Sitting of 11 March 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State as asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Single Farm Payments
    Mr A.J. Beith: What assessment her Department has made of the likely impact of her proposals for single farm payments on (a)tenant farmers and (b) livestock farmers in Northumberland. [160276]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department will publish shortly an analysis of the economic impact on the English farming industry of the decoupling of common agricultural policy direct payments and the decision to allocate entitlement on the basis set out in my statement to the House on 12 February.
    Mr. Beith: Did the Secretary of State have that analysis before her when she made the original decisions about payments? Did it take account of the position of hard-pressed tenant farmers, for whom quota is the only capital asset for retirement, or the position of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas—SDAs—where the choice of the SDA line rather than the moorland line means that livestock farmers will be hard hit while the main benefit goes to grouse moor owners, and while their neighbours and competitors in Scotland do not face a similar loss of income?
    Margaret Beckett: Of course extensive economic analysis was available to us, but we continue to develop that as time goes on. We are aware of the concerns about the SDA-moorland split and we are carefully considering the different representations that we have received. I cannot honestly say whether we can make any change, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take the concerns that are being expressed very seriously.
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the Tenant Farmers Association? The issues raised in the question are linked to tenancy reform, and there is an ideal
    1638
    opportunity to give some guidance and leadership to tenants who are considering their future. There is no better way of doing that than by talking to members of the TFA.
    Margaret Beckett: We are always happy to talk to the TFA. Indeed, I understand and share my hon. Friend's anxieties, especially about the position of tenant farmers. We shall continue to discuss with them what problems arise in particular and what we can do to assist.
    Mr. Michael Jack: When the noble Lord Whitty gave evidence to the Select Committee's inquiry on milk pricing, it became evident that no formal research had been carried out on the impact of the proposals for single farm payments on the SDAs. Will milk producers be included in the work that the Secretary of State is undertaking? A report on "Farming Today", which contrasted two 200-acre farms with 300-odd cows, suggested that the SDA farm would receive £23,000 less in income than a similar farm further down the hill. Will she assure me that she will consider the matter?
    Margaret Beckett: As I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), we are continuing to develop the analysis further and we are considering all those issues. We shall do what we can to assess them carefully and take them into account. Of course, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will be mindful, as I am, of the potential for major changes for individuals through the different system. That is one of the main reasons for phasing it in over some eight years.
    Andrew George: On the impact of Government decisions on livestock farmers in Northumberland, will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Jim Dring, a Government vet, would, on his admission, have prevented the devastating foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 had his inspection of Burnside farm in Northumberland been more rigorous? Does she accept that that vital evidence was withheld from Dr. Anderson's inquiry into the lessons learned from the outbreak? Does she agree that that narrow but crucial matter should be properly investigated—it is the only reasonable thing to do—through an independent inquiry?
    Margaret Beckett: No, I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. Nor, indeed, is it the case that the issues that lay behind the memorandum—the note that Mr. Dring made for himself was withheld from the Anderson inquiry—were withheld from the inquiry.
    I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's allegations and it would be wholly wrong, and very unfair to Mr. Dring, to suggest that in some way—and this is the implication—he was responsible. It was the person who employed certain standards that helped to foster such an outbreak who was responsible. Mr. Dring has done no more than any one of us might do in musing about the matter, examining his conscience and asking, "Oh dear—is there more that I could have done?" It is what any reasonable human being should do. The idea that he should be held guilty for doing that is very unfair.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State saying that, when making decisions on single farm payments, she was unaware that that would lead to up to 5,000 farms in SDAs, such as those in Northumberland, experiencing cuts in support payments of up to 75 per cent.? Does she accept that the loss of those farms will be a disaster not only for the farmers but for the environment? Although I welcome her willingness to examine the matter, does she accept that changes have to be made to the system to avert a potential catastrophe?
    Margaret Beckett: No, I am not saying that I was unaware that there would be an impact. There will inevitably be winners and losers when there is such a change. However, overall we think that about 13 per cent. of present entitlement will be redistributed over eight years. With any change, there are shifts and some individual businesses are particularly affected—however, every business should be able to benefit from the economic opportunities of decoupling. I repeat what I have said before, namely, that one of the chief reasons why we have agreed to phase in the changes over eight years is precisely to allow affected businesses to adapt.

    Rhodia Eco Services
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will visit Staveley in Derbyshire to meet local residents to discuss environmental concerns arising from the escape of chlorine at Rhodia Eco Services on 3 November 2003. [160279]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I was concerned to discover that the investigation into the escape of chlorine at Rhodia by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency has not yet been completed, although the incident occurred on 3 November and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) met inspectors on site on 7 November. I have today asked the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to complete their investigations urgently and to meet me next week.
    Mr. Barnes: It would be fruitful if I, as the local Member of Parliament, could be involved in next week's meeting, and I hope that that can be arranged. There were similar incidents in 1998 at SARP in Killamarsh in my constituency, where there were escapes of acid gas. At that time, the then Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), visited councillors and residents, which greatly helped to resolve the situation. Could the same thing happen at Staveley in connection with this COMAH—control of major accident hazards—incident? The town council is holding a public meeting about the matter on 2 April at 7 pm in the Speedwell rooms. That would be a useful occasion for a visit by a Minister, including a visit to the site.
    Alun Michael: I have read my hon. Friend's account of events at Rhodia in Hansard, and I understand his concern about the history of the event, although I cannot make a promise about specific dates. I am told
    1640
    that the investigation is complex and technical, which is why it is taking some time, but that it is being pursued as a matter of urgency. I should be very happy to invite him to attend the meeting to which I have referred.

    Public Health
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If she will make a statement on the work on public health conducted jointly by her Department and the Department of Health. [160280]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department works with the Department of Health on a range of key issues connected with public health, including fuel poverty, poor environment quality, animal health, services in rural areas, food and exercise. It will play its part in "Choosing Health", which is the consultation on action to improve people's health that was launched last week.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Can she tell us what assessment has been made of how to manage the surplus of fat that results from dairy processing to produce low-fat butter and milk, and what discussions have taken place with the Department of Health at ministerial and official level on that? Given the obesity epidemic that is sweeping our nation, would it not be sensible to bank the health dividend and ensure that that fat does not find its way back into the food chain?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As I have said, my Department is engaged in much work and discussion, including workshops and seminars, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's observations.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to promote public health would be for food companies that encourage unhealthy diets in children to stop doing that? Is she trying to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to support recommendations to address the imbalance in television advertising, so that healthier eating, rather than unhealthy eating, is promoted?
    Margaret Beckett: I know that those issues are being considered not only by other Departments but by the Food Standards Agency. People are looking at the concerns that have been expressed on those issues and trying to get the balance right.
    Mr. Russell Brown: There is growing concern that low-level ground vibration from wind farms has the potential to have an adverse effect on public health. Has my right hon. Friend asked the Department of Health or an independent body to examine low-level vibration from wind turbines and its possible effects, or does she intend to do so?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not, but I will.

    Agriculture (West Country)
    Mr. David Heath: If she will visit the Royal Bath and West show 2004 to discuss the state of agriculture in the west country. [160281]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): All members of the ministerial team attend numerous rural events, including agricultural shows. It is hoped that one member of DEFRA's ministerial team will be able to attend the Royal Bath and West show this year.
    Mr. Heath: I should hope so. There was a time when the Minister for Agriculture would always be at the Royal Bath and West, engaging in a big conversation—probably a loud conversation—with the many dairy farmers I represent, who are facing extremely difficult trading conditions because the farm-gate price of milk is 0not sufficiently high to sustain their businesses. It is clear from the recent report produced by the Office of Fair Trading that the OFT does not understand that point. Is there any evidence that DEFRA understands that farmers need a fair price for milk? Is the Minister prepared to do something about the retailers who are not giving it to them?
    Alun Michael: First, DEFRA is not the Ministry of Agriculture. It has a much wider range of responsibilities, and quite right too. Secondly, attendance at an agricultural show is not the only way to understand the problems of the dairy industry. My noble Friend Lord Whitty meets regularly with the forum that deals with dairy issues, and there is considerable engagement from the Department on those matters.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: When the Secretary of State stood before us and told us how the single farm payment would make Exmoor a winner, did she understand that there were problems involved, such as those raised in the earlier question? Why was Exmoor—which forms part of Somerset and Devon—put forward as a winner when it is actually going to be a loser under the current system as it evolves towards 2013?
    Alun Michael: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has properly understood the impact of the proposals on his area. As the Secretary of State said, we certainly understand the problems facing various sectors of the industry, and we are looking very carefully at them as we consider the responses to the announcement that she made a short time ago.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I strongly urge Ministers to go to the Royal Bath and West show, where they will find, as I have on my recent visits to the west country, that livestock farmers have grave doubts about the Government's commitment to the long-term stability of the livestock industry. Those views are obviously driven by the Government's handling of the tuberculosis issue. Their latest document suggests that they are proposing to spend £2 billion over
    1642
    the next 10 years on not curing TB, while a 20 per cent. increase in the disease will surely be incompatible with a viable cattle industry.
    Alun Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to urge us to attend all agricultural shows; that would keep the ministerial team extremely busy. We try to strike a balance. Attending agricultural shows is one of the ways in which we interface with the agricultural and rural community, but it is not the only one.
    The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any alternative proposals on TB. He does not seem to have thought about what he would put in place of the sensible and coherent proposals that have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Nirex
    Mr. Tom Watson: If she will make a statement on the future of Nirex. [160282]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The Government have stated their intent to make Nirex independent of industry and under greater Government control to allow effective contribution to the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. We are working to ensure that Nirex continues to discharge its functions for the benefit of the public as well as its shareholders. When we are ready and able to do so, we shall make an announcement.
    Mr. Watson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We all appreciate the hard work that she and her Department are doing on this issue. Does she agree that the reasons for Nirex's independence—transparency, public acceptability and a focus on the long term—are as valid today as they were when the announcement on this issue was made last year? Does she also agree that there are workable models for that independence on the table, which do not involve the inclusion of Nirex in the nuclear decommissioning agency, and that, with persistence from her Department, we might be able to achieve independence for Nirex sooner rather than later?
    Margaret Beckett: Certainly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the concerns that led us to suggest independence for Nirex remain valid. I share his view that they can continue to play a valuable role. We are examining all the options—which is why the process is taking a little longer than we might otherwise have wished—and I can assure him that we shall continue to seek the best option for the public good.
    Norman Baker: Given that the Secretary of State announced on 16 July last year that Nirex was to become independent, and notwithstanding the comments that she has just made, will she explain why so little has happened since then? Can she, in particular, confirm the story in The Observer of 29 February, which suggested that the reason for that was that the Department of Trade and Industry had, as usual, been lobbied by the nuclear industry and was

    1643
    resisting her sensible proposals? Will she give a guarantee that Nirex will indeed be made properly and fully independent? Will she give a time scale for that, and undertake that DEFRA will, for once, see off the DTI?
    Margaret Beckett: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our proposals as sensible—he is right—but I cannot give him a time scale at the moment. We are setting up a new nuclear decommissioning authority and a new committee on radioactive waste management. These are genuinely difficult and complex issues, but we continue to hold the view that it is important to handle them well and to get the right pattern for the long term. As for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, we have an extremely productive and cooperative relationship.

    Peak District National Park Authority
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If she will make a statement on the composition of the Peak District National Park Authority. [160283]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): As the hon. Gentleman will know from last week's Adjournment debate, I have concluded that a membership of 30 is an appropriate size for the Peak District National Park Authority. I now intend to consult on that proposal.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I thank the Minister for responding to the request that I and other Members representing the Peak park made by striking the right balance in terms of future membership of the authority. Is he aware, however, of the growing concern among Peak district farmers, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement on 12 February, about the future viability of long-term farming in the Peak district, which is essential to that area? Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has just said and her statement of 12 February, when can we expect the final announcements to be made, so that farmers can know whether they have a secure future?
    Alun Michael: Given that the hon. Gentleman moved on very rapidly from the national park authority to other issues, it is clear that I have satisfied him on that front. Detailed regulations and other work needs to be done before these matters can be finalised. As he will know from earlier exchanges, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully understands the challenges that certain parts of the farming industry face, and it is clear that some of those fall within national park authority areas.
    Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that in composing the national park board, outside users, particularly those in Sheffield and Manchester, are fairly represented on it, especially given that many of them use the park as walkers, rock-climbers and tourists?
    Alun Michael: I am happy to underline the fact that national parks are a national asset. It is obviously right that there should be local representation, and engagement with local representatives and local
    1644
    authorities that are directly affected. That is why the final figure for the Peak district was rather higher than that for other authorities. Of course, some of those representatives represent urban areas as well as park areas. We will shortly renew and refresh the remit for national parks, as recommended in the recent review, and in doing so we will underline the existing range of interests, including those of the users to whom my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister knows, part of my constituency lies within the Peak park. Following up the highly relevant question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), are livestock farmers being properly represented within the Peak park authority, and will the Minister take seriously the issues raised by my farmers in the Peak park in the light of the recent Government announcement? In their view—a view shared by their representatives and by me—farming in the severely disadvantaged marginal and hill areas will come to an end. That would be a disaster for farming and for our economy.
    Alun Michael: We have a template for considering, through the Secretary of State's appointees, representation on the national park authorities. That template takes into account farming and landowning interests, as well as those of users. In addition, all national park authorities provide representation—through parish councils, for example—for those with a direct farming interest. In every case, the interests of farmers within the landscape of the national parks are important. The Peak park involves a particularly complex set of relationships, and we do understand the connection between support for farmers and farming's impact on the landscape

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Hugh Bayley: If she will make a statement on the prospects for further reform of the common agricultural policy. [160284]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Following the historic reform of the common agricultural policy last June, the European Commission has proposed reforms of the cotton, olive oil, tobacco and hops regimes. We hope that Agriculture Ministers will agree them on 22 March or thereabouts. We are looking at options for reform on sugar, and hope to see proposals this summer.
    Hugh Bayley: As we reach the end of Fairtrade fortnight, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there is no chance of our achieving global justice in trade unless the rich world reduces the absolute level of its agriculture subsidies? She has made great progress in shifting emphasis to non-trade-distorting subsidies, but to secure a deal at the World Trade Organisation meeting the European Union will need to table further proposals for reducing the overall burden of subsidies.
    Margaret Beckett: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but dealing with trade-distorting subsidies is the key to

    1645
    achieving fair trade. There are separate issues. As my hon. Friend knows, we are addressing the issue of what support is given to the farming community, and on what basis, by pursuing reforms that have been agreed. I do not consider it helpful for those who want a successful outcome, and a trade deal that will benefit developing countries in particular, to continue to focus on what is happening to non-trade-distorting subsidies. Let us keep our eye on the ball and try to secure as good a deal as we can for developing countries. We can indulge in philosophical speculation on ideal worlds at a later stage.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Farmers will be sceptical about further reform of the common agricultural policy unless the Secretary of State and the Government get the current rerforms right. The Secretary of State's answer to valid questions about the impact of her payments for severely disadvantaged areas was very disappointing. My hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) have written to her asking whether they can bring a delegation of hill farmers to meet her. Will she now give a commitment to meet that delegation, and also a commitment to review the payments for severely disadvantaged areas, with a view to changing them to ensure that the 5,000 farms that are expecting to go out of business as a result of those payments will not do so?
    Margaret Beckett: I note that yet again Conservative spokespeople are calling for more funds to be invested—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: No, she is not.
    Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Lady is not asking for more funds, she must be asking for funds to be taken from someone else.
    When resources are redistributed—although in this instance the total is about 13 per cent. and it will happen over eight years—there is bound to be disappointment and concern, and people will want to make sure that the full impact on their own circumstances has been taken into account. As I have said, we are giving careful attention to the concerns that are being expressed. I cannot give the hon. Lady the undertaking that she seeks—I can only say that we will continue to keep these issues under review. We believe—and I think most people in agriculture believe—that the steps we are proposing are taking farming in the right direction. We are trying to employ a manageable time scale so that people can make decisions that are right for their own businesses.
    Mrs. May: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not willing to agree to meet that delegation of hill farmers and hear directly from them about the problems that her proposals will cause. Farmers need to have confidence in the system that the Government are introducing. The Rural Payments Agency has only about nine months in which to establish a radically different system. Given the Department's track record—the cattle passport scheme lost 100,000 cattle, and the fallen stock scheme has been
    1646
    delayed yet again—what confidence can farmers have they will receive their single farm payments at all, let alone receive the right amount, on time?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady referred to correspondence that I have yet to receive. When I receive it I will of course give it consideration, as the hon. Lady and the House would expect.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: It was sent on Monday.
    Margaret Beckett: In my experience, people frequently claim to have sent letters that have not actually been dispatched yet. I say to the hon. Lady that it would be quite wrong to give the impression—I am sure that she is not under such an illusion—that hill farmers as a group are all bound to lose. That is not the case. Indeed, some may well benefit considerably.
    The hon. Lady referred to the track record of my Department. I freely confess that the information technology systems available required considerable investment, and that no parts of the IT systems in the new Department could talk one to another. As I said, a huge amount of investment is going in and much work is being done. When she says that the scheme that the Rural Payments Agency has to administer will be radically different, that may be true to a certain extent. but let us not forget that in the first year there will be only a 10 per cent. shift in payments, so the great bulk of the payments in that first year—not until 2005—will be made on the same basis as those today.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent statement on CAP reform? It was welcome and took a significant step forward. It came as something of a surprise that, on this occasion, the French agreed to the reforms. I wonder whether that might be a good augury for the future, and that more rapid progress might be made towards the eventual dissolution of the CAP and the return of agriculture policy to member state level, which would be a great step forward.
    Margaret Beckett: With great respect, I fear that one of the things that would not help us achieve further reform of the CAP is creating the impression that we were about to move to its dissolution. I also tell my hon. Friend that it would be more accurate to say that my colleague the French Agriculture Minister accepted the reform rather than agreed to it. I accept, however, my hon. Friend's basic assertion that there is a great need for reform of the CAP. We accept that and I believe that everyone in the British Parliament accepts it. Most people recognise that the steps we have taken will take us further in the right direction. To be fair, successive British Governments have sought to follow that direction, but the present Government are delivering.
    Bob Spink: But does the Secretary of State accept that the reforms have neither reduced the costs of the CAP nor helped to reduce protectionism in Europe? If the Government are serious

    1647
    about promoting international development and helping consumers in this country, should not the Secretary of State accept that the CAP is now well past its sell-by date and that it is time to get out of it?
    Margaret Beckett: It has been a long-standing aim of successive British Governments to curtail expenditure in this area, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the agreement there is now a ceiling, which will not be exceeded. If expenditure tends to drift above that ceiling, it will be brought back. One aspect that is now completely different—many people believed that we would not be able to secure it—is that resources will be made available to secure what the public want, such as landscape protection, improvements to the environment and so forth, rather than merely to subsidise an industry.

    GM Maize
    David Taylor: What assessment has been made of the possibility of growing GM maize in England; and if she will make a statement. [160285]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an oral statement in the House on Tuesday. The statement covered the issue of commercial growing of a type of GM maize.
    David Taylor: Given the doubts of the Environmental Audit Committee about the robustness, validity and relevance of the farm-scale evaluation results and the view of the British Medical Association that insufficient research into the impact on human health of GM foodstuffs has been conducted, does the Minister agree that few, if any, conventional or organic farmers will be able wholly to escape the impact of GM contamination of their crops, and that the GM industry should conclude a legal liability regime not only with farmers but with the ultimate consumers of the food they produce?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised a number of points. First, let me deal with the British Medical Association report. In fact, the report made it clear that the BMA supported the Government's approach of considering each application on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the BMA conceded and recognised—again effectively supporting the Government—the thoroughness of the detailed work on GM herbicide-tolerant maize. On the issue of liabilities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that this summer we will consult on the shape of a liability scheme and the consultation will include any potential consequences in relation to GM crops.
    As for growing the crops, consultation will also be held on a coexistence regime to ensure that GM crops and conventional and organic crops are cultivated separately. These are important matters, and the Government take careful note of Select Committee reports. Much of what was in the EAC report was not new, and a report published in Nature on the same day—of which the Committee was not aware—addressed many of the points that the EAC raised.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Tuesday's statement authorising the planting of GM maize in this country was an historic occasion, as it brought to an end this country's GM-free status. Does the Minister accept that to make such a decision before the House had had a chance to debate the outcome of the trials was to put the cart before the horse, and that it served only to aggravate the public's widespread concern?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady talks about this country's GM-free status, but may I remind her that the first authorisation for GM products and crops was given by the previous Conservative Government, before 1997? This Government negotiated a commercial moratorium while we carried out the largest and most detailed field-scale evaluation of its type ever held. No country has been as thorough in its examination of GM, which has been the subject of much discussion and debate in this House. I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a debate in Government time on the outcome of the FSEs, and on the Government's approach to the matter.
    Mr. Colin Challen: May I declare an interest in that, being a vegetarian, I have probably eaten more GM food than many other hon. Members? As far as I am aware, I have not yet shown any ill effects. [Interruption]
    Paddy Tipping: But my hon. Friend has a green beard.
    Mr. Challen: Yes, I have.

