for bringing this important matter before us. I declare an interest in that I represent the Women's National Commission as commissioner for Wales. I shall speak about Welsh women tonight.
One of the joys of having a devolved Assembly is that it has given women a chance to serve in a way that no other Welsh institution has. The first elections to the Welsh Assembly in 1999 saw a record number of women elected. They did even better in 2003. For the first time in any democratic legislature in the world, 50 per cent of the Members elected were women. Women form a majority in the Cabinet. Does that mean that Welsh women have, at last, achieved equality? The answer is "No". Since 1918, only seven Welsh women have been elected to the House of Commons and, at present, there are only four women in that House.
Have women fared better in other areas? Again, the answer is "No". In a recent poll, nine women featured in the top 100 Welsh heroes. Catherine Zeta Jones, the highest woman on the list, came at number 16, and Tanni Grey- Thompson came at number 21. The only woman politician on the list was Megan Lloyd George, who came 81st.
Yesterday, the Western Mail had a 16-page insert to mark International Women's Day, devoted to the position of women in Wales. I congratulate the paper on its efforts. One of the articles was headed "Who runs Wales?". It made interesting but gloomy reading. It listed many professions and showed that women were in the minority in all of them. Such inequalities in society cannot continue if Wales is to become a modern 21st-century country. We lead the world, with so many women in the Assembly, but we are way behind in other matters affecting women. Is the glass
1194
ceiling over Wales unbreakable, or will Welsh women prove that they will no longer be stifled by the traditional values that have held them back for centuries?
The Government of Wales Act 1998 has a unique clause. Clause 48 states that the Assembly has to give,
"due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people".
Is the Minister contemplating any legislation of this nature for Westminster? I am sure that she will agree that women benefit from that approach. I believe that the Assembly will eventually bring about a Wales where we have true equality for its people. The women in Wales should then be able to break through the glass ceiling in the way that women politicians in the Assembly have.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating the debate. We have three minutes per speaker. What a challenge to make any case at all. As a former MEP, I have haggled over one minute to speak in the Hemicycle in Strasbourg. Three minutes would have been an exquisite luxury. In that time I could have made the case for the single currency and for the reform of the common agricultural policy, and still had time to spare.
Tonight, looking at the status of women in the UK, the widest of possible topics, perhaps it would be sensible for me to focus on just one facet. That facet is to look at women in a sporting context. But I must say to my sisters and one brother that it makes miserable reading.
A noble Baroness: Two.
Baroness Billingham: The facts speak for themselves. Half as many women as men take regular physical activity. Girls and women enjoy fewer opportunities in every sector, whether statutory, voluntary or commercial. They have a much narrower range of activities than men. Stereotyping in the home still puts girls at a sporting disadvantage. Media coverage is appalling. A mere 5 per cent of sports coverage is given to women.
Where there is coverage, it is often sexist and dismissive. Anna Kornikova takes one-third of the websites dedicated to women's sport, and she has barely hit a serious tennis ball in the past three years. Male dominance prevails. We can remember how appalled we were when Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, suggested that female football players should,
"wear tighter shorts to promote 'a more female aesthetic
More likely a cheap thrill for nasty old men like him!
In brief, that is the daunting problem facing any government. What can be done to redeem the situation'? Of course, we welcome the new initiatives, which start in primary schools with better teaching and better facilities; the promotion of positive images of sport and sportswomen, particularly our heroines, such as Paula Radcliffe, and the role models who can make real impact. I applaud the additional funding to Sport England and the CCPR. Much is being achieved in the

1195
"Girlsport Project". The high profile publicity of healthier lifestyles and lifelong participation in sport is welcomed.
The Government can and do influence the output from the media. Perhaps there is a case for greater balance from our public service broadcasters. The BBC could help us more in the future. The very evident government support for the 2012 Olympic bid can and should be a huge stimulant to focus attention on sport by both men and women.
Other countries have used proactive measures. Title IX in the USA is a bedrock for a fair balance of funding in schools and colleges. New Zealand has pioneered an agenda in women's sport. We can and should learn from others. But the reality is that in the UK, sport is still run by men for men. A whole area of employment for sport and leisure has been hijacked for them. The objective is clear. Let women have the same opportunities and incentives to have a lifelong involvement in sport, with all the benefits of health and enjoyment that follow that lifestyle.
Finally—I am looking at the clock—do not let anyone forget that the single most powerful influence that children have (both boys and girls) to help develop a lifelong participation in sport is a physically active mother. What greater incentive could there be to galvanise our Government into even more ways of promoting the involvement of women in sport in our society? Much has been achieved, but there is still a long way to go.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate. It is very important that we all recognise how fortunate we are as women to live in this country and not in many other parts of the world. But there are still many issues: in my three minutes, I shall concentrate on older women. They are the majority of older people in this country, but they suffer quite a lot of discrimination.
The pioneering work of the feminists in the 1960s and beyond—the sisterhood—was composed of younger women who concentrated on the situation of younger women. Fortunately, for many of us here, they are now older. They are part of the baby-boom generation that is doing so much to change the image of older people generally. They are determined that the sort of conditions that they had to fight against will change.
However, there are still many things that need to be done. A recent report produced by Age Concern and the Fawcett Society demonstrated that one in four single female pensioners lives in poverty. There were some sensible and limited suggestions for reform; for example, something must be done to change the fact that if a person pays national insurance contributions for 10 years or fewer, it counts for nothing towards a state pension. Eighty-eight per cent of those affected are women. In addition, in this country, for every pound that a man receives from a pension, a woman receives only 32p. That is quite unacceptable.
1196
We also know that the changing social and family circumstances, which our demographic profile changing so rapidly is making inevitable, is altering the role of women in middle age and beyond. We now have a beanpole family situation. In many families, there are women caring for women caring for women for four or even five generations. At the age of about 50, a poor woman sandwiched in the middle often has to cope with two generations of older family and two generations of younger family. That caring responsibility is quite unprecedented.
I hope that the Private Member's Bill now in the other place will for the first time produce a duty on local authorities regarding carers. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley will say much more about that. That Bill would make a difference because, for the first time, it recognises that women who care are people and need that other life as well, whether it is to work, to have leisure, or other occupations. Sometimes a caring life ends, and the carer is still alive and needs to enjoy life.
Equality also has very wide implications that go beyond gender. It is excellent that there will be—I hope that there will be—an equality commissioner before too long. That is very important. Many older women can be discriminated against on many criteria. For example, they can be discriminated against through age, gender, race, a hidden disability or sexuality without people realising. It is dreadful to have to go from one commission to another to get help. We need one-stop shops. I very much hope that this debate will add to the pressure to make those a reality as soon as possible.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, after thanking my noble friend Lady Gould I want briefly to explore how women's writing has influenced the status of women. Women's writing, whether it be fiction, non-fiction, crime or poetry is now totally on a par with men's writing. Bookshops are packed with women's writing. Your Lordships' House boasts two of the finest crime writers today: that is, my noble friend Lady Rendell and the noble Baroness, Lady James.
In my view, which of course is very subjective, the finest novelist of today is a woman—Margaret Atwood—and the finest poet is a woman—Carol Ann Duffy. The first woman writer that we hear about is Aphra Behn, who was born in 1640 and was a well-travelled spy in Antwerp for Charles II. She produced satire and caricature of politics, arranged marriages and bawdy adventure stories.
Jane Austen, in the early 1800s—the House can see what a gallop this is—described herself as writing on a small piece of ivory with a fine brush: little of the tumult of the wide world, but brilliant depictions of life and satire of the gothic novels of the day. The Brontes—of course Charlotte had to write as a man in the beginning—produced gripping romantic fiction and poetry.