    I hope that the Government can give a more positive response on the question of health effects on humans. A report that emerged only last week from the Philippines detailed the possible very bad effect on villagers living adjacent to a GM maize crop. Should we not take that very seriously, and listen to the BMA's concerns—albeit on a case-by-case basis?
    Mr. Morley: I accept the points that my hon. Friend raises. It is important that we should not be complacent about any report. The BMA report was helpful: it said that there had been years of evaluation of the consumption of GM foods, especially in the US, and that no discernible ill effects had been found. As for the research in the Philippines, the scientist involved has conceded that he has offered his interpretation, and that more work needs to be done. Also, the findings have not been published yet, nor subject to independent peer review. When that happens, we will look at them very carefully.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What steps she is taking to support the dairy industry. [160287]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): In line with our strategy for sustainable farming and food, we are facilitating industry action, most notably through the dairy supply chain forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty. The forum seeks to improve efficiency and

    1649
    increase innovation, and to help the industry adapt to the new environment created by the reformed common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Thomas: The milk price report that DEFRA published yesterday showed that, even before this year's spring flush, milk prices have fallen over the past six months. In light of that, may I commend to the Minister the idea embodied in my private Member's Bill, which proposes the establishment of an independent milk ombudsman? That ombudsman would be a watchdog rather than a regulator, able to monitor the industry and report on its state, and to keep an eye on what the supermarkets are doing. In that way, the ombudsman would be able to determine whether a fair price was being paid to dairy farmers, in west Wales and throughout the UK. If the Minister is not in favour of that idea, what steps will he take to bring more transparency to the industry?
    Alun Michael: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will get far with that idea, especially given the Opposition's promise of a bonfire of the tsars. However, I point out that farm-gate milk prices have been rising since last June. The average price for deliveries in December was 19.54p per litre—1.81p above the price in December 2002. We must be careful not to treat a single month as having massive significance.
    Secondly, we are working closely with the industry. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the causes of low farm-gate prices are identified in the KPMG report, which examines the matter in detail, and are mainly for the industry to address. We seek to assist the industry in addressing those issues.
    Paddy Tipping: The real problem is that the industry is fragmented—relationships are often antagonistic and the operation of the supply chain is not transparent. Is not the Government's important role to bring all the parties together so that they can find a solution to the problems that they undoubtedly face?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the purpose of the forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty to which I referred. There are a number of explanations for low farm-gate prices—for instance, the low value of the product mix, the low level of product innovation within the UK compared with some other European states as well as the structure of the UK industry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred. The forum is addressing all those points.
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: As the Minister knows, a proposal to reclassify yoghurt is going through Europe. Yeo Valley Organic yoghurt is based in my constituency, and dairy farmers throughout Somerset and the west are concerned that if the proposal goes through not only will they be unable to sell organic milk because yoghurt will be reclassified, but the dairy industry will have trouble selling milk into other yoghurt producing companies because of the reclassification in Europe. Will the Minister guarantee that the British Government will stand up to the proposal and not allow Europe to reclassify yoghurt?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman may be referring to accounts of ongoing discussions rather than a
    1650
    conclusion, and I am happy to write to him on the detail of the position. I congratulate him on representing not only his constituents but a very fine product in Yeo Valley Organic yoghurt.

    Dee Cockle Regulation Order
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on steps towards the implementation of the Dee cockle regulation order. [160289]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We will get on with the job of making a regulating order for the Dee estuary once the prospective grantee, the Environment Agency Wales, has submitted a formal application for an order.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that regulation is needed to control the numbers of people involved, to license individuals and to control the times at which cockles may be exploited and the number of cockles that may be exploited? Does he agree that that would allow us better to monitor and control the beds and to protect the environment and the individuals concerned? Given that my hon. Friends and I have literally been raising the matter for years, is it not time for some urgency to be injected into the process?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the rate of progress. As he will understand, however, getting a regulating order off the ground is a complex matter. In particular, there is the need to consult so many different parties. There are still problems with one or two of the landowners concerned, including a couple of his local authorities, which he may like to encourage to speed up the process.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the progress that was made last year by strengthening the data protection legislation surrounding applications for permits to exploit cockles on the Dee estuary commercially. That significant change enabled the Environment Agency to transfer data to the Department for Work and Pensions and others to cut out some of the attempted frauds. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that principle is carried forward into the regulating order when it is introduced?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I will certainly examine whether that is practicable. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he played in helping to sort out the problem with the Data Protection Act 1998, which has helped to speed up the process.

    Waste Management
    Sandra Gidley: What steps she is taking to reduce the amount of waste generated by (a) households and (b) businesses. [160290]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Current action to encourage waste reduction includes the waste and resources action programme on waste minimisation, funding for local authorities for waste minimisation through DEFRA's waste minimisation

    1651
    and recycling fund and the envirowise programme, jointly funded by DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry, which aims to reduce the environmental impacts, including waste, of businesses and industry.
    Sandra Gidley: The Minister mentions minimisation several times, and I hope that he agrees that that is an important part of the strategy, but the issue is a double whammy. Some years ago, the Women's Environmental Network highlighted the fact that a large percentage of packaging, particularly in supermarkets, is unnecessary. Some supermarkets have made great strides forward by introducing crates instead of generating cardboard waste, but what will the Minister do to put more emphasis on that? Would he support a repeat of the "wrapping is a rip-off- campaign, in which people were encouraged to leave excess waste at the checkout?
    Mr. Morley: It is useful to raise awareness of the unnecessary use of wrapping and packaging; the Women's Environmental Network has done an excellent job on that and I meet its representatives regularly. The Government published a waste hierarchy in our strategy, and waste minimisation is at the top. The waste packaging directive applies to supermarkets and manufacturers and it is having an impact. However, I accept that there is more to be done, and we are addressing the issue.
    Chris Bryant: Can the Minister get into a bit more of a campaigning mood on this issue? There is an almost impossible quantity of packaging from Sainsbury's, Tesco and—most importantly—the Co-op, and it is difficult for pensioners, many of whom do not have the manual dexterity of a younger person, to get into some of it. The worst example is CD packaging.
    Mr. Morley: I accept that some packaging, especially bubble-wrap packages, are hard to get into, and it must be difficult for elderly people. The priority must be to minimise waste, and that means a change of culture in the way that products are packaged and offered to the public. Some big retailers have made genuine progress, and the Co-op is a case in point. We need to do more, including raising awareness and tackling the issue at every level—individual, company, retailer and manufacturer. I shall look seriously at what more we can do to support awareness-raising programmes.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given that the ban on swill feeding is imposing extra costs on hotels of up to £1,000—not least in south Oxfordshire—and given that that necessitates the employment of a new council tax-funded waste inspector and that landfill sites have room for only another three years of waste, can the Minister say what steps he is taking now to reduce the baleful effects of that ill-thought-out, vexatious and bossy piece of legislation?
    Mr. Morley: I was not aware that the pigswill industry was so important in Henley, but I will bear it in mind. However, whether we like it or not, there are major risks associated with the pigswill sector. I acknowledge that some people in that sector have acted responsibly and professionally, but the risk is considerable. On the issue of compensation, I have sympathy with the industry,
    1652
    whose representatives are talking to the Department at present, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a former Conservative Government who did not compensate the cattle head deboners for the ban that was applied to their work.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that while we need to continue to address the issue of packaging, one of the big growths in waste is the generation of paper by e-mails? Often, only one page is wanted but a whole mass is produced and tipped into waste bins.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. E-mail has the potential to enable us to make progress towards paperless offices. That is an issue for all of us, especially in how we deal with constituency cases. We all have a responsibility, as individuals—not just companies and organisations—to think of what we can do to minimise waste, and utilising new technology is one way to do so.

    Abandoned Cars
    Mr. David Rendel: What steps are being taken to reduce the number of abandoned cars. [160291]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government have introduced comprehensive measures to tackle vehicle abandonment—including tightening and stepping up enforcement of the vehicle licensing system and ensuring swifter removal of abandoned vehicles. From January 2007, owners of end-of-life vehicles will be able to hand them over to authorised treatment facilities free of charge.
    Mr. Rendel: Why does this country insist on the end of-life owner disposing of a vehicle, even free of charge, when often the vehicle, was taken over when it had little value, now has no value and the owner might be quite poor? Why not do as other European Union countries do—place a duty upon manufacturers to meet the cost of disposal?
    Mr. Morley: It is our intention to put that arrangement in place in 2007. At present, there is a responsibility on the final owner of an end-of-life vehicle to deal with it responsibly. The irresponsible abandonment of vehicles has posed problems for some local authorities, but we are applying a range of measures—including the introduction of continuous registration from January 2005.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of abandoned vehicles is a major problem and may worsen until 2007? It is easy to get rid of a vehicle's scrap metal at the end of its life but cars have some nasty components, with no sensible answers to their recycling or reuse.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right that there is an issue around the de-polluting of vehicles, which involves skills and facilities that vehicle dismantlers are increasingly able to offer. That is being tightened up in

    1653
    the regulations. We are by no means complacent about the period between now and 2007. Other issues, such as the price of scrap, influence the volume of abandoned vehicles; recent scrap prices mean that vehicle dismantlers are interested in taking vehicles free of charge.
    Mr. John Gummer: Many of my constituents must have a car to get to work, and they tend to be old cars owned by poorly paid people. Are not the Government terribly complacent in not insisting that manufacturers pay the cost of vehicle disposal much earlier, which the Government could have done under the current regulations, instead of leaving it until 2007 or beyond.
    Mr. Morley: The new measure, which we much support, is a big change to manufacturers' responsibilities—but the necessary facilities must be put in place to ensure a network of dismantlers. We have negotiated with the car industry the issue of marque responsibility and there is also the matter of how to deal with orphan vehicles whose manufacturers no longer exist. A range of complexities is involved, which will take time to resolve. I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see the scheme up and running as soon and effectively as possible, disposing of end-of-life vehicles in an environmentally sensible and sound way.

    Dairy Industry
    Steve Webb: What the latest estimate is of the proportion of the retail price of dairy products sold in supermarkets that is received by farmers. [160292]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Given the range of products that contain milk, it is not practicable to estimate the proportion of supermarket prices that farmers receive for all dairy products. However, their share of the value of supermarket sales of fresh liquid whole milk is currently estimated at around 40 per cent.
    Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that estimate, but does the Minister accept that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere are angered when they compare supermarket prices of their dairy products with the money that they received? Consumers would be angry, too, if they understood how little money goes to farmers. Will the Minister place an obligation upon stores above a certain size to display next to the dairy cabinet the percentage of the price of the milk that has gone to the farmer? Would that not name and shame?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman might wish to encourage the industry in that direction but I would be surprised if the prospect of greater regulation won much support. Price negotiations between producers and processors or between processors and supermarkets are a commercial matter, in which the Government cannot get involved as long as competition rules are respected. The profit margins on milk for supermarkets and middle-ground retailers have increased currently between 25 to 30 per cent. I referred earlier to research—
    1654
    the Competition Commission report in 2000 indicated that supermarket profit margins on dairy products were in line with overall grocery margins. As I indicated in an earlier response, it is a complex issue and there is no magic wand that will suddenly produce an end to the profit margin problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend appreciate the concerns of my constituent, Mr. Brian Parry, who is the largest milk producer in Monmouthshire and who says that he cannot make a living from producing 5,000 litres of milk a day at 18p per litre? What efforts are being made to strengthen the code of practice for the supermarkets, and are other options being considered?
    Alun Michael: As I said earlier, we recognise the difficulties caused by low farm-gate prices for milk over the past few years and the challenges that the sector will face with the reform of the common agricultural policy. On the other hand, we have seen an increase in farm-gate prices, and I have already referred to the work under way with the industry in the forum chaired by Lord Whitty. We believe that there is a viable future for the industry but it requires action by the industry, as the KPMG report showed.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Minister agree that one way in which dairy and other farmers can capture a larger share of the value of their produce is through farmers' markets and farm shops? However, does he agree that there are still problems for those taking part in farmers' markets, and especially for those opening farm shops, in terms of the regulatory burdens? I am thinking in particular of Foxbury farm shop, near Brize Norton, in my constituency. When a farm shop starts to stock any other kind of produce, it can be hit by a very substantial rates bill. What will the Minister and his Department do specifically to ensure that farm shops and farmers' markets can continue to thrive, as they do in many parts of the country such as west Oxfordshire?
    Alun Michael: I accept that there are regulatory requirements for farmers and, indeed, for retail outlets, but many farmers are extremely successful in ensuring—exactly as the hon. Gentleman said—that there is a greater return for the primary producer. Farmers can do a range of things; marketing is part of that, with direct sales and the use of farmers' markets. I have also seen some good examples of farmers working together, getting their local produce into local hypermarkets and outselling national brands. There is much that the industry can do, and we are seeking to encourage those things.

    Foot and Mouth
    Paul Flynn: What her most recent assessment is of the role that vaccination may play in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [160293]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Emergency vaccination would be considered as an additional tool to the culling of susceptible animals on infected premises, and those animals that were epidemiologically linked.
    Paul Flynn: Only "considered", when to protect an export market of only £500 million the taxpayer spent £9 billion slaughtering 7 million animals, many of them unnecessarily? We now know that vaccinated animals are perfectly acceptable in the marketplace. Should we not have a firm policy—not merely consider it—that we shall never again slaughter millions of animals without good reason? If there is another outbreak of foot and mouth, the great danger is that we shall be subject to the waste, futility and cruelty of mad cull disease.
    Mr. Bradshaw: It was not without good reason. Indeed, if that action had not been undertaken, the epidemic would have lasted much longer and would have been much more serious.
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): It would probably still be going on.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. There are eventualities—for example, if a new strain of foot and mouth were to hit us, for which no vaccine was available—when it might not be practicable in a short space of time to use vaccination.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the important role undertaken by the veterinary profession during the last outbreak and the shortages in that profession, what strategic discussions or reviews
    1656
    have been conducted by the Department with vets to ensure that we have enough vets in the right places, able to respond to the outbreaks that none of us wants to see?
    Mr. Bradshaw: All those things were considered in the Government's response to the Anderson inquiry. As my hon. Friend may know, we intend to hold a contingency exercise this summer—in case of a future foot and mouth outbreak—in which vets will play a central role.

    Recycling
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's progress towards the introduction of home-based waste separation for recycling. [160298]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Waste management is a devolved matter. In 2001–02,58 per cent. of households in England received a kerbside collection of recyclable materials separate from the residual waste. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 requires all waste collection authorities in England to collect at least two recyclable materials separate from the residual waste by the end of 2010.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What is he doing to encourage local authorities to sort out waste management, and, in particular, to deal with the large number of refrigerators stored in various places? Nothing is being done to recycle them.
    Mr. Morley: New measures have been brought in to encourage local authorities to develop more kerbside collection. They include additional funds through the challenge fund and the waste minimisation fund. With regard to the separation of dry recyclates, there has been enormous progress in the past couple of years by local authorities, for which they deserve great credit. I very much hope that those local authorities that have not made as much progress will recognise the standards of the best and bring their standards up to them.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would first like on behalf of the whole House to convey our deepest sympathy and condolences to the relatives of all those many, many people who have been so shockingly killed or injured by the bombings in Madrid today, in Europe's worst-ever atrocity. We are outraged and angry, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Spanish people and their Government in the fight against this evil kind of terrorism.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Remaining stages of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.
TUESDAY 16 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Traffic Management Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget.
TUESDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget.
WEDNESDAY 24 MARCH—Opposition Day [7th allotted day, part 1]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced. This will be followed by a debate on the Equitable Life inquiry on a motion for the adjournment of the House, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 25 MARCH—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: I start by joining the Leader of the House in expressing condolences and sympathy to the victims of the bombs in Madrid and their families. I understand that so far it is reported that 170 people have died. It is an appalling tragedy, and we should express our feelings of sympathy and solidarity to the whole of the Spanish people. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about fighting terrorism and standing firm in the west on this vital concern and issue.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and particularly for the debates on defence and Equitable Life—both of which I have been calling for a long time.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked the Prime Minister why the Government are trying to reverse the ban on the export of live horses. That will result in many ponies facing a miserable journey, only to be killed in southern
1658
Europe. The Leader of the House, kind-hearted as ever, in contrast to some of his colleagues, immediately shouted out, as reported at column 1522 of Hansard, that it was an issue of animal welfare. Indeed it is, and it is a matter of concern to animal lovers across the country. Yet the Prime Minister claimed not to know about the issue. That is surprising, given that he received a 65,000-person petition about this widely reported issue only last week. Is it not clear that we need a statement clarifying matters, preferably from the Prime Minister himself?
In his article in The Guardian this week the Leader of the House claimed that Labour had made an effort to lose its image as centralising control freaks, but that Back Benchers still felt marginalised. Is not the right hon. Gentleman guilty in all this, with his refusal to allow proper time for debate on important issues such as tuition fees, the Hutton report and the local government finance settlement? Has he forgotten the Government policy announcements saved up for the recent recess, referred to in early day motion No. 742?
[That this House notes with regret that the Government chose to save up many policy announcements, such as the reform of the examination system, substantial changes to the Civil Service and drug testing for school students, so that they could be made outside Parliament during the half-term recess; expresses its concern at this downgrading of Parliament and abuse of the stated purpose of the half-term break; and calls on the Government to make important announcements in Oral Statements to the House, so that honourable Members have the opportunity to hold the Government to account.]
That was done so that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues were simply unable to question the decisions made. It is not just that they feel marginalised; the fact is that they are marginalised.
Has the Leader of the House considered further my request that there should be a full review of the way in which the Government treat our Select Committees, as set out in early-day motion 760, given that that is based on the comments of Labour Members, as well as those of other parties? Is it surprising if they feel marginalised, when he refuses to do anything about it?
Has the Leader of the House any news about the timing of the debate on the aviation White Paper—something that hon. Members on both sides of the House care about? Is the reason for the delay that the decisions made were so unpopular? If so, is it not wrong that such an important debate should be kicked into the long grass for the Government's convenience? Can the right hon. Gentleman understand why hon. Members feel marginalised?
Mr. Hain: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his statements in joining me in condemning the terrorism in Madrid? What has happened underlines the threat from terrorist attacks of that kind that we all face here in Britain, as well as elsewhere in Europe—not just in the United States— and we must be vigilant about them. The Government intend to remain vigilant about the danger of such attacks.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to describe me as kind-hearted: I will take that both as a compliment and as a damaging attack on my career prospects.

1659
On the export of horses and ponies, the Prime Minister responded as he did, but he also said that he would reply, and there is absolutely no inconsistency about that.
On policy development both in the Labour party and in the House, I am in favour of opening up policy debate. Indeed, we are encouraging that process in the House of Commons. This Government are more accountable to the House than any previous Government. The Prime Minister has spent more time in the House answering questions, making statements and leading debates than his predecessor, a Conservative Prime Minister. He attends the Liaison Committee regularly. He is accountable there. No Prime Minister has ever been in that forum before. That is accountability. That is opening up the policy debate.
In addition, Ministers are more open than any of their predecessors in opening up the policy debate. That is what the big conversation is about. This Government, unlike the Conservatives, will face up to the country's future challenges by travelling across the country, as I will be doing later today, when I go to Birmingham to engage in a policy debate with the people about the future challenges that the Opposition refuse to confront.
On Select Committees, we have a proud record in strengthening their resources and in putting them right at the heart of parliamentary accountability, so I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the timing of the debate on the aviation White Paper, the hon. Gentleman has quite properly been asking for such a debate, and there is concern throughout the House. We will hold the debate as soon as it is proper to do so, but we are embarking on a long-term strategy, which the Secretary of State for Transport announced, on the future of our airports and aviation over 30 years. Getting that right is important. Debating it is equally important, and we will do so when the time is right.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, may I entirely associate us with the remarks made by the Leader of the House? We share his dismay and his horror, as well as the sympathy that he expresses to the people in Madrid. As I came into the House, I was not aware whether any perpetrator had been identified. Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of whether it would be possible, if and when the perpetrators are identified, for a Minister to come to the House to make a statement? Of course if those in al-Qaeda, rather than the Basque separatists, are the perpetrators, there are implications for our security in the House and in this country, as part of the European Union. I hope that he will agree to that.
We are delighted that the Leader of the House has agreed to hold a short debate on Equitable Life and the Penrose report, but may I suggest that we need a full day's debate in Government time on the whole issue of the regulation of financial services and the protection of consumers? The extremely damaging and very important report on endowment mortgages from the Treasury Committee today shows that the financial services sector is simply not well regulated. Regulation,
1660
which is a Government function, is simply not doing the job. It is not just a question of Equitable Life because, as the Select Committee has told us, 60 per cent. of those receiving advice about endowment mortgages might have received inadequate—mis-selling—advice. The Select Committee identifies a black hole of £40 billion.
The whole regulatory regime is now on trial, and I think that the Leader of the House would agree that it is no longer possible and desirable simply to blame the regulatory regime under the previous Government. We must consider how the regime is operating now. Can we therefore have an indication from him as to how soon we can have a full day's debate in Government time on the whole regulatory regime?
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Madrid atrocity. We do not have any evidence about those responsible, but the atrocity was of such a scale that that point needs to be taken into account.
On the hon. Gentleman's important questions about Equitable Life, he will know that the events in question happened under the previous Government and they were very serious. That is why Lord Penrose issued his report, why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a statement earlier this week and why Lord Penrose will appear before a Select Committee of the House next week to take the matter forward. We are also having the debate that I just announced.
The regulation of financial services has constantly been kept under review and I very much welcome the Treasury Committee's report on endowment mis-selling. People have suffered from mis-selling over the years, and the problem goes back many years before our term of office. However. I make no party point as it includes our term of Office, and that is why, soon after coming to office, we reformed the whole regulatory system by setting up the Financial Services Authority. That has resulted in action against 24 firms charged with endowment mis-selling leading to their paying £673 million to 430,000 customers. Complaints by individuals have resulted in a payment of a further £200 million. As a result of the new regulatory regime, extra action is being taken, but we will keep the matter constantly under review, especially bearing in mind the Select Committee's report.
John Austin: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 254?
[That this House welcomes the decision to terminate Connex's ownership of the South Eastern railway franchise and that this service will now be run by the public sector, through the Strategic Rail Authority; further welcomes the fact that this is the first passenger service to be brought back into public ownership since privatisation; is concerned, however that despite the poor record of privatised train operators, the SRA is proposing automatically to re-privatise this service by inviting private sector tenders for this service without considering a public sector option; and urges the Government to use its powers under the Transport Act to retain the South Eastern franchise in the public sector to help promote an integrated public railway system and ensure a better deal for the passenger and tax payer.]

1661
The motion relates to the rail franchise for south-east London and Kent, and the Leader of the House will be aware that my constituents have the only passenger rail service that has been taken back in to public ownership. Has he seen today the report published by the Strategic Rail Authority on national rail trends? It shows figures on punctuality and that the publicly owned operator, South Eastern Trains, has had the best improvement of any of the train operating companies in London.
Given the improvement to the service that the public sector has begun to deliver, could the Leader of the House request that the Secretary of State for Transport come to the Chamber to make a fresh statement on the future of South Eastern Trains now that we have clear evidence that there is no need in the public interest for the Government to re-privatise that franchise?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has made his case in a compelling way. He will also agree that 1,400 more train services run every day compared with when we came to office. More than 2,000 stations have been improved; 19 new stations have been opened; bus use is up by 15 per cent. since 1997; and more than 1,500 new rail vehicles are already in service. That shows all the investment that we have been putting in and will continue to put in over the 10-year programme of our investment plan.
Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I join in expressing our sympathy to those who have been murdered and seriously injured in Spain. We have had to live with this kind of atrocity. Fortunately, we now share a measure of peace.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the recent great black Britons poll in which the Crimean war nurse, Mary Seacole, emerged as the winner. The courage and service of this West Indian-born original lady of the lamp has, however, largely gone unnoticed. For that reason, I tabled early-day motion 744.
[That this House recognises the results of the recent 100 Great Black Britons poll organised through the Every Generation website; notes that the poll plays a vital role in celebrating the United Kingdom's black culture and heritage; further notes that the campaign is an excellent medium through which citizens of the United Kingdom can learn about the contributions made by black people to the country; pays tribute to the poll winner, the late Mary Seacole; recognises the valuable work undertaken by the West Indian-born nurse tending to wounded soldiers during the Crimean War; further recognises that her dedication to providing assistance to the wounded is exemplified in the effort she made to overcome discrimination and prejudice which led her to travel to the Crimea at her own expense; notes that other than being awarded a Crimean medal for her work, Mary Seacole has been largely unrecognised for over a century; supports the recent calls by the Royal College of Nursing for a statue to be erected in London in her honour; and calls on the Government to provide funding for such a statue.]
The motion calls on the Government to provide funding for a statue in honour of the late Mary Seacole. I am delighted that, to date and in a very short time, 74 colleagues in the House have signed it. It also has the full support of the president of the Royal College of Nursing, Mrs. Sylvia Denton OBE. Will the Leader of the House take note of the early day motion, bring its
1662
contents and broad-based support to the attention of the relevant Government Departments, and ask for consideration of the feasibility of, and funding for, an appropriate statue of that great lady?
Mr. Hain: I would be happy to take the hon. Gentleman's eloquent request forward. I wish the Mary Seacole memorial statue appeal, which has been in existence for a while, every success at securing a suitable site and statue to honour her memory.
May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement on the Madrid atrocity? He is quite right to remind the public that we have been through experiences of terrorism ourselves in the north of Ireland and also on mainland Britain. However, we must bear it in mind that the scale of this atrocity is so huge and horrible that the Spanish people deserve not only our condolences, but our support in dealing with the problem.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that given that the Penrose report showed that Equitable Life was a mutual in name but not in nature, perhaps we need a longer debate so that we can consider how we could implement some of the recommendations made by the Cooperative Commission? It suggested that if a body claims to be a mutual, it should actually be a mutual. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of his fellow members of the Cabinet to the fact that we will need to do more to implement the commission's recommendations if the honourable term "mutual" is to be properly respected in the future.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I know that those in government who are responsible will want to take careful note of what he said and to bear it in mind for future policy development.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House rightly indicated the Government's support for Select Committees, but there is no point in Select Committees producing reports unless they are debated. May I raise with him again two reports by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, namely those entitled "Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers of the Speaker" and "Sessional Orders and Resolutions"? Both reports are important to the House, so can he give any indication of when the Government will reply to the reports and when—hopefully—we may get a debate?
Mr. Hain: Yes, it is quite legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to chase me on the matter because some time has elapsed since the two important reports were published. I have written to him about this, and I am consulting the Home Secretary on the demonstrations outside the House. I hope to be able to give the hon. Gentleman some welcome news in the not-too-distant future.
Ms Julia Drown: May we have a debate on Niger and Ethiopia, both of which are due to have top-up debt relief yet are not receiving it because it is being blocked by the US, with which we are supposed to have a special relationship, as well as

1663
Germany and Japan? Ethiopia stands to lose $35 million of support every year, and that support is desperately needed for life-saving services. The country has faced a historical drop in coffee prices and another mammoth drought. Please may we have a debate on the matter so that we can find out what else can be done to relieve the desperate suffering of many people in Ethiopia and Niger?
Mr. Hain: It is now 20 years since "Live Aid", so it is quite appropriate for my hon. Friend to point to the continuing tragedy that exists in Ethiopia and, I am afraid, too many African countries. She will be aware that there has been a massive expansion of British Government aid and development assistance to Ethiopia. That went up from £19 million to £57 million over two years, which indicates our firm commitment to tackling world poverty, ensuring that we tackle the wider issue of debt, and trying to resolve the problems to which she draws our attention.
Bob Spink: The Leader of the House spoke movingly about the scale of today's Spanish atrocity. Is he aware that 16 March is the anniversary of Halabja, when Saddam Hussein slaughtered 6,250 men, women and children and commenced the Anfal destruction of 4,000 Kurdish villages, during which 182,000 Kurds were murdered and slaughtered in an unbelievable act of genocide in which chemical weapons of mass destruction were used on civilians? May the House have a debate in which we can remind people why it was right to remove Saddam Hussein and the evil that he continued to perpetrate?
Mr. Hain: If I may say so, that was an excellent and well-put question. I echo everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and in the ensuing debate about process, comings and goings and the difficulties that terrorist attacks continue to create for the stabilising of Iraq we should remember that the Halabja atrocity, as he said, showed not just what Saddam was capable of but what, in fact, he committed. We should also remember that Saddam Hussein is the only tyrant in history to kill 1 million Muslims. Nobody else has done so, and we should bear that in mind when we debate the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government are redeploying 60,000 Government jobs to the regions. He will know that in Halifax we have a wonderful business and arts complex called Dean Clough, which was once the largest carpet factory in the world. Nearly 3,000 people are already employed there, but there is space available for more. Could we have a debate on redeployment to the regions so that Members can say that there are wonderful places in their constituencies for jobs to come to?
Mr. Hain: That would be a well-attended debate. Halifax is wonderful, and has a wonderful Member of Parliament, but I do not think that it is as wonderful as Neath, which, I am sure, will bid for its share of those jobs. To be serious, yes, the Government are committed
1664
to making sure that as many jobs as possible are transferred from congested London and the south-east to English regions such as my hon. Friend's and to the nations of the United Kingdom.
Sandra Gidley: Given that the right hon. Gentleman represents Neath, he may not be aware of problems with NHS dentistry in the south-east, particularly the abhorrent practice whereby a new NHS dentist opens, attracts a client list and, a year or two later, decides to go private. Children will only be treated if their parents sign up as private patients. Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time to debate that issue, so that we can consider whether there should be a minimum length of contract when an NHS dentist sets up?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to table a question at Health questions next week, and I hope that she takes advantage of that. The issue is clearly important, but she will bear in mind the fact that after long years of decline in dentistry, we have 2,000 extra dentists and are continuing to invest in the service and train more people to make sure that a first-class dental service is available to everybody in the country.
David Winnick: On 25 February, I supported the Government's position on those detained at Belmarsh, and I believe that I was right to do so. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is bound to be concern about the way in which the remaining four United Kingdom citizens held by the Americans will be tried—if, indeed, they are to be tried? There is a strong feeling in this country that a military commission is not the most appropriate way to try such people. Will he therefore find an opportunity for a statement, if not a debate, on the subject. because it is essential that in the war on terror we do not lose the fight for hearts and minds? Justice must be done and, as they say, must be seen to be done. A military commission to try those four UK citizens is not, as I said, the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and am at one with him about the fact that justice must not be compromised in the war against terrorism. That is one reason why the Home Secretary launched an open consultation. As a Government, we must confront the need on the one hand to guarantee security from terrorist attacks of the kind that took place in Madrid today and which could occur in Britain at any time—we must be very aware of that—and on the other the need to safeguard individual rights. That balance is extremely difficult to strike in today's world, and we must continue to pursue that consultation with, I hope, understanding and contributions from all interested parties.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Would the Leader of the House be willing to have a debate next week on graft, corruption and fraud in the European Union, which is out of control? Instead of laughing, Members should consider the individual who was appointed co-director of a campaign to help poor people in Paraguay and spent £1.5 million of the money on the purchase of cars, houses and women. Is it not

1665
scandalous that public money, which costs us £1.4 million every hour of the day, is used in that way, and that nobody seems to be able to control it?
Mr. Hain: Any fraud or corruption anywhere, including the European Union, whether in Brussels or elsewhere, must be stamped out, which is one reason why Commissioner Neil Kinnock undertook an effective programme of work to reform the structure of the European Commission and tackle the bureaucratic sclerosis that led to the problems described by the hon. Gentleman. We will continue, however, to be vigilant in tackling those problems.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: May I, too, send condolences from my constituents and myself to the families of those killed in those horrific attacks in Madrid and wish Godspeed to the injured?
Would my right hon. Friend secure time for a debate on the growing but undiagnosed problem of the use of drugs in the British Muslim Community? I bring to his attention an insightful piece for "Newsnight" last week by the journalist Imran Khan that highlighted programmes by drug action teams in constituencies such as mine. They are jointly funded by the police and the local council, and target young Muslims who conceal their use of drugs from others because of cultural and religions considerations and do not use the well-funded services that the Government have provided to fight the pernicious menace of drugs. Does my right hon. Friend accept [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should leave time for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's vigilant work on the problem of drugs infecting proud communities that have not previously been infected by that menace. She does her best to tackle that problem, and it is crucial to maintain, spending on drugs programmes operated by the Home Office and the NHS to counter the spread of drugs. The planned cuts announced by the shadow Chancellor in Home Office spending of up to £1 billion in the first two years, together with the fact that the NHS would be robbed of £2 billion under the patients passport scheme, would put such projects under strain.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), when replying to a recent debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall, made it clear that the Foreign Secretary wanted a debate on the Floor of the House and was discussing that with the usual channels. I thank the Leader of the House for his positive response to my question last week, but can I push my luck by pursuing the issue of Zimbabwe a bit further on a slightly different field and urge him to arrange time for a Minister at least to make a statement on the cricket tour? After the meeting in Auckland this week, it is essential that the Government state categorically that the English cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe That would put an end to the matter, and would be appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Hain: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing to bring to the attention of the House the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe under the misrule of Robert Mugabe. As for the cricket tour, we made it clear that that is ultimately a decision for the English cricket authorities, and there has been regular contact with them as they have sought advice on the situation. I wish to make it clear, as other Ministers have done, that I do not support the tour. If I were in the unlikely position of being selected, I would not go, and many cricketers up and down the land feel exactly the same way. I am sure that Lords will bear that in mind when it makes that decision—I am referring to the respectable face of Lords, not the problems that we have been having in the upper House.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on his decision to come to the Liaison Committee twice a year, and I hope that he will consider expanding the number of his visits so that we can have more sessions. The purpose of Parliament is to study legislation and to ensure that it is of the very best quality. Is the Leader of the House content with the fact that so many timetabled Bills seem to need amendment at various stages because we do not appear to be discussing legislation in the Chamber in the way that we once did?
Mr. Hain: We are always looking to improve the scrutiny of legislation and to address any problems that might arise from time to time. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that through the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny, which is an historic move, there is now the opportunity to scrutinise Bills in advance to a greater extent than there ever was. Under the existing rules of procedure and timetabling motions, there is a great deal of scrutiny. It has put an end to the endless filibustering in which we have all indulged in opposition, and focused discussion on the real issues involved in Bills before Standing Committees.
Sir George Young: What has happened to the Government's Bill to reform the upper House, or is the Leader of the House losing his appetite for constitutional reform? Can he give me an assurance that when we do get the Bill, the long title will be broad enough to permit an amendment in this House to enable an elected element to the upper House, or is this to be another occasion when the views of Back Benchers are marginalised?
Mr. Hain: I have certainly not lost my appetite for constitutional reform—on the contrary. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to hold his horses for a while, and he will find out that the Bill will be published. As to the amendments that will be selected for debate, that is not a matter for me. That is a matter for the Speaker and the House authorities. We shall have to await the publication of the Bill and see what amendments do or do not arise.
Mr. Tom Watson: In the spirit of the big conversation, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on how we involve young people in political parties? Will he also agree to meet the

1667
officers of Young Labour and Labour Students, who were a little taken aback to read of his comments supporting the wholesale reform of their institutions? Is he prepared to distance himself from the comments of his special adviser, who told me yesterday that he thought those organisations were fundamentally undemocratic?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, I have spoken to many meetings of Young Labour and Labour Students throughout the country. I think that they are great organisations. We ought to encourage them and bring them much more into the mainstream of the party. We ought to encourage a better link between Young Labour and Labour Students so that when students leave university, they stay in the Labour party rather than peeling off. I shall, of course, be happy to meet them, although I am not sure that that is a responsibility of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On behalf of my party and my Scottish colleagues, I fully associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House regarding the outrage in Madrid. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Richard report is imminent, and I know that he will be thinking about the way in which it should be debated. There are concerns—legitimate concerns—throughout the House about what may or may not be in the report. Will he consider not only holding a Welsh Grand Committee debate, but securing Government time for a full debate so that all Members representing Welsh constituencies may air their views fully?
Mr. Hain: I shall obviously take full account of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, the Richard Commission report is due at the end of the month. I have no idea, nor does the hon. Gentleman, what its recommendations will be. We have discussed the matter, and I shall take note of what he says and of any opportunities to discuss it. He will understand that it is a report to the National Assembly for Wales, not to the House, although the Assembly, the Welsh Assembly Government and its First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, may well make representations to us following the report as to any changes that might need to be implemented by way of legislation in the House. We shall have to wait for that period before we decide how we handle the matter.
Kevin Brennan: May we have a wider debate about the financial services industry, particularly the almost daily scandals that are the legacy of an era when laissez-faire went mad, leading to the modern equivalent of the South Sea bubble? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make it clear that there is a difference between scandals such as Equitable Life and the mis-selling of endowment mortgages, and the issue of the Allied Steel and Wire workers and others in occupational final salary pension schemes? They were compelled to join their schemes, they were never given any sort of health warning, and
1668
they have no means of redress other than the Government. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the difference in that case?
Mr. Hain: Policyholders of Equitable Life and members of pension schemes like that of the ASW workers and many others have been severely short-changed, and in the case of ASW workers, robbed of pensions to which they may have contributed over a period of 30 years and which, after all, are deferred wages. The Government are aware of the scandal that led them to suffer and we are seeking to address it. We have to be careful of the read-across of potentially billions of pounds to claimants right across the field. That is where the difficulty arises.
Mr. Heald: So?
Mr. Hain: So, as regards Equitable Life, there will be a debate and we will continue to take the matter forward. The shadow Leader of the House makes facial contortions and heckles me from the Front Bench. What does he suggest? Does he suggest that potentially hundreds of millions and billions of pounds are lavished in that way? If so, how does that square with his party's commitment to cut public spending in order to make room for tax cuts? That is the question he will have to answer one day.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Leader of the House knows, in a few weeks 73 million people from eastern Europe will get an unrestricted right to come and live and work in the United Kingdom. The Government have very belatedly introduced a requirement that those migrant workers register with the Government. Will he confirm that the office that will administer the new scheme is the same Sheffield office that earlier this week was discovered to be running a covert immigration policy, about which the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), apparently knew nothing? Will the Government organise an early debate on the matter and introduce the regulation governing the scheme so that we can examine it and prevent another immigration scandal?
Mr. Hain: I understand, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration made clear, that those problems arose in that office without any authorisation from any Minister, senior managers or the director general. Without authorisation from any of those senior figures, guidance was issued locally to staff. I am interested to see that the individual who has now been suspended, and who appeared shoulder to shoulder with the Leader of the Opposition, is reported in The Independent this morning as having sent e-mails to the BBC suggesting that Islamic fundamentalists should
"be silenced by nuclear weapons".
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should be a little more careful about the people with whom he walks shoulder to shoulder in future.
Jim Sheridan: I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the recent decision by the Automobile Association to withdraw its only

1669
major operations centre in Scotland, with the loss of 240 quality jobs in my constituency. Will he join me in calling on the company, which is committed to consultation with its employees, to hold a wider consultation with those in the rural communities, whom that organisation uses to advertise its services? The membership should also be consulted before the decision is put into practice.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take careful note of what my hon. Friend says. In my view, prior consultation in such circumstances is always not just the wisest, but the only policy that should be adopted.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I commend the Leader of the House for the strong and timely sentiments that he expressed earlier in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) about the persecution of Kurds in Iraq.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that those who campaign in Iran for Kurdish autonomy have also suffered persecution and occasionally been put to death. May I therefore draw his attention to the growing public concern in Scotland about the case of three Kurdish refugees in Glasgow, who are entering a life-threatening stage of their hunger strike in protest at the decision to send them back to Iran, where they believe that they will be put to death because they were activists who sought autonomy for Kurdish people in Iran? May we have time next week for a Home Office Minister to explain the Government's policy on the three men?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the situation is serious and potentially tragic, and the Home Secretary will monitor it closely. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that to drive down the number of illegal asylum seekers—I do not comment on the case that he raised—the Government have to be vigilant and would come under attack from his constituents, let alone other hon. Members, if we were not.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House find a parliamentary occasion on which to celebrate widening the European Union on 1 May? Perhaps it could coincide with the state visit of President Kwásniewski. We could thereby bring some balance to the current debate by reminding hon. Members that in the darkest days of 1940, of the few pilots who fought above this place, 13 per cent. were Poles and Czechs, and 17 per cent. of the kills were by Poles and Czechs. If that was so pivotal, not only for us but for democracy, the men who made the blood sacrifice above here won for their grandchildren the right to participate in the free club of the European Union and the free market. It ill behoves us to say for 50 years. "Look how wonderful things are this side of the curtain, with the market economy and capitalism", but when asked, "Can we join?", to reply, "Hang on. Not so fast. Hold back." That is happening. We need to remind The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph that, but for those people who fought in 1940, there would be no The Sun, The Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail
Mr. Hain: I say, "Hear, hear" to that. I hope that those newspapers' editors will bear my hon. Friend's
1670
comments in mind. He is right that it is a historic occasion—we are witnessing the reunification of Europe, which was so bitterly divided by the second world war and the cold war. All our friends—the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and many others from the 10 accession countries—are joining us in the rest of Europe where they should always have been allowed, tasting the freedom and smelling the free air rather than being trapped in the shackles of the Soviet empire.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Following the assertion of the Leader of the House a few moments ago that the Government are the most accountable in living memory, will he provide a debate on ministerial standards? In the past few days, I have received a response from a Home Office Minister to a letter that I wrote on 8 January 2003. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for Ministers to take such a slap-happy approach to correspondence with Members of Parliament of any party? Will he emphasise to Ministers that that is not only unacceptable but that we have a right to insist on timely and informative responses from them on all occasions?
Mr. Hain: Of course, the hon. Gentleman, like every other hon. Member, has that right. I know nothing of the case that he raises although I understand that it came up in a debate in Westminster Hall. The Government have a pretty good record of responding promptly to Members' letters and questions. If the odd slip-up occurs, it clearly should not happen.
Paul Flynn: May we debate early-day motion 625?
[That this House expects the proposed war on Afghan drugs to replicate the anarchy that similar action caused in Colombia; recalls that destroying drug crops in Colombia has not cut production but has created a state of permanent civil war involving three armies, two of which are funded by drug money; notes that the reduction of 90 per cent, in poppy cultivation achieved by the Taliban has been reversed with this year's record crop; asserts that any future interruption in the supply of Afghan heroin will be immediately replaced by increases from Pakistan, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, leading to the bloody chaos of the Colombia-isation of a huge area of central Asia; and declares that the only practical way to reduce heroin use is by cutting demand.]
The perverse result of our invasion of Afghanistan is not a reduction of heroin poppy production but the biggest crop that it has ever had. Similarly, military action in Colombia has left that country in a state of anarchy and permanent civil war, with increases in drug production in Peru and Bolivia. Is not there a grave danger that, if we pursue our current policies in Afghanistan, and a reduction in production were achieved there, it would mean only an increase in growth in Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Myanmar? Is not there also a danger of that leading to a Colombia-isation of a large part of central Asia?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a serious point but I am sure that he would not suggest that our objective of a free Afghanistan with no drugs could have been achieved by allowing the Taliban to stay in control,

1671
backed up, as they were, by al-Qaeda, rather than by action to liberate the Afghans. Serious problems always arise, as they have in Iraq, when one confronts a despotic regime and tries to rebuild a country, especially from the bottom upwards. That applies especially to Afghanistan, where there was no proper system of government.
I cannot dispute my hon. Friend's point about poppy growing, but our aim is a democratic, free Afghanistan, which is also drugs fee.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I take the opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the help that he gave those of us who asked a few weeks ago whether Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister would go to Normandy to attend the 60th anniversary of D-day? I ask him to work the same magic for 4 June—two days before the D-day events—when celebrations in Rome will mark its liberation. That was one of the culminating points of the Italian campaign, which cost 45,000 British, Commonwealth and allied lives. Would not it be a wonderful gesture if, on their way to Normandy, the Prime Minister and Her Majesty showed that the people who were fighting to free Europe, even a year before D-day, had not been forgotten?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made and I am grateful for his comments. I am not sure whether any magic was weaved on my part in respect of the decision, but the Prime Minister's office will have taken note of his comments and important point about 4 June.
Mr. David Drew: Last Thursday, the trustees of the Lister-Petter plc pension fund in my constituency announced that they would start to wind up the pension fund. That is likely to result in workers, who have paid in for as long as 38 years, losing 90 percent. of their pension provision. I sign up totally to the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is waging. He has been relentless in his support of Allied Steel and Wire workers. I stress to my right hon. Friend that the problem will not go away. Labour Back-Bench Members will continue to campaign until we consider not only what we should do for the future but retrospectively. It is unfair that those workers should be thrown on the scrap heap and have no future. Will he consider methods of drafting something that can be included in the Pensions Bill to ensure that we overcome that serious problem?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be brief supplementary questions if I am to call all hon. Members who wish to ask a question today.
Mr. Hain: I am troubled by my hon. Friend's comments. It sounds as though he has described what may tragically be another appalling case. The Pensions Bill will provide protection for the future, but he is right about the current predicament. That is why the
1672
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is continuing to explore every opportunity to deal with such cases in a way that does not expose the taxpayer to a literally limitless bill. That is where the problem lies.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Does the Leader of the House agree that reopening on 16 March the inquest into the depth of Dr. David Kelly will allow detailed answers to be sought to the questions that remain after the Hutton report? Will he allow a debate on them at a later date?
Mr. Hain: More questions have been asked and answered on that unhappy affair than on almost any other matter that I can think of.
Mr. Clive Betts: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for a wide-ranging debate to be held on the improved services to local communities that have resulted from the significant increases in funding to local councils up and down the country during the past few years? He will not be surprised to hear that when I go round my constituency, I find that people want more police officers on the beat, an improved environment and cleaner streets. Will he acknowledge that such a debate would give Conservative Members the opportunity to explain how their policies would produce significant cuts in the services that the public most value?
Mr. Hain: Yes, that would be a good opportunity, and if it is possible to organise that, we shall try to do so. That would allow us to contrast the different approaches of this Government and the Opposition to local government funding for the years ahead. Opposition policies would result in £2.5 billion worth of cuts in the first two years of a Conservative Government, were they to be elected. That would have a devastating effect on local government not only in Sheffield but right across England, Wales and Scotland. It is very important that the people of this country realise the choice before them.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House is fond of boasting, as he did today, about Ministers who come to the House to answer questions, but he has neglected to say that when Ministers give answers, they are either inadequate or non-existent. Will he conduct an exhaustive search throughout the Government to try to find a Minister who gives adequate, straightforward answers to questions in this place? If he finds such a person—I shall be impressed if he can—will that person then conduct a seminar for other Ministers, with the Prime Minister present, so that we might have some hope in the future of getting answers of any kind from Ministers?
Mr. Hain: I wonder whether that might include Ministers from the period when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. For example, on the Equitable Life issue, he did not advocate the improvements in the regulatory system that might have prevented the desperation now felt by Equitable Life