1197
That magnificent storyteller and unusual woman, George Eliot, discussed class, religion, politics, the professions and the distrust of outsiders with a searing emotional honesty. She wrote a lot of this at the kitchen table. Mrs Gaskell described the social realism of the industrial scene, relationships between employers and employees, and oppression.
Already by the mid-1800s we have women who were not only brilliant users of language, but also social commentators. And we should not forget the women who wrote to describe their own lives, as in the delightful Diary of a Farmer's Wife, written in 1796, where the making of pansy wine, the price of piggies and the dust on the legs of the chairs in the big house are featured.
The new women's fiction of the late 19th century is scarcely known, but represented a great deal of social change. In the mid-1900s Virginia Woolf—here I confess to a total obsession—experimented with new writing forms, discussed cultural processes, sexuality, and made feminist pleas in the most exquisite prose. A character in one of her essays states:
"We are the indications of a development of womanhood which as yet is not recognised. It has, so far, no ready-made channels to rim in".
How powerful and how true. The numerous women writers of today in Britain and abroad owe much to these pioneers. Each adds her own genius.
I end with one example of a modern woman's perceptions of male/female relationships: realistic, pragmatic, humorous. The poet Wendy Cope describes the loss of a lover:
'The day he moved out was terrible—
That evening she went through hell.
His absence wasn't a problem
But the corkscrew had gone as well".
Jane Austen might have written it; the romantics would not. Women's writing, with its diversity, perceptions and subtlety, has contributed to giving women a very special status. Women have significantly influenced, as well as been influenced by, the social, moral and political climate.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I shall address my three minutes to black women, and it is not all doom and gloom. Black women have made advances in many areas and we are grateful for small mercies. I recall the words of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He was very pleased about the record number of women in his Cabinet as this gave the government a feminist perspective and a better reflection of society. Until then, there had been no black women present.
The Labour Government that began in 1997 saw the greatest ever number of women Members. Nevertheless, only two black women were included in government. Diane Abbott entered Parliament in 1997. Having explained and followed her colourful career starting in the Home Office and advancing as a grassroots activist for the Labour Party, but serving first as a city councillor in Westminster from 1982 to 1986, an MP asked, "Who is she? Where did she come from?".
1198
Black women were unknown. The year 1987 saw the first wave of people from the Caribbean and Africa taking their places in Parliament. Harold Wilson can be quoted again. He said that having a mixture of backgrounds in government lends a far more balanced set of views from all areas of British society.
A researcher at the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research wrote:
"After all, unlike Parliament, 80" of society is not made up of white men".
One serving politician was moved to say that the House of Commons is seen as illegitimate by a lot of black and Asian people simply because there are so few black or brown faces elected to it. In his view, it is "shameful and disgraceful".
To date, your Lordships' House has certainly done much better under a Labour Government, with at least two Ministers, one the Leader of the House. And I have to say that the black community is extremely proud of the progress they have made.
In other areas, black women have made impressive advances, in particular in the professions. In sonic areas, since the Second World War they have come to form as much as 28 per cent of the workforce. Despite the double discrimination of racism and sexism, black women have risen to heights once the preserve of white men.
I end by adding my thanks to my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating this debate. I hasten to add that I could speak for another 20 minutes on black women.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Gould on introducing this debate. She and other noble Baronesses have left few stones unturned for a tail-end Charlie. I hope that I shall not lower the tone too much.
The brilliant, if somewhat wayward American humourist, Dorothy Parker, was asked to produce an aphorism containing the word "horticulture-. She came up with the following:
"You can take a whore to culture but you cannot make her think".
The House may wonder on what basis I can possibly introduce this rather dubious reference into a serious debate. Part of the reason is that it makes me laugh and it has been a long day. But, more seriously, it wraps into one elegant turn of phrase the two issues I briefly want to touch on. They are the negative images of women and the power of language to perpetuate them.
We might choose to believe that the classic Madonna-or-whore stereotyping of women is well in the past, but in the past 24 hours I have come across two striking examples of how it continues. One was an article in yesterday's Guardian entitled "Attack the Rap", about young women in the USA and the UK fighting back against the routinely negative and sexually aggressive language of rap lyrics. One is quoted as saying:
"I am tired of guys calling us 'just a piece of ass"—

1199
I am sorry, I know that that is rather unparliamentary language. She went on to say,
"Music is so influential and it's made this stuff very fashionable, but now it's time for a different fashion".
The other example was a discussion on this morning's "Today" programme between the academic Bonnie Greer and Ann Widdecombe MP, in which Bonnie Greer, an American by birth and a long-term resident of the UK, expressed her irritation at the way in which women of all ages in this country are constantly referred to as "girls". Ms Widdecombe, strangely enough, did not seem to mind that much, but I think the point was well made.
My point is this. We have come a long way and we have achieved a great deal since the days when all actresses, for instance—people amongst whom I have spent many of my working days—were whores and the mark of respectability in women was ignorance. But our culture still all too often constructs women negatively through the casual use of derogatory or demeaning language. It is very easy to sound po-faced on this subject, as Ann Widdecombe pointed out to Bonnie Greer on the "Today" programme this morning—not that she was put off in the slightest—but we should not lose sight of' how powerfully undermining negative stereotyping can be, however wittily it is wrapped up.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I think that on this occasion I should address the House as "my Ladies". It will come as no surprise to you, my Ladies, that I want to talk about the status of women as carers. I thank my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to do so. I am bound to say that if anyone had any doubts about the richness of female talent in the House, the range and quality of the debate will have dispelled them.
The House will know that 6 million people are carers in this country and that women still carry the bulk of caring responsibilities, with 58 per cent of all carers being women. They are also much more represented in the heavy end of caring. So if you are caring for more than 20 hours a week you are more likely to be a woman.
Caring has a significant impact on your financial situation, on your health and on your well-being. Statistically, women are much more likely to experience a caring episode and, because they are women, the assumption is made that they will care. By the age of 60, women have a 50:50 chance of being a carer, whereas men reach the age of' 74 without having a 50:50 chance of becoming a carer.
A great deal of progress has been made for carers, much of it under the Government. There has been new legislation through Private Members' Bills which give carers the right to an assessment; the earnings limit on the carer's allowance was increased to the level of the lower earnings limit; carers who receive carer's allowance for a full year are credited into the state second pension scheme, allowing them to protect their second tier state
1200
pension; and the right to take a reasonable time off for emergencies was introduced in December 1999. Although it was unpaid and the time would amount only to a day or two, it was the first time in law that carers who work are given employment rights specifically because of their caring responsibilities.
I want to draw your Ladyships' attention to the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, a Private Member's Bill sponsored by Dr Hywel Francis in the other place. The Bill will be debated in Standing Committee tomorrow and it seeks to do several crucial things. It promotes equality of opportunity for carers; it intends to break down institutional barriers that exist for carers in accessing work, training, life-long learning and leisure activities, so that they can lead, in the words of one carer, "an ordinary life"; it would place a duty on local authorities to inform carers of their rights, to promote carers' health and to plan jointly information provision for carers.
So a lot has been done—we should be joyful about the progress that has been made—but there is much that still could be done. A review of the carer's allowance, currently the lowest benefit of its kind at approximately £43 per week, is urgently needed. We should consider the introduction of a tax credit that helps financially, rather than hinders, carers who provide substantial amounts of care to combine paid work with caring. We need more carers' rights at work and more flexible working policies; continuation of funding for carers' breaks after 2006 when the carer's grant finishes; and a focus on health promotion by health bodies.
Many people wish to care for their relatives—most people want to be carers—and it is clear that society could not cope if they did not. However, in doing so, there is no reason why they should face poverty, social exclusion, lack of choice, opportunity and ill-health as a result of that caring.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I join with other noble Ladies—my sisters—in congratulating our friend and colleague on introducing the debate. She seems to have cornered the market in women's day debates. Sitting on this side of the Chamber, it is an extraordinary sight for me to look across at the absolute mass of women—all able to express themselves lucidly, intelligently and very often amusingly—sitting on the Labour Benches. I wish that I had the same brilliant collection behind me at the moment.
I had prepared a witty speech to sum up the debate. I then realised I had only three minutes and so, like everyone else, I am reduced to making one point. My one point is this: that welcome as the creation of an equality body is, we desperately need a single equality Act.
We have a mass of inconsistent legislation which affects different groups in society differently and can cause enormous problems for lawyers. For example, if a black pregnant woman has been discriminated against, they need to find out under which section of the law she is best represented.

1201
What should this single equality Act consist of? First, it should cover all the groups of people who shall not be discriminated against—women, people from racial minorities, people of different nationalities, people of different ethnic types, people of different sexual orientation, people who are older and people who have undergone gender reassignment. We would have to include everybody who can be and is discriminated against under the same heading.
Then we would have to ask ourselves whose behaviour has to be affected by such legislation. There is a wide range of bodies which must not discriminate against the groups of people covered by the Act. In addition to the public sector, that includes companies involved in selling or providing services to the public, employers conducting employment policy, people selling property or providing education or healthcare. Almost every activity that we can think of must be covered so that no one can escape.
Is simply not being discriminatory enough'? No, it is not. We must oblige all these people to take a positive attitude towards the promotion of equality, not simply to avoid legal penalties for discrimination but positively to promote equality of treatment among every individual in the country. When we reach this wonderful state, we will have no more need for an Equality Commission.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating this broad debate on the status of women. In my three minutes, I wish to focus my comments on one particular area not mentioned this evening—the choice for mothers in today's society between returning to paid employment and staying at home to bring up their children. There are two different perspectives here: one is the public perception and the other is practical—financial viability and the provision of childcare.
First, let me focus on perceptions. Equality in the workplace is to be encouraged, but I am concerned with the fashionable perception in the last 10 years or so that all mothers should strive to return to paid employment. I mention specifically a Government report by the Women and Equality Unit of the DTI which said that any mother who stayed at home did not "benefit the nation" and was "failing to pay the state back for the cost of time at school or at university".
It appears that society today does not recognise or value the unpaid work which mothers do in raising their families. A recent study from Full Time Mothers has shown that women too often feel that self-respect and the respect of society are dependent on a job title. The Maternity Alliance, in a survey of over 2,000 mothers, found that only 1 per cent would have chosen to return to full-time work after the birth of their baby. A third was happy to work part time and two-thirds would rather have stayed at home to raise their children.
I turn briefly to the practicalities. In order to encourage mothers to return to work, the Government are currently pursuing a childcare strategy that subsidises
1202
non-family care through care funding and the childcare credit. Families using registered daycare can receive up to £7,000 a year towards childcare. This may be laudable, but families in which one parent looks after the children cannot claim any similar benefit, despite the fact that he or she has sacrificed their earnings to do so.
In other cases, for middle-income families, the extra earning of a working mother is simply swallowed up in childcare costs. It is fair to say that, broadly speaking, the tax and benefit systems in place in the UK are biased against mothers who stay at home to raise their children.
I believe that the job of bringing up the next generation is extremely important. Women who decide to take the financially difficult choice to stay at home need our support and should not be seen as taking the easy option and shirking employment.
Finally, I should know more than most that many women do not have the luxury of making that choice. Life is not that simple and all of us have to make those hard decisions which benefit our families most.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it has been an undiluted privilege and delight to participate in this debate. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Gould on exercising such skill in delivering a gargantuan task in dealing with all the issues on which other noble Baronesses subsequently ably supported her. We have had everything, and I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend who made it clear that, if anyone wanted to see the quality of women, they had only to participate in this debate. We have had the delight of having substance, charm, intelligence, wit and the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the sage reminder of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that women's roles are diverse and must be valued in whichever form they come. I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have taken direct action in this regard. The Government want to give families choice. That is why we have introduced the new rights, which are making a huge difference.
We touched on so many matters tonight. I have been given 10 minutes, and I hope that I will be able to follow my noble friend Lady Gould with a quick gallop through some of the issues that she so ably raised. This event gives us a chance to remember a time when women throughout the world were still demanding the right to vote, work and hold public office. Although I am pleased to tell noble Baronesses that we have come a long way since then, I recognise that we still have a long way to go. However, it is right to celebrate that a debate such as this can take place, and that a real song of women's voices has echoed. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his place. We would have welcomed male voices to sing in harmony with ours.
My noble friend Lady Gould raised the important issue of violence. Noble Lords will know that today we are dealing with the Domestic Violence, Crime and

1203
Victims Bill. It is depressing that so many people feel that violence is still acceptable. As a Government we are tackling this issue at the school level. The Ministers for Women have produced a document, Does Sex Make a Difference?—an equality resources pack for those working with young people. It challenges stereotypes including occupational segregation, equal pay and women's representation in public life. That is very important work that is making the difference.
Another comment was strongly made not only by my noble friend Lady Gould, but by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who made a cri de coeur for a single piece of legislation to deal with equality. The Government are very much aware of the demand for a single equality Act but do not see this as an essential precursor to the creation of a Human Rights and Equality Commission. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses know how hard we have had to fight to craft this new commission. We will eat this elephant one bite at a time. There is no reason to think that the commission could not operate pragmatically within the current framework. Partnership is a huge matter.
I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lady Dean, who made a point about the House of Lords Administration and Works Committee having refused to allow a statue of Sylvia Pankhurst on Abingdon College Green. As a mere Minister, I could not possibly comment on that committee, but I suggest that it is perhaps mistaken in thinking that Mrs Pankhurst has no connection with the House of Lords that would justify such a prominent site. Quite the contrary, I add my support to those questioning this decision. Sylvia Pankhurst was one of the most prominent suffragettes and clearly deserves this recognition which is long overdue.
That leads me smoothly on to the triumph of my noble friend Lady Gale, who again regaled us tonight with the victorious triumph of the Welsh women who have managed to achieve 50 per cent in a way that has not been achieved by others. We must not be discouraged. Although women currently make up just 18 per cent of the other House, 16 per cent of the House of Lords and 24 per cent of the European Parliament, about 28 per cent of elected councillors in England and Wales are women, although just 2.5 per cent of councillors are from a minority ethnic background.
As noble Lords will remember, the Government introduced the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002. In Scotland and Wales, where positive measures have been introduced, the numbers of women elected have increased to 40 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. The National Assembly in Wales is the first legislative body in the world to achieve this level of parity, proving that positive measures do work. It can be used as an exemplar. I would just remind my noble friend sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches that this was achieved without proportional representation.
Women in public life have featured largely in this debate. As noble Baronesses have already pointed out, just over one-third—36 per cent—of public
1204
appointments are held by women and just under 2 per cent are held by women from minority ethnic communities. The Government have set a target for every department so that by 2005 women should hold about half of all appointments.
I am pleased to say that in the Home Office, where I have the privilege and pleasure to be a Minister, women already hold 44 per cent of the seats on our public bodies. In 2002, we travelled around the country and talked to more than 2,000 women to encourage them to take up public appointments at a regional and national level. Change is possible and we are making it.
A number of noble friends raised the pay gap. Women are playing an increasingly important part in our economy, but still face an average pay gap of 18 per cent if they work full time, as a number of noble Baronesses mentioned. If we look at the median figure, which measures earnings in the middle of the range, the pay gap drops to just under 13 per cent. In 1997, it was 16 per cent. So legislation has helped. But it is not enough on its own. The Government have been working with the EOC to promote equal pay reviews and have provided trade unions with funding to train workplace representatives. We have undertaken pay reviews in the Civil Service, introduced an equal pay questionnaire and will streamline the complex rules of procedure relating to equal value cases. We plan to introduce new regulations in October this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, alluded to the pay gap that varies by age, from 2 per cent for 18 to 20 year-olds to 34 per cent for women over 50. This reflects the increasing educational achievements of young women.
We are still very concerned about the lack of girls going into non-traditional areas of work, such as engineering and technology. I am pleased that this matter was alluded to by noble friends because we have a challenge. I quake to think of the physics master—as he must have been—who now has to deal with the comments that have been levelled against him in this debate. I am sure that he will not do that again.
If we look at the stakeholder pension, we have made a huge difference in the way that older people have been able to take advantage of the increased support that we have given. The pension credit was introduced last year for today's poorest pensioners and guarantees single pensioners an income of at least £102 per week. For future pensioners, the state second pension extends second tier pension rights to people without earnings but with caring responsibilities. Not surprisingly, almost all the carers who will benefit are women. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley was right to highlight the difficulties and the benefits that flow from the changes that we have made and to argue for more. We hear what she has to say. We have introduced stakeholder pensions that are flexible enough to accommodate the employment patterns of women. Research shows that 40 per cent of

1205
stakeholder pensions have been bought by women. We now have pension sharing on divorce—something for which we have fought for a very long time indeed.
As I indicated, the pay gap varies by age. However, we are still very concerned about the issue. The EOC is undertaking a general formal investigation to look at how men and women end up in these traditional gender roles. But that is not to say that things are not improving. Over the 10 years to 2002, the percentage of female graduates in science, engineering and technology increased by more than half. The Government recently announced that they were setting up a new UK research centre for women to help support them.
It is important that we have flexible working for raising the crucial issue of work/life balance for women. Women do five times as much domestic work as men, and it is still overwhelmingly women who are responsible for looking after the children or arranging childcare facilities. Yet over the past 25 years the number of women in the work force has doubled, and projections show that, in 10 years, they will fill most of the 2 million extra jobs on offer. That is why, last year, the Government gave parents of young children the right to work flexibly, improved and simplified maternity leave and pay and introduced paid paternity and adoption leave.
I was intrigued by the exposition on women in sport from my noble friend Lady Billingham. I reassure her that women's football is the fastest growing sport in the UK. Despite the concerns about women in sport, more men than women are overweight. Some 47 per cent of men are overweight, but only 33 per cent of women. And women live almost five years longer than men.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall made some very powerful points about the negative image of women and how words can be so important. The Government introduced citizenship education into secondary schools in September 2002, and pupils are taught about the origins and implications of the diverse national regions, the religious and ethnic identities in the UK and the need for mutual respect and understanding. So what we may not have achieved for this generation I hope we will achieve with the next.
I also commend what was said by my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids. She rightly raised the issue of minority ethnic women in this country and how things have changed. We all rejoice in the new complexion of our House and the other place because it gives us a spice and a diversity that might not have been there hitherto.
On literature, I cannot but commend everything that was said by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen with such wit and vim. More should have been in the House to benefit from her erudition and also her literature. I hope that all will read this debate and rue the moment that they did not participate in it.
1206
I commend all noble Baronesses for having so participated. It was worth not having supper.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
8.33 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply where a person ("the defendant") is charged in the same proceedings with an offence of murder or manslaughter and with an offence under section 4 in respect of the same death ("the section 4 offence").
(2) Where by virtue of Article 4(4) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)) a court or jury is permitted, in relation to the section 4 offence, to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question, the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty—

(a) of murder or manslaughter, or

(b) of any other offence of which he could lawfully be convicted on the charge of murder or manslaughter, even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer in relation to that offence.

(3) Where a magistrates' court is considering under Article 37 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I.1981/1675 (NJ. 26)) whether to commit the defendant for trial for the offence of murder or manslaughter, if there is sufficient evidence to put him upon trial for the section 4 offence there is deemed to be sufficient evidence to put him upon trial for the offence of murder or manslaughter.
(4) At the defendant's trial the question whether there is a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence (or, if at some earlier time he ceases to be charged with the section 4 offence, before i hat earlier time).
(5) An offence under section 4 is an offence of homicide for the purposes of the following provisions—

Article 17 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9)) (mode of trial of child for indictable offence);

Article 32 of that Order (power and duty to remit children to youth courts for sentence)."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving government Amendment No. 27 in the name of my noble friend, I shall also speak to the government amendments grouped with it.
The amendment brings the evidence and procedure for trials for the Clause 4 offence—which your Lordships discussed in detail in the earlier part of the Bill; of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult—in Northern Ireland into line with those for England and Wales. I am well aware that your Lordships have debated at length the provisions in the Bill relating to familial homicide. Those measures will address a particular loophole which has been discussed at some length. The Government's view is that the same provision should apply in Northern Ireland.
When my noble friend moved this amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, requested that the amendment was debated but withdrawn to allow for consultations and soundings to take place in Northern Ireland. We hope that there has been sufficient time for that to take place.
Amendment No. 27 provides a procedure in Northern Ireland for dealing with the evidence and procedure in relation to offences under Clause 4. It mirrors what applies in England and Wales with the exception that it does not refer to trial by jury because of the different system that applies in Northern Ireland in relation to the so-called Diplock courts—judg-ealone courts—and therefore the possibility that someone may not be tried by a jury for the offence under Clause 4. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is right in two respects. We had a full and productive debate on Clause 5 before the dinner break. I certainly welcome him to the Dispatch Box, not that I wished to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, depart, but I was rather shocked that she might be expected to respond to this debate and to the dinner break business. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has stepped into the breach.
The noble and learned Lord is also right to say with regard to this amendment that I requested that the Government should not press it in Grand Committee where amendments may be made only with the consent of all noble Lords present. The amendments had been tabled at the deadline for tabling amendments in Grand Committee and I did not consider that I had had sufficient opportunity to consult on them. I confirm that I have contacted colleagues in another place and organisations that represent interests in Northern Ireland. I am aware that there are many concerns in Northern Ireland regarding the issues that we have raised in Clause 5 as they affect England. Therefore, although I shall not object to the amendment being made, as I did not object to the Government's Amendment No. 21 to Clause 5 being made, between now and Third Reading we shall consider very carefully the fuller explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I still take exception to subsection (2) of the new clause in government Amendment No. 27. However, it ends with the words,
"even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer in relation to that offence".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness said regarding the position in Northern Ireland.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I understand entirely what the noble Baroness said, but I wish to press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE: COURTS-MARTIAL
(1) Section 5(1), (2) and (3A) has effect in relation to proceedings before courts-martial with the following adaptations.
(2) A reference to an offence of murder or manslaughter or an offence under section 4 is to be read as a reference to an offence under—

(a) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 18),

(b) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 19). or

(c) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53). for which the offence referred to in section 5 is the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of that Act).