1673
policyholders. I understand that that matter was debated in Westminster Hall, although I do not know whether he took part.
Mr. Forth: No, I was not there.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman did not take part in that debate because he is conducting a one-man boycott of Westminster Hall. The debates there continue with or without him, and although I am sure that they would be much more colourful if he were present, if he chooses to boycott them he cannot expect any justice from me when he asks such questions.
Chris BryantMay we have an urgent debate on devolution? The Leader of the House will know that some politicians in this country argue that we should completely change the way in which the national health service and the education system are run, by introducing vouchers or passports for schools and hospitals. Can he tell us how those schemes would apply in Wales and Scotland, where those matters are devolved? Would the Conservative party, if it came to power, have to dismantle the whole devolution settlement to impose those schemes on Wales and Scotland?
Mr. Hain: That is an interesting question because, as my hon. Friend said, the devolution settlement has devolved responsibility for education delivery and policy to Wales and Scotland. If the Conservatives, or anyone else, sought to bring in a schools voucher system, of which we saw a poor example in the old nursery schools voucher scheme—we abolished that immediately when we came to office—there would be a revolt in Wales, Scotland and the whole nation, including every part of England. People do not want to see our schools robbed of money so that children can be taken down the road to private schools, nor do they want to see their hospitals robbed of up to £2 billion because people can take money out of the national health service to go down the road to private hospital provision.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Following that answer, is the Leader of the House aware that the draft disability discrimination Bill refers specifically to England, with references to Wales and Scotland, but explicitly states that it does not extend to Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the disability lobby in Northern Ireland and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland are concerned about that? Will he consult his colleagues to see whether the Bill can be extended before it passes through the House, so that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland can have the same facilities as those in the rest of the kingdom?
Mr. Hain: Ministers are aware of that matter and will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's question. We want to see protection right across the United Kingdom, but it cannot always be delivered in the same Bill, given the Northern Ireland settlement, as I know that he will understand.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement on the working of permitted development orders? Those orders are allowing the despoliation of the English countryside and seaside. Railtrack is currently completing what I accept is essential safety work and fencing along the beautiful red-stone cliffs of south Devon, which many Members who have used the train to the west country will have seen. The design of the work is an eyesore, involving galvanised steel fencing and posts that can be seen for miles from the sea. If permitted development orders were revised, we could stop such despoliation.
Mr. Hain: The cliffs of south Devon are indeed beautiful, and the hon. Gentleman is lucky if they are in his constituency. Obviously, the reconstruction of our rail network and the investment that we are putting into infrastructure across the country are designed to improve standards, but not at the expense of the environment. I am sure that his point has been noted.
Mr. Peter Luff: May we have an urgent debate on planning policy in relation to telecommunications masts? I do not know what the experience of the Leader of the House as a constituency Member is, but in Worcestershire there has been a sharp increase in concern, probably because of the new generation of masts. Such a debate might enable Ministers to provide reassurance on health issues and to listen to practical suggestions for improvements in the planning process that would ensure that local people's voices were better heard.
Mr. Hain: I agree that it is important that the voices of local people from Worcestershire and the entire country are better heard. There is a balance to be struck between the important extension of new mobile communications and local environmental impact, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. We must get that balance right.
Mr. Alan Reid: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the National Audit Office report on "Estimating the Level of Spirits Fraud" that has just been published. It concludes:
"Neither survey estimate can be accepted as unequivocally reliable, and great care is needed in determining what reliance can be placed on the results at present available."
In next Wednesday's Budget, the Chancellor is considering introducing a strip-stamp scheme for whisky bottles, and his justification is previous Customs and Excise estimates of fraud. The NAO report, however, has quite clearly rubbished the methodology used by Customs and Excise. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Chancellor the view that it would be totally unacceptable to introduce such an expensive, strip-stamp scheme, which would have dire consequences for an important Scottish industry? He cannot possibly introduce such a scheme based on the results of such a dodgy survey.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that, as a Scot, one of the last things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wants to do is to damage the Scottish whisky industry, and he will have noted the point that the hon. Member for

1675
Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) has made. Perhaps I can take the liberty of telling the House that a wonderful Welsh malt whisky, Penderyn, was recently launched as the first such Welsh single malt whisky. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Scots will taste it in due course, to see what a competitive rival has come from Wales.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you for calling me and for giving me this exercise, Mr. Speaker—as you can see, I need it.
When Members voted on the motion to go to war with Iraq, we were promised progress on the middle east peace process. In view of the high-level visits that we have had in the past week from Israeli Ministers and Palestinian Ministers, and in view of the deteriorating situation in that area, could the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on the middle east peace process in this Chamber, in Government time?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady is right to continue to draw our attention to the tragic stalemate—if I may call it that—between Israelis and Palestinians in the middle east, with its awful consequences of terrorism, killings and continued tension and violence. We must never forget what is happening there, which is why the Prime Minister is engaged almost daily in trying to unlock the problems and move forward. If there is a chance for such a debate, we will take it. Of course, the hon. Lady has the opportunity to apply for such a debate at any time.

Point of Order
1.29 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, the Opposition have campaigned long and hard to try to provide some support to Allied Steel and Wire workers and others who have lost out in pension wind-ups, and we strongly supported the Bill that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) introduced. In those circumstances, is it right for the Leader of the House to be able to turn to me in the middle of business questions, when I cannot respond, to ask me what my party has done or would do about those wind-ups? There is a clear answer, but I am not able to give it in those circumstances. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to behave in that way, or is it possible that I have the right to ask a further question when specifically challenged in that way? One way or the other, it is wrong that the impression should be given that the Opposition do not have policies in an area where we have been leading the campaign.
Mr. Speaker: This is an hour devoted to business questions. If the questions and answers were about the business of the House, we would not get into these difficulties.
Mr. Peter Luff: But no one would come to business questions.
Mr. Speaker: Exactly. Then it would be less than an hour.

ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2003–04

    Aviation Servives
    DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
    [Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, on Aviation, HC (2002–03) 454—I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6047; and The Department for Transport Annual Report 2003, CM 5907.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That further resources, not exceeding £1,377,992,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £41,854,000. be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Transport—[Mr. Heppell.]
    1.30 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When a country neglects one of its most important weapons for economic development— transport—it gets into considerable difficulty. For well over 20 years, this country has ignored the fact that its aviation industry is vital to our development. It is not only a multinational industry, but one that brings in large numbers of people, their money and their interests. It also provides for the British an essential means of developing their industries and their relationships with other countries of the world.
    The estimate that we are debating today is one of the most important, and the Government are to be congratulated on having produced a White Paper after so many years of drift and indecision on the part of successive Governments. It is therefore disappointing that their response to the Select Committee's report on aviation was mildly grudging. There are many aspects of aviation policy that need to be debated in considerable depth, but this afternoon I would like to concentrate almost entirely on the gap that the Select Committee has identified in the thinking of Her Majesty's Government.
    Let me make it clear that I sympathise with a Government who are seeking to undo 20 years of neglect across the transport system. They are continually being asked to come up with new ideas and new investment on a large scale for the whole industry across the United Kingdom. The reality, however, is that aviation now needs some pretty clear decisions and, above all, some very clear leadership at Government level, not least because we have reached the point at which what we do now—or, even worse, what we do not do—will dominate our economy for the next 10 to 20 years.
    I turn first to the development of airports. Whether we like it or not, people are going to continue to move around, and they are going to continue to use aeroplanes to do so. The development of the airports in the south-east of the United Kingdom is directly relevant to our economy. Without an efficient means of moving industrialists, those working in industries and those contributing to our tourist industry, we are going to suffer economically.
    1678
    The Government seem still not to have faced up to a number of awkward political decisions. We have to decide which of the airports in the south-east are going to be developed, and who is going to develop them. We also have to decide—when I say "we", I mean all of us—who is going to pay for that development. We have to accept that, if we run away from those decisions, a state of happy neglect will not deal with the chaos that will ensue, and the whole of the United Kingdom's economy will pay a very high price.
    I want to address one or two simple points. The first is the ownership of the major airports in the south-east. My Committee has considered, in a number of reports, the complex situation that now exists in relation to the remains of what were state-controlled agencies. The Government are in an odd situation, because BAA—formerly the British Airports Authority—which controls the major airports in the south-east is a private company with a need to respond to the interests of its shareholders. Its decisions will be taken on the basis of its relationship with its shareholders, yet it is required to advise the Government on how we should develop our airports and which developments we should push to the top of the queue.
    That represents a basic conflict of interest, as my Committee has highlighted, not least because if BAA is not prepared, for its own internal economic reasons, to make clear how it is going to fund the development of airports in the south-east, it will almost inevitably be taking decisions, by default, that will affect the United Kingdom at every level. If, on the other hand, it bases its decisions son where it wants to see development purely on its own economic interests and on the charges that it can level on the airline industry, it will almost inevitably not be capable of handling the advice that it gives to the Government impartially or independently. That is inevitable; it is built into the system.
    My Committee suggested that we should consider the existing ownership of BAA and whether the need to produce results for its shareholders had influenced its decisions on where future development should take place. We also suggested that we should consider whether the taxpayer is best served by allowing BAA monopoly control of all the major airport machinery in the south-east. Whether we like it or not, those of us who are concerned about the future of regional airports know that if anything goes wrong with the slots at the major south-eastern airports, the first people to suffer will be those who are flying from the regions of Britain. BAA has a responsibility to maximise the profits that it receives from its airports in the south-east, but it also makes decisions about slot control, about how particular runways should be developed and about whether that would restrict access for regional air traffic. Inevitably, its interests will not be the same as those of the people outside the south-east.
    Mr. David Wilshire: Before the hon. Lady moves on from the reasons why BAA might or might not want to take particular decisions, does she accept that there is another consideration that BAA must take into account—namely, the interests of the people who work for it? More than 25 per cent. of my constituents who are in jobs depend on Heathrow.

    1679
    Surely it is not selfish of BAA to say that it is vital to protect the jobs not only of our employees but of all those who use Heathrow.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept that totally, but the reality is that there is no problem with protecting jobs at Heathrow. Many of us would say that it is a viable and developing economic asset to the country, and that it ought to be protected simply because of the amount of business that it generates, alone and unaided.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend also recall the evidence that the Committee took from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)? He made it plain that, unless there was a continuation of the route served by jet from Inverness to either Gatwick or Heathrow, many of the businesses in the highlands would be badly affected and would relocate as a consequence of not having that direct route.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Indeed. We were told time and again that in taking a business decision about where a new factory should be built or where a new business should be expanded, transport—almost inevitably—was one of the first priorities of any of the managements concerned. We took evidence that showed that in some instances, the ability of foreign managements to get to a regional destination not just by changing planes—even though that might be a convenient system—but by flying direct, would influence their decision about where their developments should go. We were constantly told of Japanese managements who, when faced with the alternatives of a site that could be reached easily and a site that could be reached only after experiencing certain difficulties, inevitably chose the site that had mainline connections and offered easy ways of flying in and out of the region. So it is terribly important that we understand the absolutely direct link between access to airports in the south-east for those in the regions, and the decisions that are taken about where developments will be located in future.
    I do not want to take too long as I know that many Members want to speak, but I want to consider the hazards that will arise if the Government appear to be influenced by some of the decisions being taken by the European institutions. At the request of the European Commission's transport commission, a study was undertaken of the feasibility and impact of adopting market mechanisms to allocate slots at congestion category 1 airports. Even though most people are not interested in the minutiae of airport administration, they understand that there is no use in having the best and most comfortable plane in the world if it cannot actually be landed at the airport of one's choice at the time when one wants to arrive.
    So the allocation of slots at airports, particularly in the south-east, is not only a very fraught matter but an absolutely vital one for airline passengers. The European Union—for reasons that are fairly acceptable in theory, but which will cause enormous difficulty in practice—seems to be moving towards a system through which the only way of deciding whether airline
    1680
    passengers can land at a congested airport will be the price that the airline in question is prepared to pay for the slot, or pairs of slots, on offer.
    There are those in this House who believe very strongly that capitalism red in tooth and claw is the only way to plan our transport system. Having looked at the results of some years of that total lack of overall guidance, I beg leave to differ very strongly. But more than that, in a congested island the decisions that are taken about airline slots become even more vital. My Committee has produced a detailed report on the effect on the regions, but we should think about the report produced by National Economic Research Associates, in conjunction with Leiden university and Consultair Associates. That report appears to conclude that, although planned investments may ease the situation, there will be more and more congestion in the next five years, and that the only way to deal with it is to open up the slots to market forces. That is not only very dangerous; it will have an immediate knock-on effect on all regional passengers who want to get to the south-east.
    It is extraordinary that I should have to ask Parliament not to accept a policy that will make it virtually impossible for people who live outside the south-east to travel easily and efficiently to their capital city, yet that is what we are talking about. We are not talking simply about ways of expanding the profits of a private company called BAA, but about the right of people who do not live in the privileged south-east to access the city in which most decisions—whether we like it or not—are still taken. Be they decisions in government, law or commerce, such decisions are almost inevitably determined by what goes on in the capital city of the United Kingdom.
    We seem to be saying that it is not necessary to plan to ensure a sensible allocation of resources for regional airports; instead, we can just leave it to the market. But the market has already demonstrated that the control of slots at Heathrow, for example, is an absolutely stunning money-maker. We are talking about not £1 million or £2 million, but £ £5 million and even £10 million. We are talking gold bars. To those who seriously think that we can say to regional airports, "Don't worry about it. Your local authorities will have the right, if they so choose, to subsidise transport that will get you to even the most congested south-east airports", I can only say that that is the most unlikely scenario that I have heard, even in this Chamber.
    The reality is that the Government are being advised on airport development by a private company that is committed to making an enormous profit. As far as I can see, such decisions will be governed not by the political, economic and demographic interests of the UK regions, but by a series of political decisions that are all about making money and applying the simple measurement of money to a vital asset.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Lady's Committee was unable to address the issue of business aviation, which has a contribution to make in relieving prime slot times at our major hub airports. Here, I am making a small plea of behalf of Farnborough aerodrome. It is Government policy, as the Minister has reiterated, that Farnborough should be the business airport serving the

    1681
    south-east. There has been huge investment in Farnborough, and such business airports have a serious contribution to make in relieving congestion at the major hubs.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not in any way disagree with the view that business aviation will not only be a burgeoning field, but will provide very real support to some industries at certain times. But the hon. Gentleman is surely not seriously suggesting that the question of access to major airports for large planes that seat perhaps 150 to 200 people is quite the same as that of offering opportunities for smaller aviation elsewhere in the region. I agree that that issue is vital, but it is not comparable with access to major congested airports.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady seems to have completely misunderstood my point. Farnborough has the capacity for up to 28,000 business aircraft movements per annum, and taking such movements away from Heathrow and Gatwick, for example, would relieve some of the congestion on the very regional access routes that the hon. Lady is keen to defend.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, because that gave him a further opportunity to advertise the facilities available at Farnborough. What happens in general aviation at large airports must affect the amount of movement and the opportunities for using other aircraft.
    I hope that the Government will come out fighting on a number of fronts. We are up against a fairly tight time scale. If we do not decide which airports in the south-east are to be expanded, it will not simply be a question of airports becoming full, because they are already filled to their upper limits. We cannot deal with the expansion in passenger numbers simply by pretending that they are not there. We shall find that many people are inconvenienced, and start trying to avoid the London airports and taking their business and money elsewhere. We must also resolve to protect the interests of the regions, and ensure that people have the right to fly into the south-east. Those decisions muse be made, and made public, as soon as possible.
    We must tell the European Commission that we are not clear about its reasons for taking this line in its research, or about the weight that the document carries. If after five years there has been no major development of the south-east airports and regional airlines have been squeezed out of their areas with a significant impact on the number of people who can fly in and out of the south-east, we shall be left with the worst of all worlds. I do not doubt that a great deal of profit can be made from the buying and selling of slots, although it is extraordinary that we do not even admit that they have a monetary value. It is clear to the airlines concerned that they do.
    The Government have started well. They have set the parameters, and have begun to deal with difficult questions from which people have run away for more than 25 years. Unfortunately, we cannot allow the situation to continue. We certainly cannot allow a lack of decision-making to decide where we are to go in aviation. Aviation is a number one industry, capable of
    1682
    producing jobs, money and economic demand. We need to be in the lead; we need to be number one among European countries in deciding how best to serve the interests of our constituents. I think we can do it, but let us understand that we do not have a long time in which to make our decisions.
    1.52 pm
    Mr. Paul Marsden: On 11 February, I told the Minister in Westminster Hall:
    "I also hope that he will deal with the demand for a much wider debate to be held on the Floor of the House as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall,11 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 447WH.]
    I realise that today's debate is probably being held thanks to the Select Committee on Transport rather than the Minister, but I welcome it none the less.
    Following the formidable performance of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), let me say that I understand how important it is to jobs, the economy and tourism that the air industry should cater for future demand. In the short time available to me, however, I shall concentrate on the environment and on sustainable development of the industry, which are issues all too often overlooked. Liberal Democrats believe that airport expansion should be a last resort, and we mean a last resort. There may well be demand for another runway by 2017, although some environmental groups would argue that that should not happen before 2030, but there are many options for us to try before then in an attempt to limit and manage demand.
    The problem is that the Government are simply following the last Tory Government's predict and provide policy. They have tried to deny that in Westminster Hall debates, but the White Paper makes it clear that it is precisely what they are doing. They are estimating the probable number of passengers and the volume of goods to be shifted, and trying to build more and more capacity. We must take a stand. If the Government are right in their prediction that by 2030 there will be 500 million passengers and prices will be cut by up to a third, more runways will spring up over the south-east. That would be a disaster for the environment.
    What have the Government's experts said? Sir Tom Blundell, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, said on 16 December:
    "The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions."
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks suggests a restriction, or indeed a reduction, in air travel. Does he deny the importance of increasing air travel opportunities for the regions, particularly the Liverpool area of the north-west?
    Mr. Marsden: Absolutely not. I was going to point out that expanding regional capacity was one possible

    1683
    solution. Too much is funnelled through the south-east at present. As one born and bred not far from Liverpool, I agree with what the hon. Lady said about that part of the country.
    Sir Tom Blundell continued:
    "Today's White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures.
    Baroness Young of Scone, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said:
    "The Government has committed to a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050."
    That seems a long way off, but if we do not make progress soon, we will not meet those vital targets when it comes to climate change. Lady Young went on:
    "The Government's own forecasts suggest that by 2030 aircraft fuelled at UK airports could have a global warming impact equivalent to at least 30 per cent."—
    one third—
    "of current CO2 emissions from all UK domestic sources. This is a massive growth",
    and it will pose a serious problem for the future.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the so-called irradiative forcing effect, whereby chemicals released into the atmosphere by aviation engines do much more harm to the ozone layer at altitude than they would if released at ground level? In fact, the problem is even more serious than many people realise.
    Mr. Marsden: I entirely agree. The White Paper acknowledges the achievement of technological advances, for which the industry should be praised, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, serious effects in the stratosphere have yet to be fully recognised.
    I should like to know the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It wants the Government to
    "impose climate protection charges for aircraft taking off and landing within the EU; restrict airport development to encourage greater competition for available take off and landing slots…develop major airports into land-air hubs…support technological development to lessen the damage done by air travel".
    Another important suggestion is that international aviation agreements should include an amendment to the Kyoto protocol in regard to the emissions trading scheme.
    We must look to the future. The White Paper speaks, worryingly, of a wish to
    "maximise the economic benefits whilst minimising/mitigating the environmental impacts".
    That does not sound to me like protecting people and the environment first, which is what, in the knowledge of the consequences, I think we should aim to do.
    There have been many criticisms from a number of environmental organisations over the last few months. I hope that the Government will begin to address them. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said it recognises that aviation has
    1684
    "contributed beneficially to the economic development and social life of the UK. However, this was not without considerable costs to the environment … Adverse impacts include: Climate change"—
    through greenhouse gases—
    "stratospheric ozone reduction leading to increased surface UV radiation; local pollution—both noise and decreased air quality"
    and, obviously, the effect on the ground. That includes the impact on wildlife of expansion,
    "airport construction and related infrastructure".
    Friends of the Earth has been extremely critical of what the Government have been saying. According to Tony Juniper:
    "The Government has sacrificed its environmental responsibilities to satisfy the demands of the aviation industry."
    Today's announcement, which is based on the White Paper
    "is yet another missed opportunity to put the air industry on a sustainable course."
    Mr. Graham Stringer: Will the hon. Gentleman define "sustainable"?
    Mr. Marsden: It is that which is not to the detriment of the environment and which can be planned for the future in terms of growth. In relation to managing demand, it is something that balances against demand that is to the detriment of the environment. The Government are not approaching the matter in that way. They are accepting from the outset that there must be a massive expansion in passenger growth, and they are not even beginning to offset that in terms of environmental taxes
    Mr. John Wilkinson: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of growth, do he or his party envisage any growth in employment in civil air transport? Is that an aspect of his party's policies to which he attaches any importance? Is not civil air transport a major source of jobs and prosperity in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Marsden: I agree totally. That is why I started my speech by recognising its importance for employment, which is recognised particularly in the regions of this country, and perhaps in the highlands and islands. That is the point of trying to find ways to expand regional capacity rather than just increasing capacity in the south-east. As I was about to say, Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth, with whom I concur, said:
    "If the aviation industry was taxed fairly",
    and we are not talking about punitive taxes,
    "rather than letting it pay no fuel tax"—
    although some Labour Members seem to favour giving such advantages to the aviation industry—
    "and no VAT, then we would not need any new runways anywhere in the country. But it seems that for this Government and the aviation industry, not even the sky is the limit".
    I hope that the Government will rethink their policy, as it will be our children and our children's children who will pay the penalties, if we get it wrong.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman outline the tax proposals that he has in mind?
    Mr. Marsden: Certainly, and I am glad to have taken that intervention. Rail operators pay about 3p a litre in