(3) A reference to the court or jury is to be read as a reference to the court."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another government amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal. It relates to courts-martial. It is in the same vein as the previous amendment and applies the evidence and procedure provisions in Clause 5 to trials by court-martial.
It is right to remind your Lordships that courts-martial have the power to try persons subject to service law for civilian offences. They do not have jurisdiction to try murder or manslaughter offences committed in the United Kingdom, but they do if the offence occurs outside the United Kingdom. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if a court-martial is required to try a case involving a Clause 4 offence, the evidential and procedural provisions of Clause 5 apply to the extent necessary for that trial. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have before the Judicial Committee of the House attacked Section 70 of the Army Act and Section 70 of the Air Force Act; I will not weary noble Lords with that litigation, which is still ongoing. Is it intended that Clause 4 may be tried by court martial if the offence occurs in this country?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about that. I infer that the answer is yes, but I shall write to him and copy that to other noble Lords who have taken part in our debates.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that would cause something of an anomaly, because murder and manslaughter would be triable in the ordinary courts in this country. If Clause 4 were to be tried by court martial, it would be very unusual.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there are arrangements for a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases, in which particular offences or alleged offences can be tried either under court martial or in the domestic courts when the offence has taken place in the United Kingdom. I am aware of that myself because, on some occasions, it is for me to direct where a trial should take place. I hope that he will forgive me for not being in a position to answer straightaway, but my letter will deal with that issue. Particularly given what has been said—that it

1209
would be desirable to see a Clause 4 offence and murder or manslaughter coming together—I understand what lies behind his question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Establishment and conduct of reviews]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 23, leave out from "which" to end of line 24 and insert "the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by—"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is a further government amendment. When Clause 6, which relates to the establishment and conduct of homicide reviews, was debated in Committee, a question was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear what I wanted to say, but he made an extremely helpful intervention. He pointed out that the clause could prevent such a review taking place before there was a finding of fact that the homicide had taken place as a result of violence, abuse or neglect by a relative, someone with whom the deceased had an intimate personal relationship, or a member of the same household.
The Government believe it important that reviews take place as soon as possible after the deaths so that lessons can be learned and implemented quickly. That is a key reason behind the provision for the reviews. We would not want to prevent such reviews taking place before the conclusion of a criminal trial if appropriate—I emphasise "if appropriate"—but we do not want to prevent reviews taking place where no trial takes place either. Obviously—it is why I emphasised "if appropriate"—it is important that any criminal proceedings are not prejudiced as a result, and the guidance which will be prepared will make that perfectly clear.
The amendment will allow homicide reviews to take place in circumstances where the death has, or appears to have, taken place as a result of violence, abuse or neglect by a relative, someone with whom the deceased had an intimate personal relationship, or a member of the same household. It gives me particular pleasure to have taken this amendment on, as it is very much as a result of the work of my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General—my deputy, Harriet Harman—that such a provision finds its way into the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No.
30: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS AND INTEGRATED COURT
Provisions of this Act concerning domestic violence shall be applied according to interim judicial directions given, and such as may be given, pending establishment of an integrated court with civil and criminal preventative and remedial jurisdiction."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf, as he is not able to remain here for personal reasons.
We discussed this issue at length in relation to Clause 1 of the Bill, namely that it is desirable that, if there are to be criminal and civil remedies provided for breaches of non-molestation orders, an integrated court should be established with both civil and criminal preventative and remedial jurisdiction. One of the criticisms of Clause 1 that has been made in the House is that the non-molestation order is made by a civil court and by a civil judge. Making a breach of the order a criminal offence means that the order has effectively to be transferred to a criminal court, decisions have to be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service and the matter is placed in the hands of another judge.
There are pilot schemes in parts of the country where an attempt is being made to integrate civil and criminal jurisdiction, but I am told that they tend to be civil one week and criminal the next. While there are no doubt valuable experiences to be gained in that way, it might be better for an individual case to rest in the hands of one judge, whether he is involved in granting the non-molestation order, the civil remedy or dealing with the case as criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the intention behind the amendment is somehow to produce the establishment of an integrated court, with both criminal and civil jurisdictions and remedies in domestic violence cases. A similar amendment was debated in Grand Committee on 19 January. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in whose name this amendment stands, cited Lord Justice Thorpe's judgement in Lomas v Parle in support. I wanted to mention that for the benefit of noble Lords who have not seen the judgment, because it urges the Government to reconsider the present dual system of criminal and civil courts, and to,
"look into the possibility of integrated courts to see if they might avoid the problems which now arise".
The Government are working to improve the handling of domestic violence cases in court. My noble friend Lady Scotland said much about the matter on the last occasion and I shall not repeat that. Regarding Clause 1, criminalising breaches of non-molestation orders is already going to ensure that future breaches will usually be heard in a criminal court. That will eliminate one of the problems identified in Lomas v Parle.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General and the President of the Family Division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, with the support of the Deputy Chief Justice, have recently established the Family-Criminal Interface Steering Committee. It has been established to take a role over-viewing the co-ordination of current work in England and Wales to improve the connecting points, the interface, between the family and criminal jurisdictions and to identify areas which have not been addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was right in

1211
saying that there are important issues in the relationship between family, civil and criminal proceedings. It is intended to seek to meet the need identified in relation to child protection, domestic violence and private and public family law issues. Anyone with experience of those areas knows that frequently one or more of them come together in the same family or relationship. There may be an issue about child protection, an issue about domestic violence and issues about family law more generally.
The Steering Committee will look at the existing legal framework, structures and procedures, including the primary and secondary legislation; identify what changes it may be appropriate to introduce to improve these relationships—for example, how easy it is to pass information between one court and another which may be important for another set of proceedings; and to recommend changes to be acted on.
It is likely, or at least possible—this is why I have raised the matter—that the work of the committee will touch further on the idea of integrated courts and how they might work in practice. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a number of specialist domestic violence courts have been up and running for some time. Croydon recently established another such court and is considering how it might develop into a more integrated system. There is more to it than simply that the court will sit one week on civil cases and one week on criminal cases.
In summary, the idea of specialist courts is being developed and their effectiveness is being evaluated. The President of the Family Division—the Government and I are extremely grateful to her—and the Solicitor-General are working with others to improve the relationship between the two jurisdictions. We are working with Croydon to try to develop a fully integrated domestic violence court. Because that work is already being done, we say that the amendment is unnecessary.
However, the amendment is also unclear. While understanding what lies behind it, the establishment of an integrated domestic violence court by primary legislation would require detailed legislative provisions on jurisdiction, judiciary, evidence and timeframe, all of which are lacking in the amendment. Therefore, the amendment as drafted would have no practical impact on the work that is already being undertaken.
For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that what I have been able to say in addition to what my noble friend said in Committee is of interest and will be supported by those concerned about the issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I have been sent a paper on the integrated domestic violence courts of New York State. An integrated domestic violence court sounds better than the interface referred to by the noble and learned Lord. It is interesting that the IDV courts in New York State hear criminal cases, such as violation and misdemeanour domestic violence cases and matters involving violations
1212
of orders of protection. That issue is very much part of this Bill. They also hear family court cases, such as family offences, custody and visitation disputes and support proceedings; and supreme court cases—specifically, contested matrimonial actions. Under the court model, for a family's case to be eligible there must be at least a domestic violence criminal case and one additional matter in another court.
Some of the advantages of such courts set out in the paper I have are, for example, that they are developing procedures for screening domestic violence criminal cases against available databases to determine whether there is an overlapping family or matrimonial case. There is also the provision of specialist counsel. Assigned counsel panels and public defender organisations are all part of that. Furthermore, they have specific provisions for protection of victims and witnesses. The paper states:
"IDV Courts should provide a safe and secure environment in which to adjudicate family related civil and criminal court proceedings".
It states that the following should be addressed: sufficient security personnel; clear and visible signs directing litigants to needed services and waiting areas; safe waiting areas; and planning for court-house safety. Therefore, this is an interesting model which could perhaps be considered by those who are involved in such matters in this country.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I am fairly confident that that model has already been examined. Some of the ideas that people in this country have are based on considering that model and, indeed, models in other countries.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will appreciate that response. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Common assault to be an arrestable offence]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) In section 6(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) (trial of offences) at the end insert ", save that where the jury find him not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (assault occasioning bodily harm) or of the offence of racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm or common assault contrary to section 29(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (racially-aggravated assaults), the jury may find him guilty of the offence of common assault notwithstanding that it is a summary offence by virtue of section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 23) (evidence of persons under 14 in committal proceedings)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Grand Committee I introduced this amendment with a considerable amount of detail, which noble Lords will be pleased to hear I do not intend to repeat verbatim.

1213
That introduction appeared at col. GC 233 of the Official Report for 2 February. For once, it was genuinely a friendly Christmas-tree amendment. Its objective was to make a non-partisan offer to the Government to resolve a problem highlighted in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Rose. I made it clear that he was not the person who drafted the amendment; its defects are all mine, or, at least, those of a person close to me.
The briefest explanation that I give for the problem this evening is simply that there have been a number of cases where prosecutors and judges have overlooked the necessity of including a specific count of common assault if the jury was to be invited to consider that as an alternative verdict. As a result, convictions for common assault when no specific count was on the indictment have had to be quashed by the Court of Appeal and the defendant has gone scot-free.
In the detail that I entered into on the previous occasion, I recognised that that was not because of any inefficiency, incompetence or ill will by anyone; it is simply that one of those things can happen. I was just trying to resolve that mischief.
I also made it clear that I would certainly not consider pressing the amendment. The reason that I have brought it back is to invite the Government to say whether they have been able to consider my little presents between Grand Committee and Report. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support my noble friend on this amendment. One was always brought up to believe that common assault was not a very serious offence. However, it can be, and when it is committed within a household or a family, in my opinion, it is far more serious. Having searched for the law which should be made relevant to the circumstances of the Bill, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is necessary. I refer, in particular, to its last words, which read,
"the jury may find him guilty of the offence of common assault notwithstanding that it is a summary offence by virtue of section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act".
I believe we must all face up to the fact that assault within a family or household is more difficult to detect, it has a more serious effect and it should be dealt with in the way that this amendment seeks to do.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I read what the noble Baroness said in Grand Committee, and the Government's view is that this was a very useful ornament on a Christmas tree. I do not believe that it is right to describe it as a complete Christmas tree in itself, but it is certainly a useful gift on it.
The noble Baroness is right to say that there are some circumstances, although not all circumstances, in which the verdict she would like to see available in certain cases—namely, a verdict of common assault—will simply not be available to a jury because of the way in which the case has come to court. It is not necessary tonight for me to go into the circumstances of where that may happen.
1214
The Government are persuaded by what the noble Baroness said on the last occasion and has repeated tonight that in some cases there may well be advantage in leaving that kind of verdict available to the jury, provided, obviously, that the jury has been properly directed by the judge.
It follows from that that we are well disposed towards the amendment, which I hope the noble Baroness will be glad to hear. However, we are still considering possible amendments or improvements to it including, in particular—I give notice of this now in case anyone wishes to comment on it—the addition of a reference to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the 1861 Act. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who also spoke in the debate, are content, we shall return to this matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that indication and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 8 [Restraining orders]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (1) of that section after "an order under this section" insert—

"(a) if the prosecutor asks it to do so, or

(b) if the court thinks it is appropriate to do so"."

( ) After subsection (2) of that section insert—
"(2A) For the purpose of deciding whether to make an order under this section, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.
(2B) It is immaterial whether evidence led in pursuance of subsection (2A) would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted."
( ) After subsection (3) of that section insert—
"(3A) An order under this section takes effect on the day on which it is made, but the court may provide in any such order that such requirements of the order as it may specify shall, during any period when the offender is detained in legal custody, be suspended until his release from that custody.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 39. We now reach Clause 8 which extends the circumstances in which a restraining order can be made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 following criminal proceedings. I have tabled my amendments on this clause in four groups.
This particular group, which is strictly a group of probing amendments and would not be pressed, was tabled in response to a thought-provoking letter from Mr Neil Addison, who is a practising barrister and a former senior Crown prosecutor. He is an expert on protection from harassment orders and restraining orders. He strongly supports the proposals in the legislation but believes that they need tidying up if t hey are to work properly and avoid legal challenges and complicated procedures for police, CPS and the courts.
The issues raised in these amendments have been detailed in a letter which has also been sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and Mrs Harriet Harman, the Solicitor-General. I tabled the amendments in this group to give the Government the opportunity to give a considered response to the points he raised and to put such response on the record. I believe that his recommendations merit serious reflection and that the Government have given them serious reflection.
The main problem appears to be that the proposals as currently worded do not follow the wording for making anti-social behaviour orders on conviction as set out in Section 6 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. In that Act it was made explicit that the CPS has the power to ask for anti-social behaviour orders on conviction under Section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and has the power to put other evidence before a court in support of such an application whether or not evidence would have been admissible in a proceedings in which the defendant was convicted.
The amendments would therefore amend Section 5 of the 1997 Act so as to mirror the wording of Section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by Section 86 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and are designed to ensure consistency between the law and procedures relating to anti-social behaviour orders on conviction and restraining orders on conviction.
The drafting of the other amendment is based on Section 86(6) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 with amendments to take account of the provisions of Section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The question that has been posed is whether the Government agree that if this is not done, defence lawyers could legitimately be able to object to the CPS applying for restraining orders and would be able to point out that the CPS has not been given the power to make such applications while it has been given the power to apply for anti-social behaviour orders in conviction cases.
The concern is that the potential clearly exists for confusion and legal challenge. The argument is that these concerns could be avoided by incorporating into Section 5 the same wording as is used in Section 1C. The amendments I have tabled propose to do that.
It would then not matter whether the CPS was applying for an anti-social behaviour order on conviction or for a restraining order on conviction. The CPS's power to make the application and the courts' powers to hear evidence would be the same in both cases. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was hoping to put this point before my noble friend sat down. But now that she has sat down I have to make my only allowed speech on Report.
1216
My noble friend referred to Amendment No. 32 as a probing amendment. If I may say so with deep respect, I think that it is of greater value than that. With it are listed Amendments Nos. 34 and 39, each of which would have in my opinion considerable legal and practical value. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the desirability of considering those three amendments—Nos. 32, 34 and 39—because they are relevant and strengthen Clause 8 of the Bill.
I hope that I am not asking too much if I mention to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that it would be of great value if the Government could consider at Third Reading, if they are not prepared to do so this evening, the effect of those three amendments which really strengthen Clause 8.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 34. It is not the first amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred. Its purpose is to give any court sentencing or otherwise dealing with a defendant for breach of a restraining order the power to revoke the original order and replace it with a new order. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. It certainly is one that needs to be considered further. It will be and we will come back to the House on it.
I turn back to the principal point raised, which is Amendment No. 32. The decision under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to impose a restraining order on a person convicted of harassment or putting someone in fear of violence is taken by the court in parallel with the sentencing process.
The fact is that at the moment the prosecution often reminds the court that it can make an order, but does not apply for one. It is said that the procedure works well. Certainly the figures indicate that the courts make restraining orders in more than half the cases where a person is convicted under the 1997 Act.
As Clause 8 of the Bill is drafted, the same procedure would apply to courts sentencing someone convicted of any offence or when dealing with someone on acquittal for any offence. So the procedure would apply, and in the latter case both the prosecution and defence would be able to inform the court's decision by leading additional evidence admissible under the civil evidence rules.
The effect of Amendment No. 32 would be to alter the mechanism for making a restraining order on conviction so that it mirrors the procedures for antisocial behaviour orders following conviction. In those cases Section 86 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 enables the Crown Prosecution Service to ask the court to make an order and allows the prosecution and defence to lead additional evidence.
Those changes were made in the 2003 Act because experience showed that there was a need to clarify the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in proceedings and to ensure a more consistent procedure across the country. They were also necessary to avoid the