    1685
    duty on fuel. Private motorists pay about 45.8p a litre in duty on their fuel. Currently, airlines pay no such duty. I suggest, as recommended by the Government's experts, that 3p a litre would not be an unfair tax.
    Mr. Donohoe: Having examined this matter in some detail, I think that one of the differences between an aeroplane and a train, a car, a bicycle or any other form of transport is the extent to which an aircraft goes abroad. If it goes far enough abroad, it can pick up fuel, and in those circumstances, it would be able to avoid the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's proposals. What he says does not therefore make an awful lot of sense.
    Mr. Marsden: At the end of the day, the reality is that long-haul jets arriving at Heathrow or Gatwick are pretty unlikely to try to hop over the channel to refuel. Yes, some airlines may well try to avoid any fuel tax duty. We must make a stand, however, put our environment first and say that there are times when the polluter should pay. We believe in that for other forms of transport, so why do we let airlines off the hook?
    Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Is it not a flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument that he is against further runway development? Is it not the case that one of the current difficulties is that airports are being used at a level above their efficient capacity, which causes problems? Does he accept, for example, that the scheduled block time on the flight between London and Edinburgh was 60 minutes 10 years ago and is now 90 minutes? Planes are therefore circling airports, adding extra pollution to the environment. If we do not build extra runways, that can only increase.
    Mr. Marsden: I totally agree, but a Conservative Government were told about 20 years ago that there would be serious expansion and serious environmental problems in the future, and they did nothing. They continued with predict and provide, with which this Government are also continuing. Had they responded differently, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's argument would have a little more validity, but we must try to tackle the problem now and manage the precise demand to which he refers. That is why I believe in various environmental management methods, including considering tax increases, that would enable us to do that.
    As for the Government saying, "Well, this is what people want," let me quote to the Minister what the Campaign to Protect Rural England says on its website:
    "The aviation industry's own figures show that the poorest 10 per cent. of people rarely fly."
    In terms of trying to open up the adventures of this world, therefore, it seems that the poorest are the last to be able to benefit. It continues:
    "Most of the growth predicted for 2030 by the Department for Transport is by the wealthiest 10 per cent. flying overseas at weekends."
    Mrs. Dunwoody: With the greatest respect, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is talking an awful lot of nonsense—and I do not want to be unkind. He is worrying about the wealthiest 10 per cent., but frankly they will not be using congested airports. They will be doing precisely what the hon. Member for Aldershot
    1686
    (Mr. Howarth) suggested: they will have their own planes, or lease or part-lease their own planes, they will fly from small local airports, and they will not be a bit worried about facilities at our major airports. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely thinks that working-class people do not travel on planes, he is more out of touch than I realised.
    Mr. Marsden: With the greatest respect to the Chairman of the Select Committee, on which I sit, I may say that if she is seriously suggesting that 6 million out of the 60 million people in this country fly by private, chartered plane, she is sadly mistaken. The figures demonstrate that even Posh and Becks fly occasionally from normal airports like the rest of us.
    The point is that I am quoting not my party's figures but the Minister's. He must explain why the bottom 10 per cent. of people—another 6 million in this country—rarely fly. [Interruption.] In response to the remarks shouted across the Chamber, I say that nothing will be solved by lowering prices. When it comes to expanding current capacity, every citizen in this country will be extremely concerned about the damaging impact on our environment. To those who mock, I say that we will reap the impact for generations to come unless we start to do something about it.
    2.8 pm
    Mr. Graham Stringer: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), my colleague on the Transport Committee, shares with the Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Jonathan Porritt and every other person whom I have asked, an inability to define what is sustainable in relation to aviation. If we look at the original consultation document, we find "sustainable" on almost every page. In the White Paper, however, I found "sustainable" only once, although it may be hiding on other pages. The reason for that is that the Government have realised that "sustainable" cannot be applied to aviation. One simply cannot burn tonnes of kerosene in a huge machine and pretend that that is in some way sustainable, if sustainable means that one will regenerate at the end of the process what one started with. It is not a word that should be used. We can talk about "environmental improvement" or use other words, but it would helpful if we omitted "sustainable" from the debate and concentrated on aviation. I was not going to say that, but I do so having listened to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who, having sought asylum in the Liberal Democrat party now seems to be seeking it in cloud cuckoo land, as far as understanding what is happening in the world of aviation is concerned.
    A good definition of predict and provide is to assess capacity and build to it. If the Government had used predict and provide in aviation over the last 60 years, there might have been something in the fantasy of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who spoke of the Government building runways all over the place. Not a single new runway has been built in south-east England, and only one has been built in the whole of the UK—at Manchester airport, for which I was partially responsible. What he described simply will not happen. The Secretary of State provided a good definition of why

    1687
    predict and provide did not apply and set out a framework in which the commercial parts of the aviation industry would take decisions about whether to invest in new infrastructure.
    I have a final criticism of the speech made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, and it goes to the core of the false arguments underlying much of the environmental debate. Members must decide whether we get a better environment in a richer country than we do in a poorer country. If we invest in wealth-creating industries such as aviation, which support other industries, will we get wealthier? If we do, will we get a cleaner, better environment? I believe that we will, and I do not believe that the environment—I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about it being a global problem—will be improved by forcing aeroplanes out of the UK so that they have to fly further to European hubs, which will burn more kerosene, more aviation fuel and put more CO2 and NOx into the atmosphere.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: The US has been one of the fastest-growing and wealthiest nations on the planet. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling me that it has the most environmentally friendly policies to reduce the environmental damage it has done over the past 50 or 60 years?
    Mr. Stringer: I would say that a poor country such as Russia or China does not even have the potential to improve its pollution and environmental mess. The United States is a huge country and some of the environmental responsibilities rest with state and city governments. Some of the toughest environmental legislation anywhere in the world can be found in California and all the way down the west coast, including Washington and Oregon.
    Mr. Marsden: In that case, the hon. Gentleman would surely join me in castigating the current American Government for refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
    Mr. Stringer: I would like to continue with my speech; I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
    I wanted the White Paper to respond to two major questions, the first of which is how London—by which I obviously mean Heathrow—is going to maintain its premier position as a major international hub. The second is how we should deal with the obvious imbalance in this country whereby 20 per cent. or more of traffic originating from the regions is forced into the already overcrowded south-east system. Those are the two questions that I wanted answering more than anything else. We have had 20 years of silence in respect of transport policy, so I congratulate the Government on introducing clear proposals in the White Paper, although I do not believe that they have answered those two difficult questions.
    I believe that a third runway at Heathrow airport is absolutely vital for the economy of London and the UK. Heathrow is in direct competition with Frankfurt,
    1688
    Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and, increasingly, with Brussels and Copenhagen. As a result of overcrowding, the number of destinations that Heathrow serves is already reducing. As passenger numbers go up, the number of destinations goes down. Connectivity within Heathrow—some hon. Members will not like that word, but it has become current—and the punctuality of passenger transfers are worsening. Heathrow has been the premier European hub, but in five or 10 years' time it will not be the premier hub either for destinations or for passenger numbers. Indeed, it is no longer the premier airport for destinations within the UK, because about half of the destinations that it used to serve have gone.
    Why is that important? It is vital because of the City of London, which forms the core of the UK economy, and because of tourism in London and the rest of the UK. If people cannot get into London, they will choose to do their financial business in Frankfurt—a major competitor of the City of London—or start their travels around Europe in Paris, Copenhagen or somewhere else.
    I am often accused of being too pro-Manchester and too anti-London—I have been accused of worse things in my political life—which is rather unfair, because I believe that London should have all that is appropriate for a capital city to have, and one of its major needs is to maintain its position as having the premier airport. It cannot do without a third runway, and I am afraid that the decision had bee n dodged on a very strange basis— pollution and NOx figures. If the Minister considered the evidence seen by the Transport Committee, he would find that various professors cast doubt on the objective basis of the evidence. They pointed out that the NOx measurements were a worst-case scenario— they were taken some way from where most people lived—and that all the other projections were done by modelling and calculation, not by direct measurement. The third runway is crucial.
    I will not move on from London and the south-east without making two other points. First, the Government—I mean all Governments over the past 60 years—bear the responsibility for not having provided runway capacity in the area, but since privatisation BAA has been a regulated monopoly. If Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow had been separate and competing airports, there would have been more pressure on the Government to take more sensible decisions about runway capacity. The fact is that BAA can make a profit by providing a worse service by flying bigger and bigger aeroplanes to fewer places. That is not good for London or for UK plc.
    The regulation of London airports is also perverse. When many people want to use a scarce resource, it is a perverse regulatory system that charges less and less for that resource. Passengers went to Heathrow because the internal financing of the major airlines meant that, until the funding requirements of T5 came along, it was cheaper to land there. That cannot be a sensible way to proceed.
    London is congested and needs another runway, so how can we use the capacity in the regions? That is a difficult question. The Government no longer have the power, as they did when the previous White Paper was written, to direct where aeroplanes land and take off, but I believe that two things can be done.

    1689
    First, the infrastructure of the major regional airports at Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow can be improved. Increasing from four to six the number of tracks leading out of Manchester Piccadilly station to Manchester airport by way of Oxford Road station would benefit the airport and allow more heavy rail access to it. It would also remove one of the 16 or 18 pinch points from the national system, with the result that the system would be improved. That is good, sensible politics in respect of the environment and transport, which I commend to the Government. Such an approach would give people more incentive to use the capacity available in the regional airports.
    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for allowing me to discuss privately with him the possibility of extending the light rail link to Manchester airport. I hope that some positive announcements will be made about that, but ground transport to the regional airports needs to be very good if we are to promote extra use of their capacity.
    My second point is more controversial. The industry has been privatised and in Europe operates in a deregulated environment, yet the Department for Transport retains a protectionist approach when dealing with airlines whose ownership is based in the UK. However, I see no reason why the skies should not be opened up for any of the regional airports, if that is what they want. Although it is unlikely that those airports will get many intercontinental routes, I think that aeroplanes from the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere should be allowed to land there, pick up passengers, and take off again. In that way, those regional airport routes for which there is relatively small demand would be able to become more substantial and thus work in commercial terms.
    I understand that the only reason why the Government do not adopt that approach is because BMI, Virgin and BA do not like it, but they have nice protected slots at London Heathrow. Opening up the skies would be a good way to ensure that the economic benefits that accrue from aviation go to the regions and that some congestion is taken out of the south-east.
    I do not like to refer to good behaviour by the previous Conservative Government, but when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) was a transport Minister he opened up the skies from the regional airports to north America. That helped a little bit: some services have arrived here that would not have done so otherwise. The changes that I propose would not be so dramatic that BMI, BA or Virgin would go bankrupt, but they would ease the congestion a little and help the economies of the regions.
    I turn now to an example of how the Department is not being very helpful, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), would agree to a meeting on this matter if he cannot reply directly today. Pakistan International Airlines has applied for fifth freedoms to all the regions. That would allow them to fly from Karachi, or elsewhere in Pakistan, stop at Manchester, Glasgow or—most likely—Birmingham, and then fly on to Toronto, Chicago and Houston.
    I do not think that that would inflict much competition on BA. Most of the passengers involved would originate in Pakistan. One or two people would
    1690
    get on and off when their plane landed at one of our regional airports, and then the flight would continue on to north America. That would not amount to competition in BA's market—partly because PIA does not serve alcohol on flights—but it would mean that more destinations could be served from airports such as Manchester.
    I have spent a long time on my feet, but it is good to have this debate. Aviation is vital to this country, and it is very important that people understand how it works. We are not at the 12th hour today—we are past that. Heathrow is losing its position in international aviation, because the regional connections do not go there. People are going to the European hubs—probably causing more pollution in the process—and they are taking their money with them.
    When he came before the Select Committee, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport whether an analysis had been made of the negative economic impact resulting from those passengers being lost to the UK economy, and the lack of capacity. I understand that no study has been done. It would be useful for us to understand how much past the 12th hour we are. That would provide an incentive to investing in runways and giving the planning permissions necessary to support the transport infrastructure and the country's economy.
    2.25 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The House is most grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose magisterial influence made this debate possible. I regret that we are not having a full debate on the aviation White Paper, which is long overdue. I trust that the Government have not delayed that necessary debate for any considerations stemming from the forthcoming mayoral and European elections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Heaven forfend: I see the pained look on the Minister's face. Even so, the debate is welcome, and I especially approved of the statement by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that there was a need for clear decisions on the part of the Government. That is true. We need clear and urgent decisions, but we also need them to be correct. In that regard, I am not over optimistic.
    The first of the Government's decisions that I bewail is the decision to allow the EU to be responsible for air service agreements. The right to conclude such agreements with other countries is one of the aspects of national sovereignty that a country such as our own, with so many overseas connections, should hold most dear. I fear very much that our continental partners—if that is the right word—will be very glad that we have handed the British golden goose over to Brussels, so that it can be carved up in their interests, and so that we, and the goose, can be thoroughly stuffed.
    The UK is the premier destination in Europe for north Atlantic transatlantic travel. Our economy and our airlines have benefited immeasurably from that. However much the Prime Minister may hobnob in

    1691
    Berlin with the federal German Chancellor and the President of France, I suspect that they and their friends in the European Commission will ensure that there is a more equitable—in their eyes—distribution of air services across the north Atlantic that would favour Frankfurt and Paris.
    The main problem then would not be congestion at Heathrow, but the direction of the European Commission. We would have no redress against that, and I hope that the Government will reflect on what they have done. In addition, I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the shadow Minister on the Opposition Front Bench, to consider the possibility of a manifesto commitment to reverse the evil that the Government have done.
    However, I shall not be too scathing about of the Government. At least they have adopted a gradualist approach in the White Paper, which I think is wise, as none of us knows how civil air transport will develop. We cannot predict the oil price, and we do know the full impact that ultra-wide bodied aircraft such as the A380 will have on the patterns of air transport. On a day when we mourn with our Spanish friends a horrific terrorist outrage on the train system of Spain, who knows what the consequence of another terrorist episode directed towards air transport would have upon the industry? We cannot preclude that possibility.
    The gradualist approach is right and the Government are correct to make the best use of existing runways. Although the second runway at Manchester is necessary—and I would not argue against another runway at Birmingham and another runway is certainly required at Stansted at an early date—we should nevertheless make the best use of the existing airport system.
    We have not yet made the best use of Stansted, which has the greatest potential in the medium to long term. Heathrow is in an ultra-over-congested part of London, where there are serious environmental considerations, which cannot, as the Liberals suggest, be addressed by 3p on a litre of aviation kerosene. Stansted is nearer than Heathrow to the Thames gateway and the East Anglian corridor of economic development, and low-cost carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair have been able to expand there. We should put most of our future development at Stansted and not at Heathrow.
    Mr. Stringer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not because I want to be brief. I appreciated the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was serious—unlike that of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)—but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak.
    Since the Crossrail project is not yet envisaged for Heathrow, surface transport access will remain poor. The Government admit that a sixth terminal will be required, which will cause ever more congestion to the surface transport system in that area. Although we may have mixed-mode operations, which will help to get more utilisation out of Heathrow, there is a risk that Heathrow's development may be somewhat diminished
    1692
    by a slot auction imposed by the European Union. I hope that the Government will think again about Heathrow.
    There is the possibility of air traffic conflicting with traffic out of Northolt, and the Government admit that this is a debateable point. We saw with the arrival of the former detainees from Guantanamo bay in a C-17 how important Royal Air Force Northolt is for the security of the country, and I would not want the development of a third east-west runway at Heathrow to preclude that.
    If there is further runway development, it should be at Gatwick. Gatwick has two terminals, and its full potential has not been utilised. The Government are correct to consider the possibility seriously and make preparations by safeguarding space for a new wide-spaced runway at Gatwick. I hope that another runway at Gatwick has priority over any question of another runway at Heathrow.
    Finally, I echo the wise sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), whose constituency includes Farnborough. In using existing facilities, the Government emphasise the importance that the White Paper places on using airports for regional development. It is noteworthy how far point-to-point services, rather than services out of hub airports, have grown in recent years. That tendency will accentuate, particularly with the fuller utilisation of Luton, which we look forward to, Southampton, Manston, London City and all the airports in the midlands and the north—a new one is starting at Finningley. Further developments are envisaged in the north of England, Scotland and Wales, which are all to the good.
    In that process, I hope that Her Majesty's Government recognise the benefits of business aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot pointed to Farnborough, and I say to him that RAF Northolt's primary function is its critical RAF role, and therefore if there is any overspill of business aviation, it should go to airports such as Farnborough, Biggin Hill and Luton. If the Government continue with their gradualist approach but take the key decision to go ahead with the second runway at Stansted as soon as possible, we can get the balance right. The worst thing that we could possibly do is not only to put the golden goose at risk by handing it on a platter to Brussels, but—this is what the Liberals would do—to actually kill it off with over-taxation.
    2.35 pm
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: I, too, welcome the publication of the aviation White Paper after a gap of 20 years. I particularly welcome the parts of the White Paper that dwell on the points highlighted by the Transport Committee report on aviation, which examines the connection between the development of regional economies and transport in general, and aviation in particular.
    I note that the estimates refer to
    "Promoting a modern integrated and safe transport system"
    but I wonder whether the references to resources for aviation services take account of regional aspects, whether the Department for Transport links up with other Departments to examine joined-up action to enable regional economies to develop to their full

    1693
    potential and whether the Department recognises the importance of transport links in general and aviation links in particular.
    The Select Committee report stresses the importance of air links to regional development and discusses the inadequacy of spending billions of pounds on regional development without making that link. Indeed, the report states:
    "There has to be cohesion between regional economic policy and transport policy. It is absurd to put billions of pounds in the regional aid budget and yet not to give any assurance to provide guaranteed air access".
    There is nowhere to which that is more relevant than Liverpool and Merseyside in general.
    Liverpool and Merseyside are objective 1 areas. That means that they receive large amounts of European funding, which is then matched by public and private sector funding from this country, to promote the regional economy. That funding has already achieved some success: the economy of Liverpool in particular and Merseyside in general is indeed being transformed. We have a major opportunity because Liverpool has been designated European city of culture for 2008, which is a tribute to Liverpool's achievements and recognition of its potential. In fulfilling that potential, it is vital that in the years up to 2008 and beyond we facilitate easy access to Liverpool for the many tourists and business visitors from not only the rest of this country and Europe but, indeed, across the world.
    Liverpool John Lennon airport has already shown how to bring success to air travel It is the fastest-growing airport in the country and has served 3.18 million passengers in the past year. I know that in comparison with other airports, including Manchester International, that might seem a relatively small number of passengers, but the dramatic increase in business is a great tribute to the work of the management and owners. Those numbers are destined to increase significantly to 5.5 million by 2015 and 8.6 million by 2030.
    The airport's success has been built on the great increase in its scheduled flights as well as in its charter flights—there are scheduled flights to destinations such as Dublin, Alicante, Geneva, Amsterdam, Madrid, Paris and Barcelona. I say to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) that the rapid expansion of John Lennon airport has opened out the opportunities for air travel for people from middle and lower-income groups, which is welcome and should be built upon—it should not be penalised and seen as something detrimental. That increase in opportunities is welcome and should be encouraged
    During the past month, Liverpool has restored a direct flight to our capital, London, with a VLM Airlines flight to London City airport. That is a success, but it is a shame that Liverpool lost its access to a hub airport in London when British Midland withdrew its flights—for the very reason set out in the Committee's report and mentioned in the debate—not because they were not profitable, but because it was more profitable for the company to use its aircraft for other European flights.
    John Lennon airport has shown what it can do to develop the local, sub-regional economy, to bring visitors and to encourage business. What Liverpool now
    1694
    needs, to enable us to make that major leap forward and grasp the opportunities provided by the city's designation as European capital of culture, is access to a huh airport, which would provide interlining, direct bookings and no repeat check-ins from airports all over the world. People could then come to Liverpool easily, from Shanghai to Sydney, New York to New Delhi, Los Angeles to Lagos—in other words, from throughout the world. It is essential that we have that link with a hub airport.
    The Government's response to the Committee's report suggests that they recognise the importance of linking regional airports with hub airports in our capital and it suggests some measures to try to make that possible. While I welcome those measures, I do not think that they go far enough. The White Paper mentions public service obligations—PSOs—and the possible introduction of such measures to link up airports such as Liverpool with London hub airports. The White Paper mentions consultation on the detail of what would enable an airport to qualify for a PSO, but there has been no consultation so far. Nor has any guidance been issued on what the criteria might be. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could say when such consultation might start and when the criteria will be issued.
    I welcome the reference in the White Paper to the role that regional development agencies might play, including the route development fund, but that is not enough. We need to know more about the resources available, and I would like to see the Bill on the powers for the anticipated directly elected regional assembly for the north-west, which will be published shortly, include some clearer transport powers, so that the assembly would be able to facilitate a direct link.
    It is clear that the Government have recognised the points that have been made by the Committee and others about the importance of transport and aviation to regional economies, and the Government have made some suggestions. It says in the White Paper:
    "Airports are an important focus for the development of local and regional economies. They attract business and generate employment to open up wider markets."
    That is an accurate statement for many regions, especially Liverpool. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say what further steps the Government will take to make their aspirations a reality and enable John Lennon airport—and other regional airports—to play a full part in developing the local economy, to support jobs and prosperity for the people of the region.
    2.44 pm
    Mr. Mark Francois: I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate on aviation services, as I wish to raise several issues relating to aviation in the county of Essex. Since the Committee published its report, we have also had a reply from the Government and the subsequent White Paper on air transport, published in December 2003.
    I am pleased that in the White Paper the Government abandoned plans to build an airport at Cliffe, on the Hoo peninsula. As someone who campaigned against Cliffe from the outset, I believe that that was the correct decision. I was always opposed to Cliffe on environmental grounds, particularly because of the