1217
problems that arose when some courts refused to hear applications for orders on conviction made by local authorities on the grounds that they had no standing before the courts. I was involved in the decision to make that change. Plainly, a number of issues and considerations flowed from it, including, as always, the question of what may be the implications for the resources of the Crown Prosecution Service.
It has been believed that those problems were specific to anti-social behaviour orders. As I said, the procedures for restraining orders on conviction work well and therefore I doubt that any change is necessary. Certainly it has been believed that making restraining orders available on conviction for any offence will not pose insurmountable problems. Courts are already familiar with the concept of harassment; they made more than 1,500 restraining orders in 2002 and are unlikely to experience significant difficulty appreciating which cases might call for an order. As I made clear at the outset, the CPS is always able to remind the court of its power to make a restraining order.
The Government's view has been that it is not necessary to make that change. However, having regard to the way in which the noble Baroness has pressed the case and the additional observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it would be churlish of me to say that there is no scope for looking again at the issue. In saying that, I do not want to hold out any promise at all, other than that, as the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, I want to look carefully at what has been said. The noble Baroness has already said that she does not intend to press the amendment today. Therefore, I anticipate that she will be content with what I have said.
Amendment No. 39 is consequential; it is necessary to make Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 work. Giving the Crown Prosecution Service a power to apply for a restraining order would require an amendment to the Prosecution of Offences Act to make applying for such orders a formal part of its remit. The amendment would stand or fall with Amendments Nos. 32 and 35. Therefore, there is no need to deal with it separately. It would also give the CPS a formal role in applying for sexual offences prevention orders under the 2003 Act. Again, however, a corresponding amendment to the 2003 Act would be needed to allow the CPS to apply for such an order. That idea was discussed as part of the work on the then Sexual Offences Bill, but, because there was no evidence of any problems with how it works, and as it was felt that the same effect would be achieved by strengthening guidance to prosecutors, such a provision was deemed unnecessary. As the amendment will not be pressed, I need not say anything further.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the constructive manner in which he has responded to the amendments. His offer to look again at Amendment No. 34, on the issue of revoking and replacing an order, poses a hopeful way forward. I am grateful for his offer
1218
to look again also at Amendment No. 32, although I recognise that perhaps that will be at a lower level and he may not be able to come back on it.
It has been made clear to me that the reason that restraining orders have worked without controversy so far, while the anti-social behaviour orders on conviction encounter some technical difficulties, is that, until now, restraining orders have been made on conviction for only two very precise offences. The proposal to open them up to a much broader range is the reason that the concern was raised with me about the matters that form the basis for the amendments. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and look forward to seeing how Amendment No. 34 might blossom in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 36, after "heard" insert "on the making of an order under this Act"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I speak to Amendment No. 36, and my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood will speak to Amendment No. 38B.
My amendments deal with the power for a person to be heard on the making of an order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Clause 8(2) provides that a person may be heard on the variation, termination, or discharge of an order, but not on the actual making of the order. That seems to be something of an anomaly. It may well be that the victim is in court at the time when the court is seeking to exercise its power under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister suggested that prosecuting counsel may have a role in discussing the situation with the victim and in presenting her views to the court. That is not satisfactory. If that person has a right to be heard at later stages involving the order, surely they must have a right to be heard when the order is made in the first place.
The amendment relating to subsection (3) is to insert the words,
"arising out of domestic violence".
One of the problems with this Bill is that the Government have consistently refused to define domestic violence in any satisfactory way. We have tried in a number of ways, and my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood will again seek to put in a variation of what she had previously advanced in Committee. Domestic violence is what this Bill is about. It is curious to have it called Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, without anyone having a clear idea how far domestic violence extends; who may be parties to domestic violence; who may not be; what type of conduct is regarded as domestic violence and whether it covers psychological harm. All sorts of things come into the proposition.
As subsection (3) is drafted, the court may make an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order—absolutely anything—providing they are acquitted of an offence. That could be anything—it could be a driving offence. It does not need to have any connection with the purposes of this Bill at all. That is far too wide. The proper way of proceeding under this Bill is to confine it within the limits of the Bill itself, which is essentially to protect victims of domestic violence. For that reason, we propose this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment no. 38B. The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First, it amends the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended by this Bill, and makes special provision for the handling of restraining orders in cases where the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of an offence arising out of domestic violence. Secondly, it provides a definition of domestic violence. We are greatly indebted to the Solicitors' Family Law Association, among many others, for its assistance in drafting this amendment. As the noble Lord will know, there is a strong demand outside this House for a definition of domestic violence to be included in this Bill.
Clause 8(3) amends the 1997 Act to ensure that courts may make restraining orders to prevent a defendant from further harassing the victim, not only when the defendant has been convicted, but also when he or she has been acquitted. Our amendment makes further provision for dealing with restraining orders imposed on convicted or acquitted defendants when the offence in question arises out of domestic violence. It proposes that in such cases the order should be temporary; that the further proceedings should be adjourned to the family proceedings court or county court; and that the person or persons for whose benefit the restraining order has been made may then be heard at the adjourned hearing, have the benefit of specialist legal assistance and present any evidence which would be admissible in proceedings under Section 3 of the 1997 Act. Section 3 deals with civil remedies for breach of Section 1 of the Act, which prohibits harassment.
The effect of the amendment is to ensure that the question of whether or not a restraining order should be made would be dealt with by a court properly trained and qualified to consider the implications of any such order on all aspects of family proceedings, and to include any issues over contact with children, any housing issues, and so forth. That is why the hearing should take place either in the family proceedings court before a properly constituted family Bench or in the county court before a district judge trained and qualified to deal with family issues. Of course, the criminal court would still be able to make a temporary order of a short duration until such time as the matter could be fully considered by a family court.
1220
Turning briefly to the definition of domestic violence in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the amendment, I shall not rehearse the whole argument in favour of such an amendment in the way that I did in Grand Committee. First, I hope that noble Lords agree that the way in which these subsections are written clearly does not describe a crime as such, but rather the particular nature of certain behaviour, which indicates that domestic violence is, as it were, the setting for the crime that has been committed.
Secondly, the phrase at the beginning of subsection (4), which states:
"Domestic violence may include, but is not restricted to",
is directed at the anxieties expressed by the Minister and others that any definition will be too restrictive.
Thirdly, the characteristics of domestic violence are more comprehensive than in the previous definition presented in Grand Committee. In particular. subsection (4)(e) of the amendment refers to,
"unwarranted restriction of or interference with access to money",
and so forth. That responds to concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in Grand Committee. The aspects of domestic violence described in subsection (4)(d), (e) and (f) of the amendment, taken together, go a long way towards expressing the power play that is so characteristic of a domestic abuser's treatment of his victim.
Finally, the particular aspects of domestic violence listed in subsection (4)(e) and (1) of the amendment are exercised by a person towards the cohabitant, relevant child or associated person such as defined in Section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996—possibly, that should now include the words,
"as amended by this Act"—
and may be single or repeated acts. Subsections (5) and (6) repeat our earlier item on the position of defendant and victim where a child has been called or enabled to witness the abuse of the victim. I hope that this amendment will prove more acceptable to the Minister than our previous effort.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, to return to this debate, which, primarily for me, is about the definition of domestic violence. First, I must refer to Amendment No. 33 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It goes down an avenue where I cannot follow him because it would confine the operation of Clause 5 to a relatively narrow band of offences. That is primarily because I am unsure how, ultimately, it would be workable, but also because I am not following the same line of approach in Clause 1 either. On that basis, I am trying to be as consistent as I can.

1221
With regard to Amendment No. 38B, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for taking on board some of the questions that I posed in Grand Committee and for taking such care in the way in which she has developed her amendment. I, too, would like to thank the Solicitors' Family Law Association for its careful and helpful briefing. I hope that she will forgive me for saying that I am so pleased to see that she has addressed my point about financial abuse in her amendment. At the same time, however, I have more questions to ask, although I do not want to be difficult.
I refer first to the fact that the case is to be transferred to the family court of the County Court. If that is the case, who will be the parties to the proceedings to ensure that they actually take place? The CPS would be out of the picture by then because the case would no longer be in the criminal court. The CPS would instigate the proceedings in the criminal court, so how would this work? Would an order be made for the alleged victim to bring the proceedings, or would it be another witness in the case? I am not sure how that would be dealt with.
What would be the position regarding funding for legal representation? I think that the answer to that question would be a resounding "yes" from the noble Baroness because we may well be in complete agreement on this matter. However, does she agree that it is important for both the victim and the alleged defendant to have access to properly funded legal advice?
So far as concerns legal advice, I note that subsection (3) states that the,
"person … for whose benefit the temporary order has been made shall be entitled to be … represented by a family lawyer at the adjourned hearing".
Here I am trying to think of the proper lordly language to use. I am interested to know how that would be defined because I am not clear that, in the professional sense, there is such a thing as a "family lawyer". Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain that further. I wonder how such lawyers would be defined as a class.
I note also that subsection (6) would absolve the alleged victim from all blame with regard to abuse that has been caused to a child. I understand the reasons why the noble Baroness has put this forward. The very fact that I looked at these issues in Clause 4 when I pressed an earlier amendment tonight—I wanted to address the problem of those who are themselves the subject of domestic abuse and how they should be treated within the context of that clause—is relevant. I said earlier that one cannot be absolved entirely from blame because one has suffered from domestic abuse. However, it is something to be taken into account when judging whether one has taken a reasonable course of action. Here the noble Baroness has gone one stage further in seeking completely to absolve them. That is where I find it difficult to follow her.
1222
This amendment makes an admirable attempt to take our debate on the definitions of domestic violence further and I hope that the Government will be able to take up the challenge posed by the noble Baroness on how we shall deal with it.
I think that it is right too that the definition proposed by the noble Baroness should refer to children. The Home Office definition excludes children, which I find intriguing. There may be a good reason for that, but it would be interesting to find out what it is. On the other hand, I notice that the Crown Prosecution Service does include children in its amendment. We have had the benefit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for the past hour or so. He has disappeared just as he was about to get a plaudit. I shall not add any subtext to that which could be misconstrued. The plaudit is that the website of the Crown Prosecution Service is remarkably good and clear. So many government websites appear to want everything with bells on, so much so that they collapse and you cannot get to the information. The search engines are dreadful. The Crown Prosecution Service website keeps it simple and is most effective.
Also effective is the CPS definition. It states that the definition it adopts when applying its policy on dealing with cases of domestic violence is:
"Any criminal offence arising out of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse by one person against a current or former partner in a close relationship, or against a current or former family member".
That is an admirable starting point, but it seems odd that the Home Office and the CPS should apply different definitions. I wonder whether the Government propose to resolve that difference.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I always have great respect for amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I warmly support Amendments Nos. 33 and 36. But I am a bit mystified by the need for Amendment No. 38B, which goes very far.
Subsection (4)(b) states that:
"Domestic violence may include, but is not restricted to—

(b) intimidation, harassment or stalking".