    1695
    potential adverse effect on my constituents from 24-hour operation of the so-called crosswind runway, which could have taken night flights directly over my constituency. In addition, I was also opposed because of the effect on wildlife habitats in the Thames estuary, including the bird populations in the area and the related risk of bird strike for aircraft safety. The right decision was reached on Cliffe, and I hope that the matter is now closed.
    Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at reports in the press recently that suggest that the campaigners against expansion at London Heathrow and Stansted now threaten to take the Cliffe decision to the High court to have it reopened? Would not that be a retrograde step? Indeed, it would spoil the arguments of those campaigners, because we in Essex should stand shoulder to shoulder against the inappropriate expansion of our airports.
    Mr. Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He was also an active campaigner against any development at Cliffe. I have some sympathy with the protestors against Stansted, and I shall give them some support later in my speech, but reopening the issue of Cliffe is not the way to solve that problem. The right decision was taken, and we should accept it and move on.
    The White Paper also encouraged development of smaller regional airports, including Southend. Southend airport is actually located at Rochford, just over my constituency boundary. It has a proud history, having served as a forward operating base for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, something that I know will be close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The airport has developed more peaceful uses over the years and now specialises as a repair and maintenance centre for aircraft, which accounts for more than 80 per cent. of the airport's turnover.
    Southend airport's owners, Regional Airports Ltd., and the airport director, Roger Campbell, have done a good job of turning the airport round financially in the last few years, and I pay tribute to them for that. Southend operates a small number of passenger flights, domestically and to the continent, but that may be curtailed in future by new Civil Aviation Authority regulations governing safety zones at the end of runways. Southend's runway has a medieval grade I listed church—St Laurence's—at one end.
    To put it mildly, that is a complicated situation, but to cut a long story short, the airport operators applied for planning permission to pick up the church and relocate it several hundred metres away, in order to try and comply with the new regulations. The airport owners insist that the technology is available to do that. However, the idea has not proved popular with the local population and the planning application was resoundingly turned down by Southend council. After careful consideration, the airport operators have subsequently decided not to appeal against that decision, which is a welcome development. However, it raises the question of where we go from here.
    1696
    Given Southend airport's relative proximity to Stansted, I cannot see it ever becoming a major passenger hub. Realistically, the bulk of the airport's future business is likely to remain in the repair and refurbishment of aircraft, which is already its core business. However I hope that it may be possible to achieve some compromise that does not involve relocating the church, but would allow passenger flights to continue from Southend. One option, which I suggest directly to the Minister, might be to utilise passenger aircraft such as the BAe HS146—the so-called whispering jet—and the later generation RJ series of aircraft. Those aircraft are already used at London City airport, because they can operate from a short runway and they also have the added advantage of being relatively quiet. If the CAA can interpret the new regulations sensibly and without risking safety, then RJ series aircraft might be able to provide passenger services from Southend without the need to relocate St. Laurence's church. That would be a classic British compromise and I hope that it may yet come to pass.
    The Government's proposal for a second runway at Stansted, theoretically available from 2012/2013, would increase the airports capacity from 20 million passengers per annum to 80 million—a gigantic fourfold increase. The White Paper is extremely prescriptive about the location of the second runway, some distance from the existing one. Consequently, the expanded airport would have a massive footprint, equivalent to the size of Heathrow or larger but deposited in the heart of rural Essex. Expanding the airport's footprint that way would cause severe environmental damage—which, even though my constituency lies south of the county rather than to the north—greatly concerns me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) remarked, it is incumbent on all Members of Parliament for Essex constituencies to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
    If a second runway were to be developed at Stansted, Essex would lose a number of beautiful villages for ever and there would be severe consequences in terms of noise and pollution. The proposal is linked with plans for building a large volume of new housing in northwest Essex. Although we are not debating housing—Madam Deputy Speaker would rapidly call me to order if I attempted to do so—there is considerable anger in Essex at the scale of the new housebuilding proposals— which would eventually bring about the concreting-over of large swathes of countryside around Harlow and Saffron Walden. I commend our excellent parliamentary spokesman for Harlow, Robert Halfon, for speaking out strongly against the proposed over-development.
    BAA estimates that the cost of expansion—including the new runway, additional terminal space, hard standing, fuel facilities and the panoply of buildings that go with airport growth on that scale—would be between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Government have repeatedly said that there will be no significant public subsidy, so the cost would have to be found from the private sector—chiefly by the BAA itself. However, as many so-called budget airlines use Stansted, they are unlikely ever to pay the higher landing charges that realistically would be, needed to recoup the massive cost of expansion. The major carriers, which might in theory

    1697
    be able to afford increased landing fees at Stansted, have made it plain that they wish to remain at Heathrow and Gatwick.
    Moreover, the CAA is opposed to any BAA proposals to allow cross-subsidy from Heathrow or Gatwick to fund expansion at Stansted. The major airlines would understandably be angry if they had to pay even higher landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick to fund Stansted's expansion for the benefit of their competitors. An article in The Daily Telegraph today, headlined "BAA may fight for cross.-subsidies", quotes Sir Roy McNulty, chairman of the CAA:
    "It seems entirely reasonable that the working assumption should be that the CAA will continue to regulate BAA's designated airports on an individual—or standalone—basis, both up to 2008 and beyond."
    Already the proposals seem to be in financial trouble and the business case on which they are based is in danger of unravelling before a single tonne of concrete has been poured.
    Partly because of the weakness of the financial case for the expansion, partly because the White Paper is so prescriptive about the second runway's location, and partly because of fears that as the two runways would be so far apart, at some point in the future there might be an attempt to add a third runway between them. Essex county council—supported by other local authorities—spearheaded an attempt to subject the matter to judicial review. I hope that the application will be successful and that, as a result, a second runway at Stansted will not be built.
    Mr. Stringer: I basically agree with the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he agree with the Select Committee that a solution would be for the BAA to be broken up—so that the three airports would be freestanding commercial enterprises?
    Mr. Francois: I will not comment specifically on the BAA's commercial future but leave that for others. My belief is that it is not feasible for the BAA as currently constituted to redevelop Stansted in the way proposed, for all the reasons that I have attempted to elucidate.
    There is a way out. Stansted currently accommodates 20 million passengers per annum. Not long ago, permission was granted to increase that number to 25 million. The BAA is currently working on a proposal to increase the figure to 35 million passengers per annum. The maximum capacity of Stansted's existing single runway equates to 40 million passengers. Although there would have to be some expansion of the terminal and other supporting facilities, good design would make it possible to accommodate that number of passengers without the airport's current footprint. Capacity at Stansted could be doubled without building a second runway, so the people of Essex could play a part in helping to expand the overall capacity of UK airports.
    I am not suggesting that people who live around Stansted airport would be overjoyed by an increase in passenger capacity from 20 million per annum to 40 million, as that would still present them with a number of challenges—but I believe they would find that preferable to the building of a second runway, with an increase in passenger numbers from 20 million to 80 million.
    1698
    I accept that, as the Government have said repeatedly, doing nothing is not an option, but facilitating a growth in passenger numbers at Stansted from 20 million to 40 million using the existing runway would be far from doing nothing. It would involve the people of Essex paying an environmental price but not such a tremendous price that they would find it impossible to accept. The compromise solution would mitigate the environmental impact by allowing some economic development around Stansted—but not to an extent that would be unacceptable to people living in Essex and across the border in Hertfordshire.
    I repeat: there is a way out. The people of Essex are not being NIMBYish in any way. I hope that the Minister will take my suggested solution on board, so that expansion can occur at Stansted with one runway— without despoiling the Essex countryside in such an awful way.
    2.58 pm
    Mr. James Plaskitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). He and I have spent many Thursday afternoons in each other's company. It is nice to continue our association, even though the Higher Education Bill has finished its time in Standing Committee.
    I want to praise the Transport Committee, of which I am not a member, for its report—which provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing the Government in addressing the future of aviation. I congratulate the Government on their White Paper, which is a brave undertaking. It offers a strategy and framework for addressing aviation's future that was previously sadly lacking. The Transport Committee was entirely right to ask the Government to present a strategic view of managing growth in aviation, to think long term, to avoid piecemeal development, to make the best use of existing facilities, to assess existing airports on a case-by-case basis and to reject new airports on greenfield sites.
    I was pleased that the Select Committee report referred approvingly to remarks made by the Secretary of State for Transport in 2002, in the run-up to publication of the White Paper. He said that
    "people living near to possible airport development or existing airports want to know where they stand…and do not want to be in a position where their uncertainty is prolonged any longer than necessary".
    On behalf of my constituents, I wholly endorsed that sentiment, so when the consultation process started, my constituents reacted with some consternation to the inclusion of an option to build a new airport on a greenfield site near Rugby. The effect of that suggestion was to produce blight and much worry and uncertainty, which lasted for about 18 months. The proposal was opposed vigorously by everyone in the local area. There was thus a sizeable measure of relief for my constituents and those in surrounding constituencies when the White Paper declared that the option would not be pursued and that the Select Committee's recommendation to avoid greenfield sites would be accepted.
    That experience confirmed exactly the Select Committee's forecast:
    "Identifying sites where development is possible in the next 30 years may be unpopular in the short term but it will remove blight and uncertainty for many areas."

    1699
    The House might thus have expected that my constituents and I would be rejoicing at the removal of that blight and uncertainty. We are not. The climate of concern that prevailed during contemplation of an airport at Rugby has returned in full measure. All the doubts and worries about the long-term strategy, which were supposed to be dispelled by the White Paper, are back in force for many of my constituents, thanks to the activities of Coventry airport.
    On the very day the White Paper was published, Coventry airport announced the launch of a budget airline operation. It was claimed that the announcement was coincidental, but some of us doubt that. In a debate in January, I had the chance to raise with the Minister the concerns of my constituents about the airport, so I do not need to rehearse all of them now. However, I point out to my hon. Friend that we are but 20 days away from the commencement of the Thomsonfly operation at Coventry airport. It will use Boeing 737s and there will be 150 flights a week, on a schedule that includes night flights.
    There is a range of concerns, including noise, the increase in the number of night flights and conflict over airspace, due to increased activity at both Coventry and Birmingham airports. I have already reminded the Minister that the runways at those airports are at right angles. Surface connections with Coventry airport are poor and there is already road congestion around the airport. There is a considerable lack of facilities at the airport to cope with the passenger movement that is envisaged; for example, there is no car parking. The issue that continues to vex us is whether that development is necessary at all, given that Birmingham airport is only 13 miles away in one direction and East Midlands airport is only 30 miles away in the other.
    David Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to East Midlands airport, which is in North-West Leicestershire. Would he be surprised to learn that at regional airports frameworks for environmental controls over night flights barely exist? A rapidly growing airport such as East Midlands, with 5 million passengers—albeit mostly during the day—has no such framework. Does my hon. Friend support the national pressure for an environmental framework for regional airports with equivalent designation to that for the London airports in terms of CAA control?
    Mr. Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for that contribution. He puts his finger on one of the issues that causes my constituents grave concern—the problem of trying to ensure that there is any control over what is happening at Coventry airport. I shall come to that point later in my contribution.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has lighted on an important point for those of us representing Leicestershire constituencies. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) will remember that Leicestershire Members were instrumental in assisting those in Warwickshire to resist the worst effects of the
    1700
    expansion of that county's Rugby airport. I trust that we can rely on his assistance as we try to mitigate the worst effects of the expansion at East Midlands airport, especially of cargo night flights.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I am inclined to answer "Only one miracle at a time", and not to intrude in another debate that will, I suspect, take place shortly.
    When the new service was proposed, Coventry airport submitted a planning application to build a new terminal and appropriate car parking facilities, but as the Minister knows, the airport intends to get the service under way before any of those developments are in place. Things are even worse than that. Although the planning application had still to be determined, the owners extended the runway and erected a new terminal building, both of which are outside their permitted development rights.
    When I discussed the matter with the Minister previously, he rightly pointed out that it was up to Warwick district council, as the local planning authority, to determine the application in the first place. However, since our debate, a major development has changed the situation. Back in January, the then airport owner, Air Atlantique—losing a large amount of money—did a deal with Thomsonfly to offer a cheap platform for its budget airline operation. However, Air Atlantique was unable to deliver its side of the deal; it appears to have suggested to Thomsonfly that it could run roughshod over planning constraints, but is now finding that it cannot do so.
    Last month, in only a few hours, Thomsonfly purchased the airport, so the airport operator and the airline are now the same entity. The planning application is still in place, but determination is repeatedly deferred owing to the complexities involved. The unauthorised development on the site is being reversed and a new environmental impact assessment is being drawn up. However, the intention of the new owner, backed by plenty of cash, is entirely clear. The new owner is the TUI group, which also owns Lunn Poly, Britannia Airways and other commercial operations. The company has an annual turnover of €15 billion and it made a profit of €500 million last year—a very different proposition from the previous owner.
    Representatives of the group visited the House yesterday to meet me and Members representing adjacent constituencies. The new managing director of Coventry airport is Bill Savage. There is a slight irony in his arrival on the scene as the new promoter of the scheme, because he worked with the Government on the consultation paper and helped them to assess the responses to the consultation process.
    The new owner clearly has it in mind to build activity at the airport up to an operating level of 2 million passengers a year. The existing freight operation might be expanded, as might business usage. Taken together, the whole operation would be close to the scale of that at East Midlands airport at present, which would be a complete transformation in the historical nature of such a small rural airport. After all, the White Paper says that Coventry airport has
    "a niche role catering for airfreight and flown mail".

    1701
    However, under the new owner, backed by that company's resources, the airport will go from a relatively placid rural airfield to a semi-East Midlands in only a few years.
    The Select Committee said:
    "Creeping development over the last two decades has increased uncertainty for people living near airports. It has led to uncoordinated, piecemeal development."
    The Committee said that such creeping development had to stop, and I understood that to be the purpose of the White Paper. Indeed, the White Paper claimed to provide
    "greater certainty for all concerned in the planning of future capacity".
    I suggest that the Coventry airport development as envisaged would be contrary to the White Paper strategy. It has a seemingly unrestricted operational licence. It is not designated. Section 106 agreements can do little more than to ameliorate its impact. Therefore, at present all that stands between my constituents and a semi-East Midlands airport on their doorstep is the planning department of Warwick district council, which is understandably overwhelmed by the scale of the task and the growing level of public opposition. I expect that bigger forces will have to become involved at some point to help us resolve this matter.
    In my area and region we recognise the pressure for more air travel throughout the midlands. The White Paper does, and it is absolutely right, but it sets out the strategy for dealing with it: expansion at Birmingham with the possible second runway in due course and some expansion at East Midlands airport. It does not envisage significant expansion at Coventry or indeed any other small airfield in the region.
    The Select Committee report says that publication of the aviation White Paper will only be the beginning. When the decision not to proceed with the Rugby option was announced, my constituents felt that that was the end of our beginning. Now, with the Coventry proposals looming large, we feel as though we are facing the beginning of our end, unless it can be stopped. The question is "How?" The airport has an unrestricted operating licence. Its ownership can change hands within a few hours, and completely in private. It seems able to launch a budget airline operation with no consultation whatsoever. Indeed, the first that I or any of my constituents knew about it was seeing advertisements on our regional television.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) urged us not to use the word "sustainable", but I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that these circumstances are not sustainable, and they are not compatible with the planned growth of air travel.
    I am grateful for this opportunity to put my concerns to my hon. Friend again. I urge him to take note of what is happening at Coventry, to assist us and to assess what is going on in the context of the aviation White Paper.
    3.12 pm
    Mr. Alan Reid: The islands and other remote communities on the west coast of Scotland have suffered population decline for centuries. In order to reverse that decline, we need to increase the
    1702
    frequency of transport and cut costs, in order to improve economic activity and public services in the area. Clearly, aviation has a central role to play, since getting to an island means either using aviation or taking the very slow ferry journey.
    That is why I want to use the opportunity of this debate to speak in favour of proposals by HITRANS—the Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership—to create a network of frequent and affordable integrated air services throughout the highlands and islands and to other destinations, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. The proposals would also mean improvements in the infrastructure of airports in the islands and new construction work to provide, for the first time, scheduled air services to Oban and from Oban to the small islands of Coll and Colonsay. The market alone cannot build up and sustain such a network. Clearly, Government financial support is required. The scheme already has strong support from local government throughout the highlands and islands, and HITRANS will submit its proposals to the Scottish Executive.
    I have high hopes that the Scottish Executive will support the proposals, but, because they will require public service obligations to be put on the routes, they also need the support of the UK Department for Transport. That is because the decision to apply to the European Union for permission to impose PSOs on routes is a reserved power, vested in the Department for Transport. I hope that the Government here will support this exciting new initiative. I stress that it will not cost them a penny; all the costs will be met by the Scottish Executive and local councils, but Government support is necessary when the proposals are submitted to Europe.
    The use of PSOs to secure regional air services at affordable fares is commonplace throughout the rest of Europe. France, Spain, Portugal and Norway use them for that purpose. Given that the highlands and islands is the most sparsely populated area of Europe, surely we can do the same here. I believe that the scheme will do a great deal to regenerate the economy of the highlands and islands and reverse centuries of population decline.
    Given this exciting new proposal and the need to reduce costs, it is very depressing that exactly the opposite will happen on 1 April, when air fares to the small island airports and to Campbeltown, on the Kintyre peninsula, will go up. Return fares will rise by almost £20 from Glasgow to Tiree and by almost £12 from Glasgow to Campbeltown.
    The increase is to pay for security at those small airports. Government policy is that security costs must be met by the aviation industry itself. Clearly, though, if the industry then passes the costs on to the passenger, the increase on each ticket will be far higher at small airports than at large international airports. For each of the airports at Tiree, Campbeltown and Barra the annual cost of security is about £50,000. Until now Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd has absorbed the costs, mainly by putting them on to landing charges at its largest airport, Inverness, thus avoiding putting the costs on to the small airports. However, the big airlines that use Inverness—British Airways and easyJet—have complained about that, so HIAL is being forced to apply the costs to each individual airport, with the result that passengers using them are forced to pay the full cost

    1703
    of security there. The increasing costs will be disastrous for the economies of the island of Tiree and for the Kintyre peninsula, because £20 extra on a return ticket to Tiree and £12 extra on a return ticket to Campbeltown will put a tremendous extra burden on those airports and on the local economy.
    I was pleased that the Minister told me on Tuesday, in answer to an oral question:
    "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."—[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1374.]
    That is a welcome step forward, but the matter is urgent. The economies of Tiree and Campbeltown will suffer if the higher costs are in place for long. I urge the Minister to ensure that the review goes forward urgently, and I hope that he can tell the House when he expects it to be completed.
    Of course, it is vital that security be stringent and that nothing slip through the net at small airports. I am sure that the promised consultation and investigation will result in a less costly security regime, though one that is still stringent. However, I am concerned that even if there is a small reduction in security costs, passengers at the small airports will still be paying a very high cost for security, far higher than passengers at big airports will pay.
    It is important to remember that baggage loaded at Tiree or Campbeltown can subsequently be loaded on to international flights at Glasgow airport, and the security of the whole network is therefore at stake. Accordingly, it is only fair that the cost of security should be spread across all air passengers, rather than the brunt being borne by those who enter the system at small airports. All passengers benefit from security at small airports, because of the baggage put on to onward flights.
    My suggestion to the Government today is that the proceeds of air passenger duty should he used to pay for the cost of security at small airports. Only a minuscule amount of the proceeds would be required. Air passenger duty brings the Government £800 million a year, yet, as I have said, the cost of security at small airports is only £50,000. Since the whole airline system benefits from that security, my suggestion would be fair and greatly beneficial to small, remote communities. I hope that the Government will seriously consider it.
    3.19 pm
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I shall be very brief, as we are short of time.
    We were absolutely delighted by the Government's decision to permit the expansion of Luton airport. We have lobbied for that for a long time, and we think that that decision is very sensible. Luton airport could accommodate 30 million passengers in time, as opposed to 7 million now, with an extended runway and parallel taxiway and better access to the airport.
    I want to emphasise that there are problems with access to the airport. The eastern corridor route is already planned and will be built, but I ask the Government to give serious consideration to pressing for the northern bypass route to be built right round
    1704
    from the A5, across the M1 and the A6, to the A505 and around to the airport. That would enable traffic to come from the north on all those routes direct to the airport, thus taking a lot of traffic off the southern M1 junction in particular.
    Another aspect of Luton airport is that it could be developed as a kind of satellite to Heathrow, with a rail link. There is a possibility of an electrified rail link between Luton Airport Parkway station and Heathrow. An existing line goes off at Cricklewood, joining the midland to the western regions. All it needs is a little electrification to become a Luton-Heathrow flyer.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to get the, best from all our airports, it would be a good idea to link Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton to ensure that we get the best capacity from the existing runways, thus moving aviation forward?
    Mr. Hopkins: I agree entirely. Indeed, I support Gatwick second after Luton. We need a planned approach. We have had problems because of BAA's dominance, and the Government have resisted the pressure from BAA and produced a good solution, putting Luton first.
    Luton airport can be developed quickly, easily and cheaply. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to press him not just to permit, but to urge the expansion of Luton airport as soon as possible. Such things cannot be done consecutively—we cannot just expand one airport, see how it goes and then look at the other options—but they could cascade, with Luton being the first. We could then take account of the possible downgrading of passenger forecasts for the future.
    The forecasts may not be quite as large as we expect, although there will be substantial expansion. If Luton is expanded quickly, we could get some measure of how far we need to expand the other airports, while we are still in the planning stages. That is essentially what I want to say. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been so helpful, will urge, not just permit, the expansion of Luton. so it can expand very quickly in the near future.
    3.23 pm
    Mr. John Randall: As a member of the Transport Committee, I know exactly what we are talking about when slots are being squeezed out, so I shall speak very briefly. I thought it a great privilege to be appointed to that Committee, until I found that it was a bit of a poisoned chalice because we were discussing aviation. Having Heathrow in my backyard and Northolt in my front garden, I found myself surrounded by people who were advocating doing all sorts of terrible things in my immediate vicinity. I tried very hard to listen to the evidence in an even manner, and it was very interesting.
    The Minister, who has been very kind to all the groups around Heathrow and listened to what we have to say, has said that there will be a debate on the aviation White Paper. That will be the time for me to argue why Heathrow should not be developed. He probably knows a lot of the points that I will make, and I do not envy his position one bit.