I have never known human beings go in for stalking each other—they go in for stalking animals; that is a well known activity—but it may be that my ignorance has misled me.
Quite frankly, in my opinion, some of the restraining activities mentioned in Amendment No. 38B go a little far. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, although she may wish to modify the amendment and bring it back at Third Reading, will not press it today.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am disappointed but I do not think that I would be in order if I responded to the comments that have been made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, that being the case, I shall not respond to them.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards the definition, the noble Baroness will know that our position is that it is not something that we would seek to put into the Bill. I have made it clear on other occasions that the Domestic Violence Ministerial Working Group is considering a working definition for all practitioners and others who participate in this field. We are looking for a comprehensive definition which will be acceptable to all. I cannot comment on all the differences but I should inform the noble Baroness that others operate on definitions different from the Home Office and the CPS. It is important that we get a clear definition so that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
As I said when we discussed this topic in Committee, the Government's intention when drafting subsection (2) of Clause 8 was to deal with one of the issues raised in responses to the Safety and Justice consultation paper and the need for victims to be kept informed when an application is made to vary or terminate a restraining order that is protecting them. At present, the first the victim may know of the order's variation or termination is when the respondent turns up on the doorstep. The intention of Amendment No. 33, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord McNally, is to extend the right to be heard when the court first makes a restraining order.
I can understand why the noble Lords suggest that that would be appropriate but the effect would be to overturn the existing procedures under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, where the court makes its decision in parallel with the sentencing process on the basis of the evidence it has already heard. Not only is the defendant present and legally represented, but the person protected by the order will almost invariably be in court for the proceedings. CPS lawyers see it as their duty as officers of the court to make known the victim's views on a restraining order, and the responses to Safety and Justice revealed no dissatisfaction with these arrangements.
Similar considerations apply in the case of our proposals for restraining orders on acquittal, where both the prosecution and the defence will be able to lead additional evidence, an issue to which we referred earlier in our deliberations. Under those circumstances the Government do not believe that a separate statutory right to be heard is necessary. In addition, it is possible that giving defendants as well as victims a right to be heard on the making of an order will lead to adjournments that may well delay the protection that orders provide.
1224
Finally, the text of the amendment still appears to be missing the "and" that would be necessary to make sense of the revised Section 4A that the amendment proposes.
I turn now to Amendment No. 36. When we last discussed this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, expressed surprise that the proposals for restraining orders on acquittal extend to defendants acquitted of any offence. The Government have always been clear that this is the case. I believe that I said as much at Second Reading. I reassure your Lordships that the Government share the noble Lord's determination to ensure that restraining orders are made only to maximise protection for victims, while in no way undermining the status of acquittal. I would be very alarmed indeed if they were doing any such thing.
It is precisely for that reason that the clause is drafted so that a court can impose restraining orders on acquittal only,
"if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant".
We believe that this first safeguard fulfils the noble Lord's intention of restricting the availability of restraining orders to a specific category of cases, many of which will be domestic violence cases. I understand the noble Lord's resistance to anything that would depart from that.
So when in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that the clause would allow a court to impose a restraining order on someone acquitted of a road traffic offence, he was correct up to a point, but only in cases where the court had heard evidence that pointed to a need to protect a person from harassment. Regrettably, the noble Lord probably knows better than anyone that there are road traffic incidents which end up as road rage incidents. The parties get very exercised with each other, very aggressive, and it may be appropriate, in a given case, for some protective order to be made.
In their response to Safety and Justice, many domestic violence organisations stressed that many offences, including, for example, criminal damage, can be part of a campaign of harassment. Limiting the availability of restraining orders on acquittal in the way suggested by the amendment would create a lottery of protection and might even encourage certain types of harassment on the grounds that an acquittal could not result in a restraining order. It would also deny protection to other categories of victims, such as victims of stalking but not domestic violence. We mentioned this evening the difficulty presented by stalking. The Government do not believe that such victims are any less deserving of protection.
The amendment raises two further difficulties. First, although it would limit the availability of restraining orders on acquittal to cases,
"arising out of domestic violence",
it fails to define such cases. I note that Amendment No. 38B includes a definition of domestic violence, and I shall deal with that in the context of that amendment specifically, although I think I have already alluded to what my answer is.

1225
The second difficulty stems from trying to tie restraining orders to the offence of which the defendant has been acquitted—in other words, to the offence that the defendant has been found not to have committed. The Government's proposals are designed to avoid this; they allow the court to draw on the evidence of the defendant's conduct that emerges during the trial. To relate the restraining order to the specific offence of which the defendant had been cleared, as Amendment No. 36 does, would undermine the status of the acquittal.
Amendment No. 38B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, is similar to several we discussed in Committee which sought to make restraining orders on acquittal temporary in nature and then remit them to the family court for further consideration. The present amendment goes further in that it covers both restraining orders on conviction or acquittal for an offence arising out of domestic violence. It would make such orders temporary and remit them to the family proceedings court or the county court. If I may respectfully say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked some very telling questions in relation to how that would work.
The person for whose benefit the temporary order was made would then be entitled to be heard and represented by a family lawyer and lead any evidence that would be advisable under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides a civil route for protection against harassment. Of course, there are family lawyers who are members of the Solicitors Family Law Association or the Family Law Bar Association, but given the generic term "family law", it would be rather unfair to restrict access. Others who had become specialist in areas of crime would feel slighted or excluded, and I know that that is not the noble Baroness's intent.
The objections that I set out in Committee remain and are, if anything, stronger now that the amendment includes restraining orders on conviction. My principal objections are that restraining orders made on conviction have always covered a wide range of cases, some involving domestic violence, others not. The orders are made in parallel with the sentencing process following a criminal conviction, and are designed to provide protection from harassment, rather than deal with a range of family law matters. The courts have found no difficulty in operating this scheme. Indeed, the stalking cases came specifically out of stranger harassment, which was not capable of being identified in any other way. I cannot see what extra protection is offered to victims or defendants by treating domestic violence cases differently, as the amendment proposes, and remitting those cases to a family court when the question of protection from harassment has already been dealt with by the criminal court.
Similarly, I cannot see the justification for remitting restraining orders made on acquittal in domestic violence cases to the family court. The restraining order will have been made following evidence heard in the criminal case which leads the court to conclude that it is necessary to make an order to protect the victim from harassment, even though the criminal case
1226
ends in an acquittal. That is a matter that the criminal court can properly consider and decide. It does not raise issues that are the unique preserve of the family courts, although many cases may fall within that ambit. Rather, it raises issues of protection from harassment, with which the criminal courts have been dealing successfully since the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Amendment No. 38B also includes a definition of domestic violence as a way of filtering out those cases that should be remitted to the family court. We have had several debates on the question of a definition of domestic violence, and the amendment demonstrates many of the problems of a definition. It is relatively easy to find a way of defining the relationship between the parties—by reference to the associated person criteria in the Family Law Act 1996, for example, as the amendment proposes. Much more difficult is defining the violence element. The definition leaves the court to determine when an offence has arisen out of domestic violence and offers no guidance on which offences are included.
Furthermore, there are some elements where it is difficult to see what kind of offence could arise from the circumstances listed—for example, unwarranted interference with personal items or restriction of access to potential sources of support. Overall, the amendments would damage the way in which the 1997 Act currently works, offer no real additional protection for victims of defendants alike, and leave the courts with an unworkable definition of domestic violence. The whole import of what we are trying to do is to allow continuity and protection—protection for future action when the court will have the opportunity hear all the evidence and take the necessary steps. From the information that we have and from the letters that have been written, it is clear that there are cases in our courts today that would benefit from these provisions. I understand why the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are concerned about this matter, but I hope that I have been able to go some way towards reassuring them that their anxiety is not perhaps entirely well founded.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am happy with the very full explanation that the Minister gave in relation to Amendment No. 33. However, on Amendment No. 36, we are left with a power for the court to prohibit,
"the defendant from doing anything".
The defendant has been acquitted, so by definition he is not guilty of that with which he was charged and we can regard him as an innocent person. The court may prohibit him from doing anything in order to protect any person—not a witness or a complainant, but any person—and the offence of which he has been acquitted may relate to anything. It is the widest power imaginable. At the moment, all we are doing is trying to find some way in which this wide power can be put within reasonable bounds. The only qualification, the only way in which it is limited, is that the court must consider it necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. It may not be on evidence that has been produced in that case because

1227
there may be evidence at a later stage. It may be for any reason. I shall continue to look at this subsection to see if there is some acceptable way in which we can limit it to a degree.
As for the explanation relating to domestic violence, my noble friend's amendment, I am interested that the Home Office is working on a definition of domestic violence. Is it not possible to use that as a definition, without giving it statutory force? Is it not possible simply to say that in the Bill domestic violence means what the Home Office at some stage says it means, whether by judicial decision or whatever? Can we not use domestic violence in the Bill as shorthand for something that can be flushed out by the Home Office when it has come to its conclusions?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I should explain that we have had the benefit—a real benefit—of having an inter-ministerial group on domestic violence. Many departments that are affected, or that participate in this matter, are able to contribute, for instance, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Crown Prosecution Service, represented by the Solicitor General. Virtually every department is represented on the working group that is trying to craft a working definition. It will not be the Home Office definition or any department's definition. It will be one working definition that we can share with all the practitioners in the field who are trying to work in partnership. It brings home how difficult it is to nail down a definition, to put it in stone, because it changes as our understanding of domestic violence changes.
I thought it important for the House to know that we understand the necessity for clarity because we are asking practitioners across departments to work together from the same "hymn sheet", so that they understand what they are collectively trying to do. I understand the noble Lord's invitation to share once we have settled on something but, having listened to the debate, I am strongly of the view that it is not appropriate to have even an agreed definition in the Bill because it may very soon become obsolete or need amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am very grateful for that even fuller explanation. It ought to be possible to use a definition like that as shorthand at some stage. Perhaps that is for the future. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 4, leave out "considers it" and insert "is satisfied on the basis of facts proved on a balance of probabilities that it is"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I should explain that for the same reason as I did not move Amendment No. 35, I shall
1228
withdraw Amendment No. 38 before the next sitting and I shall not bring Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 back at Third Reading. All of these were primarily based on a particular approach to drafting in relation to other legalisation. I am content to follow the indications given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that the Government will consider these matters. I accept that there was no undertaking but that it is a possibility that amendments will be introduced, if not in this House at Third Reading, then perhaps in another place. Therefore, before the next sitting, Amendment No. 38 will be withdrawn.
But Amendment No. 37 has a different provenance. It is something to which I referred in Grand Committee. We are still with Clause 8. There has certainly been opposition to the clause's proposals for the power to have a restraining order even where there has been an acquittal, on the basis that it is wrong to impose sanctions on a person who has been cleared of criminal charges. I carefully considered all the representations we received, and I determined that we would be prepared to accept the measures in subsection (3), but with some amendment. I made it clear in Grand Committee that I thought that one such necessary amendment was to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the civil standard of proof is required to be met before a restraining order could be imposed on an acquitted person in the very wide circumstances of this new power, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, explained in speaking to the previous group of amendments.
When I moved this amendment in Grand Committee the Minister said, at col. 250 of the Official Report, that it is unusual in legislation to define the standard of proof that the court should adopt in making its decision. I have considered further, and I think that it is necessary to make it clear in this case where we are introducing a very broad measure that has courted some controversy.
I was even more convinced of that after the noble Baroness's response in Grand Committee, because she said that there are cases where the court will have to apply a higher version of the civil standard in deciding whether past conduct is proved, depending on the nature and severity of the conduct alleged. The reason why it worried me is that it means that the Government's drafting does not give certainty of application of this new measure. It will be left to the court to decide which standard of the civil proof should be decided from case to case. I had hoped to make clearer on the face of the Bill that the ordinary civil standard should be applied. That is the reason behind my amendment. It would at least introduce the requirement that facts be proved. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment; I think it is a rather important one. The "balance of probabilities" is not a phrase normally used in criminal law. Here, however, we are dealing with restraining orders on acquittal, and therefore a different concept and burden of proof is necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will regard the amendment with sympathy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that I should make it clear that what I was describing in Committee is the ordinary civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The amount of evidence that one has to produce to satisfy that balance of probabilities will differ in accordance with the gravity of the assertion that one wishes to establish. So it is the ordinary standard—not a new standard, but the ordinary civil standard.
I will not weary your Lordships by repeating verbatim my remarks on that occasion, but it might be useful if I repeated the main points. Before I do so, I should like to pick up on a point made in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he had misunderstood the scope of the clause. I hope that we have always been clear about the scope of Clause 8.
The Explanatory Notes say that a restraining order may be made on conviction or acquittal for any offence, where the court considers it necessary to do so to protect the victim from harassment. Although this is a Bill dealing with domestic violence, it covers other issues. Clause 8 sits in Part 2, which deals with criminal procedure, not Part 1, which deals with domestic violence. Restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are civil orders, using the civil standard of proof. The criminal courts are used to making such orders and using the relevant standard of proof. There is, therefore, no need to spell this out on the face of the Bill.
Also, by specifying the standard of proof, the courts would not have the flexibility they need. There are cases where, as I say, even though the court is making a civil order, it might need to apply a higher version of the civil standard in deciding whether past conduct is proved, depending on the nature and severity of the conduct alleged. I am sorry if I in any way disconcerted the noble Baroness or she came away with the view that I was saying that I was departing in any way from that civil standard. The amendment would make the flexibility that is inherent in the civil standard more difficult to achieve. I do not believe that the amendment would clarify the clause.
I hope that I have been able to explain why the noble Baroness need not be anxious about the matter. I hope that for the reasons I have set out she understands why I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I assure the noble Baroness that she does not disconcert me. In Grand Committee I understood her remarks in a different way from how she intended. However, I certainly understand the explanation that she gave today. As regards the amendment being unnecessary, the noble Baroness will be aware that I accepted the full ramifications of Clause 8 with some discomfort. I made it clear that I thought there ought to be at least some rather modest clarity on the face of the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for making clear at the briefing meeting before Grand Committee that there would be a requirement for a civil standard of proof in this matter for someone who has been acquitted of a criminal offence. However, in this instance I consider
1230
that it is important as a matter of principle to make it clear that clarity is needed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
9.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 36.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Montrose, D.

Astor of Hever, L.

Northbrook, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller]

Norton of Louth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Redesdale, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Roper, L.

Fookes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Laird, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, I.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackieof Benshie, L.

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Andrews, B.

Gould of Potternewton. B.

Borrie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Brennan, L.

Grantchester, L.

Brookman, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Layard, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mersey Tunnels Bill
Bill reported from the Select Committee without amendment and a special report made; the Chairman of Committees directed pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 121(1)(b) that the Bill be not recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; it was ordered that the special report be printed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Hutton Inquiry
  House of Lords: Elected Hereditary Peers
  House of Lords: Elected Hereditary Peers
  Law Officers: Disclosure of Advice to Government
  Law Officers: Disclosure of Advice to Government
  Business Responsibility
  Business Responsibility
  Afghanistan: Legal System
  Afghanistan: Legal System
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  United Nations Offices: Surveillance
  United Nations Offices: Surveillance
  Serbia and Montenegro
  Serbia and Montenegro
  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Dependent Territories: Human Rights
  Dependent Territories: Human Rights
  Chechnya: Political Asylum
  Chechnya: Political Asylum
  Critical National Infrastructure: Threat of Cyber-terrorism
  Critical National Infrastructure: Threat of Cyber-terrorism
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  Ministry of Defence: Right to Roam
  Ministry of Defence: Right to Roam
  Ice Patrol Ship "Endurance"
  Ice Patrol Ship "Endurance"
  Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
  Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
  Audit Commission: Strategic Regulation
  Audit Commission: Strategic Regulation
  Overseas Dentists
  Overseas Dentists
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 2000: Section 2
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 2000: Section 2
  Mixed-Sex Wards
  Mixed-Sex Wards
  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Physical Education Teachers
  Physical Education Teachers
  Freedom of Information
  Freedom of Information
  Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill: Clause 11
  Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill: Clause 11
  Election Broadcasts
  Election Broadcasts
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Micro Combined Heat and Power Systems: VAT
  Micro Combined Heat and Power Systems: VAT
  Tax Credits: Citizens of EU Accession States
  Tax Credits: Citizens of EU Accession States
  Public Sector Efficiency Review
  Public Sector Efficiency Review
  Hyde Park
  Hyde Park
  UK Sport
  UK Sport
  UK Sport: Lottery Funding
  UK Sport: Lottery Funding
  BBC Governors: Appointment of Chairman
  BBC Governors: Appointment of Chairman
  Equality Legislation
  Equality Legislation
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Fallen Stock Scheme
  Fallen Stock Scheme
  Rural Delivery Review
  Rural Delivery Review
  Port Developments
  Port Developments
  Irish Territorial Waters: Navigation Aids Funding
  Irish Territorial Waters: Navigation Aids Funding
  Crossrail
  Crossrail
  Railways: Etruria Station Closure
  Railways: Etruria Station Closure
  A27
  A27

  Afghanistan: International Counter-narcotics Conference
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The Afghan Government, United Kingdom (UK) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) co-hosted an international counter-narcotics conference on Afghanistan in Kabul on 8–9 February to support implementation of the Afghan national drug control strategy. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell) was, in the event, unable to attend, due to planes being unable to land in Kabul because of adverse weather conditions. He was represented by Her Majesty's Ambassador, Rosalind Marsden. Over 300 Afghan and international delegates attended, including 18 Afghan governors and 32 police chiefs as well as officials from all the key Afghan Ministries, representatives from 18 countries, the European Commission, World Bank and Asia Development Bank. President Karzai opened the conference, which was also addressed by Afghan Ministers.

  The Government welcome the success of this event, which was the first time that Afghans had gathered at such a high level and in such large numbers to discuss implementation of the Afghan national drug control strategy. The plenary meeting and working group sessions were all chaired by Afghans. Active participation from Afghans from the floor demonstrated increased commitment to the counter narcotics agenda from all parts of the Afghan Government.

  The Government fully share the view of those members of the Afghan Government who spoke out forcefully against drugs and agree with President Karzai, who stressed that the drugs trade was damaging Afghanistan's efforts to develop into a secure, stable democracy with a prosperous economy; that it was in the interests of all Afghans to fight against drugs; that Afghanistan needed the help of the international community to win the battle but the Afghan Government were committed to tackling the drugs problem with their own resources also. International speakers also delivered the message that urgent action was required, including tackling corruption.

  Conference participants discussed draft action plans in five areas: law enforcement, judicial reform, alternative livelihoods, public awareness and demand reduction. These action plans have been finalised and form part of a final report of the conference to be published by the UNODC and circulated in Afghanistan and beyond. They include work to:

  increase interdiction activity, for example by increasing the numbers and effectiveness of the

  WS 68

  counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan and mobile detection teams

  tackle corruption and involvement of officials and commanders in the drugs trade

  increase resources for programmes with maximum alternative livelihoods impact and support the design and implementation of programmes to fill existing gaps, for example in pro-poor agricultural livelihoods, rural finance, off farm activities and micro/small enterprise development.

  The UK remains fully committed to supporting the Afghan Government in implementation of their national drug control strategy, which will in part be secured through delivery of the agreed action plans in key areas. We have committed £70 million over three years for this purpose and will also encourage the participation of other international partners to take on specific activity.

  Growth Areas Fund
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  Creating sustainable communities: Making it Happen: Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas published in July 2003 announced outline plans for a £164 million package for the three newer growth areas of Ashford, Milton Keynes/ South Midlands, and London/Stansted/Cambridge/Peterborough. Commitments were made then to fund individual schemes to a total value of £88 million, and a further £63 million was announced on 14 January this year.

  My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is announcing today a further £22 million of funding, which will support sustainable growth in the London/Stansted/Cambridge/Peterborough growth area. We are providing these resources to help site assembly and remediation of brownfield land, additional affordable housing and essential infrastructure in the growth area. The inclusion of Peterborough in the area takes into account its history of successful growth and its potential for contributing to the growth area as a whole.

  A full list of the further projects that we are supporting will be made available in the House Libraries. They include over £10 million for redevelopment and to enable the more rapid delivery of at least 2,000 new homes in Peterborough. It also includes almost £500,000 to open up the River Roding in Ilford as a green space and improve the local ecological environment, and £1.8 million to kick start a major development at Tottenham Hale, including remodelling the major transport interchange. Other projects will include over £1.2 million for unlocking and improving access to development sites in Walthamstow to provide potential for 500 new homes and jobs.