    1705
    It is a shame in a way that we have not been able to discuss in depth a lot of what is in the Select Committee report. Perhaps the Minister could consider consumer protection—the bonding of scheduled airlines—as it does not exist at the moment, the principle of fining off-track aircraft, which is still to be looked at, BAA ownership, which we discussed earlier, and air traffic control. All those matters are vital, but we unfortunately tend to get sidetracked, naturally, as they mean a great deal to our constituencies and us, into talking about individual airports and their needs. We have to face up the real problems. Although I would love to live in the never-never land of Peter Pan—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)—we have, unfortunately, to live in the real world and the fact is that people want to travel by air. I would love to restrict that in some way, but we cannot do so by taxation.
    3.25 pm
    Mr. Greg Knight: I welcome this debate and thank the Select Committee for producing its report. I compliment all hon. Members who have taken part for the high quality of their contributions.
    I emphasise to the Minister what my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said at business questions earlier: we look forward to an early debate on the aviation White Paper. If the Minister finds that he cannot answer some of the questions that have been asked today, we hope that we will hear the answers from him during the debate on the White Paper.
    It is right to remind the House that we have recently celebrated the centenary of powered, sustained flight, and I congratulate the UK aviation industry on playing a major role in both civil and military aviation during that period. We believe that aviation is crucial to the UK's prosperity. We recognise that air travel is essential for business and economic success, and we appreciate that almost 180,000 people in the UK are directly employed by the industry. Moreover, well over 500,000 jobs depend on UK aviation, and much of our tourism depends on the availability of air travel. Many people in the more remote parts of the country, which we have heard about in the debate, require air services for essential journeys. I therefore applaud the industry for competing successfully in a deregulated market in recent years and opening up air travel to all through lower fares.
    The Committee's report is welcome and poses many pertinent questions for those developing our aviation policy. As the Committee reminds us, the UK is the second largest aviation market, after the United States. If that position of strength is not to be threatened, we need to ensure that we make the right decisions.
    A number of hon. Members have rightly referred to the environment, and emissions trading is possibly the way forward. The airline industry has accepted the need to look at the environmental costs involved in flying. As the Committee's report makes clear, emissions trading has the support of a number of environmental groups and the Government's technical advisors. Emissions trading would allow airlines to buy and sell permits to a capped quantity of greenhouse emissions, and the Government should certainly continue to pursue the development of such a system. Indeed, with the UK's
    1706
    upcoming European Union presidency, this would seem an opportune time for the Government to push for EU-wide support in that respect, and I hope that the Minister will grasp that opportunity.
    I disagree completely with the comments made about taxation by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). In our view, a system of taxes and fines introduced unilaterally in Britain without international agreement would be catastrophic for the industry and one of the worst examples of gesture politics that I can think of, so I hope that the Minister will join me in dismissing that possibility. The Conservative party agrees with the Transport Committee that a fuel tax on aviation could be imposed only internationally, and the likelihood of that happening is extremely remote at present, and it looks as though it will remain remote for the foreseeable future.
    The report highlights the importance of striving for better air transport management. As I said in an intervention, it should not he assumed that doing nothing is the answer. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, a shortage of capacity can in itself harm the environment. The pollution costs of aircraft having to wait in stacks or on airport aprons must be taken into account. The Government must constantly ensure that existing capacity is used efficiently.
    We should appreciate that the airline industry, like the motor industry, has made use of developments in new technology to improve efficiency. I understand that the fuel efficiency of aircraft doubled between the 1960s and the 1980s. That trend must continue. There must always be incentives to encourage investment in research and in new aircraft design to help new technology to bring about savings and more environmentally friendly aircraft.
    The White Paper accepts that noise from aircraft operations, particularly at night, is widely regarded as one of the least acceptable aspects of those operations, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) is concerned about that. The Government say that their aim is to reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise, but that any night restrictions must be considered in accordance with a balanced approach. A commitment has been made to introduce new legislation to clarify and strengthen noise controls powers, and I hope that the Minister will say something about the time scale that he envisages.
    The report questions the reliability of air quality assessments at Heathrow and other sites. The current assessments may not be sufficiently sound to enable the Government to make crucial decisions about future expansion plans.
    Mr. Randall: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) about the environmental reasons at Heathrow being dubious were in themselves extremely dubious.
    Mr. Knight: I agree. The hon. Gentleman should buy a house near Heathrow, and see whether he still takes the same view after living there for a year. We need to take such issues seriously, and the Government time

    1707
    scale may be a little over-ambitious. It assumes full implementation of a tough package of measures to improve air quality, and the Government also talk about road charging. I am not sure that they will achieve that.
    Before consideration is given to constructing new airports, it is surely common sense to concentrate on making better use of existing facilities. It is a matter of great concern to a number of us that the number of slots at Heathrow and Gatwick allocated to regional routes has been drastically reduced, a problem was mentioned by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Liverpool. Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). In the past few years, regional services have certainly been curtailed from various regional airports, including Plymouth, Norwich and my local airport, Humberside. I find that distressing, because services were economically viable, but were dropped because of capacity constraints. Scarcity of slots at the major airports has led to more profitable routes pushing them out. We cannot allow that to continue unchecked, and I would like to know what the Minister is doing about it. Is he having discussions with the industry to see whether progress can be made, either without recourse to using the law or ahead of any use of the law?
    The Select Committee report questions the entire structure of the industry, and the Committee was highly critical of the position taken by BAA, which strongly denies all arguments of that kind, although some would say, "It would, wouldn't it?" It stresses the high levels of investment that it brings to the industry, but it is right that there should not be an automatic assumption that BAA, in its present form, is the correct arrangement for all time. I can see why many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that there is a case for a constructive review.
    There are many other things that I would like to say, but I shall have to leave some of them to another occasion because of the shortage of time. However, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made important comments about security. It is obviously crucial that all airports, large and small alike, maintain and combine high security with efficient procedures to reduce delays. We will support anything that the Government seek to do on that. The need to keep an eye on security has been brought home to us by the tragedy that has occurred today as the result of an act of terrorism.
    I would like to ask the Minister some questions before I conclude. What judicial reviews have been notified to the Government about airport expansion plans since the White Paper was published? Are any discussions taking place between the Government and the bodies involved? Does the Minister accept that demand for slots at Heathrow and Gatwick has exceeded supply for the last four years and that, under his proposals, there will be a wait of another 10 years before anything is done to alleviate the shortage? Does he accept that the loss of access from the regions that I have mentioned could have a damaging effect on the UK economy if speedy action is not taken?
    In some ways, air travel has provided a refreshing contrast to the growing problems that have beset surface transport, largely because it has the freedom to respond
    1708
    to increases in consumer demand that Government direction or inaction has denied elsewhere. The air travel industry has shown the fastest growth of any type of travel in recent years, with dramatic reductions in fares and charges. Those improvements have been the direct result of the increased competition made possible by liberalisation of the European air market.
    Whatever the Minister says when he addresses the House, I am sure that we all wish the industry well in facing the challenge; that need to be addressed as it goes towards its second centenary.
    3.37 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mr. Tony McNulty): It will be nigh on impossible to address all the serious issues raised by all hon. Friends and most honourable colleagues in the 10 or so minutes that I have to speak. However, I shall do my best to do justice to many of their comments.
    As I think the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, I would welcome a full day's debate on the White Paper. There are several reasons why it has not yet been held. The House may be assured that I am at the front of the queue of those exhorting the business managers—of whom I was once one—to hold such a debate.
    I welcome the Committee's report. Although it predated the White Paper by some months, many of the issues in it are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, as germane today as they were when it came out. In fact, they are even more germane after the White Paper.
    As others have said, the White Paper starts from the premise that the best starting point is the greater utilisation of existing capacity. That must be the right and logical place to start. We will work from there to see where we need to go beyond that. I am heartened by the response to the White Paper, which sets out the framework for the next 25 or 30 years. I agree about the importance of aviation not just to our economy and to regional development, but, in the broadest terms, to the whole country and not just to the south-east.
    Although the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is not in his place, I shall say in passing—I did not want to forget this—that the White Paper recognises the importance of the smaller sectors of aviation, such as business aviation. I was going to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was grateful to him. I have lost count of how many times I have read the stuff, but this is the first time I have noticed a mistake in it. He exhorted us to remember the importance of Farnborough to business aviation, but paragraph 11.101 on page 132 states that we recognise that there is
    "additional capacity to cater for business aviation demand: Farnborough, Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Fairoaks, Farnborough, Northolt and Southend."
    To paraphrase the song, Farnborough is so good they named it twice.
    Much of what my hon.. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about the aspects of where, who and who pays is important, and it is addressed in the White Paper, as is the importance of regional airports and of route development, which many hon. Members mentioned. We can consider how that could be based on

    1709
    the Scottish model, with public service obligations, and how it fits within the European context. The interconnectivity—another fashionable word that we probably should not use—of all our regions with the economic hub of London is terribly important and is also recognised in the White Paper. I was not sure about what my hon. Friend said about coming out fighting, saying which airports will expand and balancing that with protecting regions' interests. Perhaps I shall discuss that with her later because I think that we have probably done that. She rightly said that there would be no major development in the next five years. The new runways and additional capacity identified in the White Paper will certainly not happen within five years—a time scale of 10 years has been indicated. However, to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), that does not mean that existing capacity cannot be optimised in a shorter time, so I wish Luton airport well in that regard, as I have before.
    It is unusual in such an important debate for two Liberal Democrats to express about four different views. I take seriously the point raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid)—as I did in Question Time on Tuesday—on the connection of what is such a peripheral region with the rest of Scotland, let alone the rest of the United Kingdom. We tried to address such points in the White Paper. Both the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport are speaking to HITRANS and others involved with the highlands and islands.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point about security at smaller airports seriously. To be perfectly honest, I do not have on me the details of the time frame for the consultation that has just started, but I shall write to him about that. We are considering tailoring a package for smaller aircraft that use smaller airports to take account of some of the cost aspects that he mentioned. Security must be absolutely paramount, in the first instance, but there must be scope for tailoring the package to the size of the airport and the planes that utilise it. That is an entirely fair point and I shall write to him about it.
    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point that someone other than the aviation industry should pay for security. I also disagree with a further point that he blithely put. He suggested that given that there is cross-integration among security measures, we should use air passenger duty to pay for them. However, not two weeks ago, on 1 March, the hon. Gentleman's leader—if I may use that phrase—said that the Liberal Democrats would abolish air passenger duty. The hon. Gentleman would spend it on his local airport, but his colleague, whose constituency is not a million miles away from his in the north of Scotland, would abolish it. That does not really make sense. When the White Paper was published on 16 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was apparent—this is certainly true of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)—that
    "Liberals are in favour of air travel but not airports."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1441.]
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: I shall not, given the time constraints.
    The environment is a serious matter. The environment is taken seriously throughout the White Paper and the balance between the environment and the
    1710
    growth of aviation is mentioned constantly and clearly throughout it. However, the way in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham developed his case was so flawed, simplistic and empty-headed in all regards that it is not worth debating at all. [Interruption.] Well, here is the real nub of it. The hon. Gentleman cited serious organisations that we hold in high regard and with which we work closely, but he misquoted them. He then made simplistic extrapolations from their cases in such a fundamentally flawed way as to harm and undermine the environmentalist case. He made probably the weakest and most flawed contribution to the debate, which is a shame because the debate was otherwise useful.
    I did not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said—I am sorry about the other night's Porto result, but that is by the by. There is a goal called sustainable aviation towards which we can work. We must mitigate impact, even though that cannot be totally absent, but the goal is worth pursuing. I agree about the need to open up skies more readily for some of our regional airports—that is clearly set out in the White Paper—and I shall happily meet him to talk about Pakistan International Airlines, fifth freedoms, Manchester airport and everything else.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) bewails the EU—well, the EU full stop. I was sorry that he bewailed the EU air service agreements. We are moving toward a stage at which there will be a massive break up of the national carriers—a national carrier is the model of the past. I do not agree with what he said about sovereignty. Given that there are now trans-national and trans-European families of airlines rather than individual families, it must be right to move towards EU designation while retaining the bilaterals until that comes into play. I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his constituency capacity. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also made such points. As he kindly said, there is an ongoing ménage à quatre —me and the "Three Johns from Hillingdon"—in which we discuss Heathrow at length.
    The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made some interesting points about Southend airport. Happily, or otherwise, I was on top of Southend town hall the other week to have a look at Southend airport, among other things. I know that Freddie Laker ran flights from the airport to the Channel Islands back in the 1960s. I flew on one of the last Laker flights to America, but then the company went bust, so I could not fly back by Laker—that is by the by. His point about the further development of maintenance and other refurbishment facilities, which are the strength of Southend, was well made.
    The hon. Gentle man asked me to comment on judicial review—that also goes back to what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said. He asked whether we had spoken to anyone and how many reviews were ongoing. With the greatest of respect, I will not go there in any way, shape or form. People are fully entitled to put forward cases for review. They need to be taken seriously, but I say "No comment", and move on.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) has already made good points about Coventry airport that need pursuing. In

    1711
    the first instance, the points are matters for the planning authority, but if we need to discuss the situation further with him and other hon. Members, we will. Before the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) starts flapping about, I am still happy to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) to talk about East Midlands airport and the way forward on capacity and a new voluntary local network, and the options for full designation such as that of the airports in London and the south-east.
    Mr. Garnier:rose—
    Mr. McNulty: I will not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman; I said that to obviate giving way to him at all.
    David Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: I will not, with the greatest of respect, but having said that, I will—briefly—because I will then sit down.
    David Taylor: When the Secretary of State for Transport launched the White Paper several months ago, he used the phrase
    "stringent noise and environmental controls"
    on several occasions in the context of growth at regional airports. Is the Minister now able to tell us what shape those stringent controls will take? Will they be based on a national framework, or will they emerge from the fog of some Dutch auction with airports and planning authorities underbidding each other to ensure that the greatest growth takes place in their areas?
    Mr. McNulty: It is very rare that I regret giving way to a colleague, but I do on this occasion, as my hon. Friend's question was far too long. It is a question of balance—we must consider whether we are satisfied with voluntary noise restrictions at East Midlands airport, whether we are happy with arrangements if it expands and whether we need to legislate for noise within a national framework, as has been suggested. Those are all in the mix, but it is only two or three months since the first real White Paper—other documents have been called White Papers, but they are not—which strives to achieve a balance between the interests of business, the community, the aviation sector and, crucially, the environment, and goes far beyond the Mickey Mouse suggestions of the Liberal Democrats. We want a substantive package at national, European and international levels so that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said, the goal of sustainable aviation over the next three years is achievable and the country can go forward with a proud aviation record.
    "Debate concluded, pursuant to Resolution [3 March].
    Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) and Order [29 October 2002], until 6 pm.

Biofuels

  DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  [Relevant Documents. Seventeenth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Biofuels, HC (2002–03) 929)-I, and the Government's response thereto, HC (2003–04) 270; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5919.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That further resources, not exceeding £1,251,750,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £613,478,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Corsolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.—[Joan Ryan.]
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful for the opportunity to open our debate on biofuels. The motion deals with an estimate of expenditure for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Minister for the Environment, who will reply to our debate, could deal with all outstanding issues on biofuels if the £1.25 billion mentioned in the motion, or at least part of it, could be veered towards biofuels. It is a substantial sum, and I would love to have a debate on everything that that expenditure covers. However, if a small amount could be spared for biofuels, everyone would leave the Chamber feeling even happier.
  It is always a pleasure to learn that events are moving in the right direction, as was demonstrated by the front page of the business section of The Daily Telegraph. Most of the newspaper is printed in black and white, but there is a pink section in the middle covering business, where a headline said, "Whitehall warms to 'fuel from crops' initiative". I took that as an omen of a positive debate, as we consider the biofuels report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is cited as a relevant document. The Order Paper says that the estimate is
  "to be considered in so far as it relates to biofuels"
  and I am delighted by that close link.
  May I put on record my appreciation of everyone who contributed to the production of the report? The subject of biofuels attracted a great deal of interest from people in the fields of agriculture and fuel, the general public, and people with environmental interests, many of whom kindly gave evidence. None of our reports could be produced without the hard work of the Clerks and others who support us, and I thank in particular our specialist, Kate Trumper, for her contribution. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) are in the Chamber this afternoon, as they serve on the Committee and take a particular interest in the subject, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She was a member of the Committee when the report was produced, and has since been a leading player in subsequent debates on the subject in the House. She serves her constituency and East Anglia well in continuing to advance the cause of biofuel, as does my hon. Friend the Member for South-East

  1713
  Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and other Select Committee members who have worked hard on the issue.
  The timing of our debate is propitious, because it is just a week before the Budget. We live in hope that the Chancellor is prepared even now to say something about further encouraging the use of biofuels. Far from holding out the begging bowl to the Treasury, I want to set out an alternative strategy for developing a genuine biofuels industry in Britain. As I shall outline, the transformation of oilseed rape—raw material which is indigenous to the United Kingdom —into biodiesel is sadly almost non-existent. Production plants currently in operation use the residues of cooking oil to produce biofuels. It is good that some biofuels are produced, but given that British agriculture would benefit from a revolution in fuel production, we appear not to be taking advantage of opportunities to produce and develop a facility for biofuels in this country.
  The first comment in our report is that biofuels
  "are the only source of renewable power currently suitable for road transport".
  Given the Government's understandable commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we would say that the two naturally go together. In a moment I shall review what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says by way of justifying further activity in this area.
  I remind the House of a second and crucial conclusion that arose from our report. We pointed out that
  "the Government's biofuels policy, to the extent that it has one, appears muddled and unfocused."
  It is important to see what the Government said in reply to our Select Committee report. They did not address the issue, apart from disagreeing with us in the nicest way. They stated:
  "The Government does not accept that its policy is muddled and unfocused",
  yet one has only to consider the number of Departments with a finger in the pie—the Department for Transport, the Treasury, DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry. There appears to be no champion of biofuels. Perhaps when the Minister replies, he will put on the champion's hat and tell us how he intends to translate his Department's very positive view of biofuels into a UK biofuels industry.
  When Lord Whitty came to give evidence to the Committee, he made it clear, with his usual remarkable candour, that his Department was not only in favour of biofuels, but frustrated at the barriers to developing an indigenous industry that were being put in place by the Treasury.
  DEFRA, together with Peter Clery of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, have produced an excellent little leaflet, which begins is by reminding us that biofuels

  "can cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by 50–60 per cent. compared to fossil fuels and so can contribute to meeting UK targets for alleviating climate change."
  The document goes on:
  "The production of biofuels from arable crops would provide a useful new market for rural Britain".
  Well, we are cheering, and we have only got to page 3. Then we come to some more telling analysis. Under the heading "Are they available?", the document reports:
  1714
  "About 700,000 litres (around 600 tonnes) of biodiesel are currently sold each month"—
  then comes the let-down—
  "produced mainly from recycled cooking oils and available as a 5 per cent. blend from around 100 filling stations. No bioethanol is yet available commercially."
  In the same document is a beautiful picture, probably taken in a field in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, of a sugar beet harvesting machine, giving the impression that that is the way forward, but sadly there is no facility to take that harvest of sugar beet and turn it, in this case, into bioethanol.
  On the following page the document continues:
  "Producing biofuels costs (pre-tax) about twice as much as fossil fuels, depending on the cost of feedstock and crude oil."
  DEFRA recognised the need for help, but as our report pointed out, a 20p duty derogation was all the help that came. We put that to the Treasury Minister, the Economic Secretary, who came to speak to the Committee. That number was selected—it was not worked out. I received a parliamentary answer that said that it was chosen—it was selected. The figure could have been 19 or 21, but the Treasury selected 20 because it wanted to give some encouragement, but not to encourage a biofuel import industry.
  I am a simple man, and I looked at the logic of that. If there is no indigenous industry, where will biofuel come from as the country moves towards meeting its EU obligations? By definition, it will be imported. Can we not make a virtue out of the necessity of the DEFRA analysis, and start to find ways of producing an industry at home? The document goes on to say:
  "In the wider context, the EU has adopted legislation which will require the UK and other European countries to set indicative targets for the use of biofuels. The EU's reference targets are 2 per cent. by 2005 and 5.75 per cent. by 2010."
  It is not long until 2005. The Department for Transport, which is in charge of the consultation exercise on the targets for biofuels, knew last May that such an exercise would be held, but nothing has been produced.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his courtesy in giving way. May I lend weight to his arm by telling him that farmers in Essex, not least in my constituency, are keen to encourage biofuels? Does he agree that, contrary to the claims of some lobby groups, most farmers are environmentally aware? They care about the environment; the beauty of that is that it represents a win-win for farming and the environment.
  Mr. Jack: I am delighted that Essex farmers are so perceptive. They recognise the potential of their set-aside land to grow the crop. I am sure that they are aware of a key finding in the Select Committee report: we asked DEFRA to do more work on the environmental impact of increasing the amount of oilseed rape that is grown under the circumstances that I outlined. I am also sure that perceptive Essex farmers realise that there is more work to do on that. My hon. Friend's comments show the genuine enthusiasm of British farming, at a time of immense change and transition, to seek new opportunities.

  1715
  The challenge for farming—the Secretary of State referred to it in Question Time—of having to think through more carefully what it will do in the regime of the single farm payment means that farmers will look to the marketplace for opportunities. Here is a gigantic opportunity. Biodiesel production in the United Kingdom is currently approximately 25,000 tonnes a year. Half of that comes from cooking oil and the balance from imports. That clearly shows that we have the potential to do something about the matter.
  Mr. David Heath: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully. Does he agree that one of the prerequisites of a viable agriculture industry is a secure market to which to sell? Does he believe that, for bioethanol, a component of that might be a regulatory approach to substituting it in conventional petrol rather than fiscal support, which is the alternative mechanism?
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I want to develop shortly. There are several ways of achieving the objective that I hope we all share, and they do not necessitate a high cost to the Treasury.
  Let us put the production and the targets to which I referred earlier into some sort of context. Cargill produced some interesting data. A document that it sent to me stated:
  "If the Government were to follow EU guidelines targeting 2 per cent. biodiesel by 2005, this 400,000 litres per month must be expanded 80-fold to 32 million litres per month."
  The first figure reflects the current position. The document refers to the plant in Motherwell where some production of biodiesel will take place. The document states that
  "the Motherwell plant will add some 4.5 million litres per month, leaving a further requirement of 27 million litres"
  in the United Kingdom to meet the 2 per cent. EU target by 2005. Again, to provide some context, Germany already produces 700,000 tonnes of biodiesel.
  The Motherwell factory is an investment by the Argent Energy Group, which has a turnover of some £230 million. The plant is designed to produce 45,000 tonnes a year of multi-feedstock biodiesel. Unfortunately, it will use cooking oil and fats as the initial feedstock. There are signs of investment in the capital to produce the product, but not sufficient to persuade the industry in the United Kingdom.
  How do we persuade the Government to move the argument forward, given the targeting required by the European Union, the enthusiasm of UK agriculture to produce the feedstock and the desire of companies such as Cargill and British Sugar to invest respectively in biodiesel and bioethanol? I shall rehearse with the House an argument that I first made last year during debates on the Finance Bill, in which I applied the logic that is used on the renewables obligation in electricity to the parallel situation in road fuels. The House might recall that the renewables obligation requires electricity producers to take a proportion of their generated output from renewable sources, blend it with electricity from other sources and sell it at a uniform price. Although consumers cannot distinguish the sources, because
  1716
  electricity is a homogeneous commodity, they thereby encourage the renewables because of the slightly higher total electricity price that they pay.
  My first thought was that the Treasury could apply the same logic to fuel. If there were a derogation of 30p to encourage more investment—which the industry deems sufficient—let us consider what the cost per litre at the pump would be if the Treasury spread out the costs of providing biodiesel. Concentrating first on biodiesel, the 2 percent. target, with a 30 per cent. derogation, would have a duty cost of £120 million a year, which would in effect require the pump price to rise by 0.6p per litre. If we did the same with bioethanol and petrol, the total cost at the pump would be a further 0.6p per litre. With the 5 percent. diesel target, we would be looking at a cost increase of 1.6p per litre if the £300 million cost were funded through duty derogation.
  That simple piece of mathematics would in effect provide the Treasury with a free good because the users of fuel would pay, as do the users of electricity, for the renewables obligation. However, the argument may have moved forward, because a further development has now been suggested in the context of the Energy Bill that is before the other place. Although the amendment to that Bill to which I am about to refer has been withdrawn, the Minister might care to know that it will return on Report.
  The amendment, which has all-party support and was tabled by the noble lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Carter and Lord Palmer, has at its heart an obligation that would
  "require all producers selling road transport fuel in the United Kingdom to show that over the course of a calendar year a specified proportion of such fuel was biofuel."
  The novelty of that amendment is that it would not legally require blending but would set a target with the force of law behind it. leaving the fuel company to decide in what way it wanted to fulfil the obligation. Users would have to accept an uplift in the cost of the fuel, but it would be up to the fuel company to decide what that would be, commensurate with the inevitable additional costs and investments.
  Evidence supplied to me ahead of today's debate suggests that such a move would not attract a tidal wave of imports, and that imports might move to easier fuel duty markets than the United Kingdom. That simple amendment none the less raises the possibility of having biofuels—both bioethanol and biodiesel—at a cost that would be paid by the user, not the Government, although the Government's support would be required to put the obligation to meet the target into law. That possibility should be investigated very carefully.
  I return to my starting point, because in his comments on recent meetings with Treasury Ministers on that matter, Mr. Peter Clery, the chairman of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, has said that he was encouraged by those discussions, in which he had something of a meeting of minds with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. It seems that this possibility was considered feasible and that the Government may have indicated a degree of support for it. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to address that issue when he winds up.
  On the implementation of the biofuels directive, the European Union has said in a letter to Mr. Clery dated 8 March:

  1717
  "Member States are free to require each fuel supply company to achieve a given proportion of biofuels relative to the quantity of petrol and diesel fuels that it places on the market on the Member State's territory (without specifying how this should be achieved in terms of blending)."
  There we have permission to say to member states, "This is a possible way forward." In simple terms, the Government could adopt the amendment that might come back on Report. The reason why it could come back is that a penalty clause could be applied to fuel companies that do not meet their obligations, and the resulting revenue could go back into a pot to help those that do. It seems simple that all users of road fuels could, through a modest increase, pay for the generation of a new industry in British farming and the production of a fuel that would help us further to reduce 2 emissions and meet our global obligations on greenhouse gases, particularly through the reduction of road fuel gases. That would give biofuels a kind of parity with what appears to be the Government's favoured choice, liquefied petroleum gas, which has a 40 per cent. derogation.
  I campaigned for assistance with the development of LPG on health grounds. The Government, by giving 40p a litre for LPG, seem to be saying that they value those gains at a greater monetary amount than they value the reduction of CO2. I find that a difficult intellectual position to accept, when both objectives appear to be of equal merit.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman very carefully. In the context of the comparison with LPG, does he agree that there is one fundamental difference, namely the massive infrastructure costs that will have to be borne by the vehicle companies and the fuel distributors? There is therefore justification for a differential.
  Mr. Jack: I am not going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, save to say that the current derogation on biofuels is 20 per cent., while that on LPG is 40 per cent. It is difficult to explain why one is twice as much as the other, in the face of the two sets of important objectives.
  We now have the potential to use agricultural set-aside land productively, to do much to generate new activity in rural Britain, to safeguard companies such as British Sugar that wish to pioneer bioethanol production in this country, and to give a further boost to manufacturing jobs by virtue of producing our biofuels. At a time when we are considering important issues of energy security, we would have the potential for a further secure supply. When all that beckons, and when DEFRA produces arguments that are irrefutably in favour of this proposition, it is time for the Government to be bold, to take up these ideas—which might well not cost them anything—and to give biodiesel the chance to be developed for the benefit of us all.
  4.14 pm
  Paddy Tipping: I am extremely pleased to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and I do not disagree with one word that he said. The strength of
  1718
  the campaign for biofuels is the strength of support that exists on both sides of this Chamber, in the other place, and among the people outside the Palace of Westminster who work in this indigenous industry. I have looked at this issue fairly closely, and there are very few people who oppose the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Government face a serious challenge, which they are indeed taking extremely seriously. They have a good record in moving towards a low carbon economy, and in terms of Kyoto they have been a leader in the field. We will meet our targets, but they will be achieved on the back of reductions in the manufacturing and electricity generating sectors and in the coal industry. If we really are committed to a low carbon economy, the essential task before us is to tackle the transport sector across government.
  Despite a fine record in other fields, this Government—and previous Governments—have fought shy of tackling carbon emissions in the transport sector. That is the big challenge that confronts us all. It is a difficult one, and one of the few tools available to us in the short term is the development of biofuels: biodiesel and bioethanol. The problem, which has already been spelled out today, is that myriad Government Departments are involved in this discussion.
  The Government helpfully replied to the Select Committee report on 21 January, and the opening page of that response makes interesting reading:
  "In common with other policies and issues which are wide-ranging in their impact on the UK, there are a number of Government Departments with an interest in biofuels."
  The rest of that page spells out the involvement of those Departments. It is clear to me that despite the Government's response, there is insufficient joined-up communication, and particularly leadership, in respect of biofuels.
  I say directly to my good friend the Minister, who is keen on this issue, that throughout the world—in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, north America and, particularly, Brazil—biofuels are taking off. By way of comparison, what do we have in the UK? Let me put it crudely: some chip oil recycling. We must do better than that. I am absolutely convinced that if we are to tackle the transport sector, we need to introduce firm policy proposals for biofuels.
  The European Union gives us an opportunity to make some progress. A biofuels directive was published on 8 May last year, but it is still not clear—perhaps the Minister can answer this question today—when the long-awaited Department for Transport consultation document on how we are to achieve our targets will be published. The story is that it will be published in late April. There will be a 13-week consultation period, and the Government should respond to the Commission by the summer, setting out a policy on how we are to achieve our targets of 2 per cent. by 2005 and 5.75 per cent. by 2010. Given the very slow start that has been made in introducing that consultation document, it is clear that we will fall at the first hurdle. We must do better than this.
  Mr. Heath: Why should this have anything to do with the Department for Transport, given that a motorist

  1719
  using petrol with a small substitution of ethanol will not know the difference? Surely it is a matter for Departments dealing with the environment and agriculture, and for the Treasury. Waiting for the Department for Transport to come up with its reasons is clearly a superfluous exercise.
  Paddy Tipping: That may well be so. What is essential is for all the Departments involved to work together. Next week's Budget statement will give us an opportunity to make some progress, and the energy White Paper and the pre-Budget report published last autumn gave biofuels the amber light, but at present we are not moving off the grid. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Department for Transport has yet to issue its consultation paper.
  We need, in fact, to go beyond consultation. We need firm policies to deliver a British biofuels industry, and that could be done in a variety of ways. So far, the focus has been on a 20p duty derogation, although the industry says that another 6p or 8p is necessary. Another approach, which may well be feasible, is to consider capital grant and capital allowance. I have discussed that with the Treasury, and it seems to be a possible option.
  The real option, though—the option that a sensible Government ought to choose—has already been mentioned today. I refer to the notion of a road transport fuel obligation. It is clear to me that our entire existing fleet could run with an admixture of 5 per cent., or perhaps 10 per cent., with no engine modification. That alone would bring about amazing carbon reductions, at no cost to the Treasury.
  We consumers—we who use the car—know, or ought to know, that we are causing serious environmental damage. It must be right for the consumer to bear part of the cost. A small addition, a growing addition, of biofuels creating a fuel mix must be the answer. I have looked carefully at the Lords amendment that has been mentioned. Its content is reflected in early-day motion 538, signed by a number of Members on both sides of the House. It is supported by people throughout the country, throughout the sector and throughout industry.
  I think that there is a danger of sucking in imports from, say, Brazil. Adopting a renewable transport fuel obligation with an escalator attached would give us an opportunity, over a period of years, to move from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., 5 per cent. and even larger percentages. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who began to advocate that approach five years ago. At the time it was dismissed with derision, but I think we have moved beyond that now. I think the Government are now committed to a low-carbon economy. They must take up the challenge, and move into the transport sector. I envisage no cost to the Treasury. Consumers—drivers—should carry the cost, and it is a small cost indeed. I hope the Minister will take account of what is said here today, of the voices of those in the other place, and of the emerging consensus across the sector in favour of a fuel obligation.
  It cannot be right for us to use biofuels imported from abroad. Throughout my county of Nottinghamshire, farmers can produce the goods. At Newark, British
  1720
  Sugar has a factory that could be converted to bioethanol production. We can add value to the rural economy. One of the issues facing the Government, on which they are fighting strongly, is that of helping rural economies to emerge from a tough time for farming. By any measure, biofuels bring together a series of policy objectives to meet our need to create that carbon-reduced economy. Let us stop talking about it, and do it.
  4.25 pm
  Norman Baker: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on his introduction to this debate. His argument was most convincing, and unanswerable in its logic. I hope very much that the Minister will agree with the sentiments expressed and the logic deployed.
  I also hope that the Minister will notice that three speakers, from three different parties, have—or will have—taken the same line. The difficulty is that while in the Chamber this afternoon we will agree on the way forward, and even the Minister may agree on it, those who are of a different mind for whatever reason, or who are unable to make the connections, are not present. No Ministers from the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Department of Trade and Industry are present. The Minister may report back to his colleagues that there was unanimity in the debate, but will that be enough to convince the relevant Ministers and Departments that they must take the necessary action?
  I hope that I am not being too pessimistic, but over the years I have come to conclude that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Ministers have put forward some good ideas and thoughts, which then seem to run into the sand somewhere in Whitehall and Westminster. Far too often, DEFRA Ministers defend the logical position, but it is not one that they are able to deliver. At DEFRA questions today, the secretary of State set out a sensible policy on Nirex, which the DTI tried to stop, a sensible policy on abandoned cars, which the DTI is trying to stop—
  Mr. Heath: And on milk prices.
  Norman Baker: Indeed. The list of sensible policies put forward by DEFRA to which it secures agreement from all three main parties, but which suddenly disappear—we know not why—is almost endless. We all need an assurance from the Minister as to what process will take forward in Government what I think will be the view of all three parties represented in the Chamber today. How will we learn the responses from the various Departments involved to the comments that will have been made today?
  In particular, I am concerned that we will in no way meet the EU targets—not the 5.75 per cent. one, and, if we are not very careful, not even the 2 per cent. one, which, as the Minister is muttering from a sedentary position, is due shortly. I am not clear as to whether we will meet that, and it would be helpful if the Minister set out the steps that he intends to take to meet that target.
  The Minister has had number of useful suggestions from Members who have spoken so far. I am particularly attracted as, I think, is the hon. Member

  1721
  for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), to the idea of a road transport renewable fuel obligation. He was much too modest to say that he tabled the early-day motion on that, so I put that on the record now. He is right that it has attracted all-party support, however, and that it has a large number of signatures in support. That proposal seems to me the way forward and the way to achieve the objectives. There are difficulties with the alternatives—that of capital grants has merit, and it may support the domestic industry better than any of other alternative, but clearly there is a cost to that. There is also the differential, but again, I am not quite sure what its impact would be, and it would cost money, so it is less attractive to the Treasury. The fuel obligation is a simple proposal that delivers the goods, and I hope very much that that will be taken forward.
  Genuine concern exists, and not just in the House, about the likely failure to meet that target. Members will have received a letter from the National Farmers Union in advance of this debate.
  It states:
  "As things stand, there is every likelihood that this target—
  2 per cent—
  "will be completely missed, due to the Governments policy on biofuels."
  Sadly, I suspect that that is accurate
  There are two reasons for making progress on biofuels to a greater extent than in the past. The first is the environmental argument. I was going to refer to the Government's response, but I should say: the response of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is what we are debating today, and I wonder how much influence the Treasury and other Departments had on it. DEFRA's response, on behalf of the Government, to recommendation 9 is that
  "capturing the environmental benefits of biofuels is the principal policy reason for Government support with duty initiatives. Other considerations such as economic and social factors, though secondary, are also taken into account in the Chancellor's fiscal decisions."
  That makes sense—the main objective is indeed environmental. We must do something about climate change, but there is no one big lever we can pull to deliver all the benefits. A selection of levers has to be pulled across various sectors, which all do their little bit to meet our Kyoto targets.
  In the road transport sector, we are clearly in some difficulty. Industry has done quite well at cutting its carbon emissions, but the same is not true of road transport, where emissions are rising rapidly and, frankly, the Department for Transport has no plan to deal with them. The 10-year plan, which talked about road traffic reduction—we should remember that that was a Government commitment—has all gone, and we are now seeing big increases in road transport throughout the country. The last figure I saw was about 7 or 8 per cent., and in a parliamentary answer of a couple of weeks ago, the Department for Transport projection was for a 25 per cent. increase in road traffic by 2010. That is in free fall; there is no handle on that from the Department at all. If it cannot control the number of vehicles, then my goodness, it must control the emissions from all the vehicles on the road, if there is any chance of reducing—or even levelling out—the carbon emissions.
  1722
  If I went on for long about aviation, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to say that our previous debate was a disgrace in respect of the Government's commitment to dealing with carbon emissions from aviation. It is another matter that must be taken into account.
  I pay tribute to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its extremely well argued and sound report, which demonstrated that considerable CO2 emission savings could be achieved through bioethanol. The representations from British Sugar—I imagine that many Members will have received them for today's debate—referred to a possible 70 per cent saving of such emissions, so there is a great deal to play for. These are big games; I only wish that we move forward and accomplish them.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs probably articulated the Department's position when, in a debate of 15 October 2003, he said:
  "Biofuels can provide significant life-cycle reductions in carbon dioxide emissions".[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 89W1.]
  Those were his words, so DEFRA is clearly signed up to the concept that it could be a sensible way forward to tackle the problem of climate change. If so, however, we have to ask why we are not making more progress. That is the key question for this afternoon's debate.
  I have talked about the environment, but there are also benefits for agricultural and rural communities. The right hon. Member for Fylde said that there would be a marginal increase for road users—frankly, it would not be much, but even a marginal increase would have to be offset by the gains to the rural economy from the creation of many jobs. It is not clear precisely how many jobs might be created, but in a previous debate of 20 November 2003, the Minister for the Environment estimated that 6,000 jobs would follow from meeting the 5.75 per cent. target. That is not insignificant for rural communities. The European Commission report of 2001 said that a UK biofuels industry could create 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has been particularly active on that issue. There is some uncertainty about the exact scale of the jobs that will be created, but no one is in any doubt that they will be— and often in areas of deprivation or of hidden rural unemployment. We should not lose sight of those benefits.
  We are always encouraging farmers to diversify, and biofuels represent a classic way for them to do that. Biofuels are good for the environment, and diversifying into them would help protect rural industries and the rural economy. We should encourage that.
  The Minister will be familiar with the Curry report, from both his present and his previous roles. That report states:
  "England needs a long-term strategy for creating and exploiting opportunities in non-food crops, including starch and oils".
  There are therefore two reasons why DEFRA should be active in this area. The first has to do with the environment, and the second with the rural economy. The Department has two main responsibilities, and both would benefit from adopting such a policy, but it is not being introduced in a coherent way. The exasperation

  1723
  felt by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) at the failure of the Department for Transport to start even a consultation process was evident. It is shared by many other hon. Members, but why is the process so slow in starting?
  No one so far has referred to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. The summary states:
  "The Government's biofuels policy, to the extent that it has one, appears muddled and unfocused."
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to it.
  Norman Baker: I am aware that the right hon. Member for Fylde referred to it and used the word "muddled", but I was quoting directly from the report. In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman did mention the same passage, I am happy to repeat it, as I entirely agree with it. The summary goes on to say:
  "Different Government departments disagree about the main reason for increasing use of biofuels and about what level of Government support is necessary."
  That is the problem. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, a great many different Departments are involved, including DEFRA, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Department for Transport, and Customs. There are probably a few others as well, and I would not be surprised if the No. 10 policy unit was one of them.
  The fact that there is no lead Department in this area is a recipe for chaos and inaction. The same problem was evident in the previous Parliament, in connection with animal welfare. The breadth of responsibilities on that issue was huge: it was spread across many different Departments, and I was one of those who told the Government that they needed to sort the problem out.
  To the Government's credit, they brought under DEFRA everything to do with animal welfare apart from experimentation, which is a Home Office responsibility. I hope that a draft Bill on animal welfare will move matters forward, but that example shows that changes can be made and a lead Department identified.
  What is the solution in respect of biofuels? Who will bring matters together and identify a lead Department with the clout to take all the measures that the House considers necessary? If we do not give responsibility to a lead Department and sort out the mess in Government, the brutal reality is that the use of biofuels ain't going anywhere.
  If biofuels policy is taken forward, I predict that, very late in the day, someone in Government will say, "We're going to miss this EU directive target. We're on the skids and nowhere near it." That will lead to sudden, jerky decisions being taken, with the inevitable result that imports will have to deal with the problem. We will therefore miss the opportunity to help Britain's rural economy.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the driving force in this matter is the Treasury, which is patently not enthusiastic? Nick
  1724
  Tapp is a farmer in my constituency, and his enthusiasm for biofuels has enthused me in turn. I raised the matter with the Treasury, and the Economic Secretary wrote back to me to say that, even with a discount of 20 per cent. per litre, 30 per cent. of such fuels were being imported. The implication was that increasing the discount would lead to higher imports and higher feedstock exports by farmers to Germany, with the result that there would be no gain. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that economies of scale will never be achieved as long as that attitude prevails?
  Norman Baker: I entirely agree. That argument is covered in the report and in the Government's subsequent response.
  Of course, the Treasury is behind everything that the Government do. It need not be worried about biofuels, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Fylde. However, if it is going to make decisions on taxation for environmental reasons, it needs to conduct proper analyses of what will happen as a result of the decisions that it takes.
  When the Treasury introduced taxation differentials for liquefied petroleum gas, its motives were good. It felt that it had to respond to pressure for taxation differentials for cleaner fuels, but it did not think through the consequences or weigh the advantages of LPG by comparison with biofuels. The Treasury does not feel able to back down on that, because the LPG industry is saying, 'You promised us the differential. We want some certainty, and you can't move the goalposts." The Treasury has some sympathy with that view. As a consequence, it has got into a bind that it cannot get out of.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman must take another factor into account. LPG is particularly popular in some rural communities such as those in Cornwall, where it is more readily available than in many other counties.
  Norman Baker: I take that into account, and it is only right that, having been given some signals, the LPG industry should not be left high and dry. My point is that the Treasury is allowing that particular consideration to get in the way of a biofuels policy.
  Mr. Heath: I do not want to depress my hon. Friend or the House too much, but I fear that the sclerosis on that particular topic has being going on for some time. I clearly remember a similar debate in which the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) participated. In that debate, there was also consensus from both sides on the way forward. In the last Parliament, when the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) was Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MAFF expressed a clear view that it wanted to progress the issue, yet nothing has happened in the intervening period that could be construed as a viable policy for biofuel, and that is the problem.
  Norman Baker: I agree with that statement, which brings me to my final point—I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute, and rightly so. The Minister must tell us what will happen at the end of this

  1725
  debate and what he will do with the consensus that he will take away from it. What is the relevant mechanism in the Government? How will he deal with his Treasury colleagues? What clout has he got with other Departments? What will the outcome be? We need to know the process—if he does not know the outcome, at least he can tell us about the process.
  I regularly say that I have got a lot of time for the Minister—I am sure that he welcomes my saying that in front of his parliamentary colleagues. If I can use a metaphor, however, I fear that he has been put at the wheel of this particular vehicle but other Departments have not put the fuel into it, and he must sort that out.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: The biofuels sector is the least developed part of the sustainable energy industry, largely because the current price of fossil fuel has made further development uneconomical to date. It is essential that we do as much as possible to reverse that. We must ensure that biofuels are supplied quickly and effectively to the transport market where there is significant demand for them. I therefore call on the Government to provide more resources for the development of a fledgling industry.
  Although it is essential that individual biofuels are viable in terms of their environmental impact and the net environmental gain of their large-scale production, we must not undermine the many benefits that such fuels could bring to our environment and economy. As I have said before, the use of bioethanol and biodiesel as fuels for road vehicles could have a large-scale impact on reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases in the UK. Bioethanol produces 50 per cent. fewer carbon dioxide emissions than other fossil fuels. According to the Sheffield Hallam study, Biodiesel from oil seed rape produces savings of 72 per cent. to 86 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions and 56 per cent. to 80 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions compared with ultra low sulphur diesel. Such savings are in line with the Government's commitment to reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. by 2008 to 2012.
  The transport sector contributes nearly a quarter of the UK's emissions of CO2 and it is imperative that we set up an effective emissions reduction strategy to counter the 5 per cent. growth in emissions from 1990, cut CO2, emissions and meet urban air quality standards. That strategy must include a greater focus on the potential of biofuels.
  A commitment to fuel diversification through biofuels would lead to the development of a vibrant new industry with a consequent increase in economic activity, job creation—estimated by a June 2003 report by the East of England Development Agency to be in the region of 12,000 new jobs—and associated socioeconomic benefits. Fuel diversification in favour of the sector could provide an alternative avenue to already depleted North sea oil reserves, leading to greater fuel security. That all depends on the sector's growth and the Government's commitment.
  I welcome the fact that the Government will introduce a new rate of duty for bioethanol from 1 January 2005, set at 20p a litre below the rate for sulphur-free petrol. I also welcome the alternative fuels framework
  1726
  introduced in the 2003 pre-Budget report that outlines a clear set of principles to determine future decision making for the development of biofuels across Departments. The rolling three-year period of certainty in the differentials in duty rates for alternative fuels is another welcome and transparent part of that framework. I would also like to note that the Government's reply to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's report on the matter is encouraging.
  I was pleased to note that the Government fully accept the Committee's recommendation that DEFRA should, as a matter of urgency, carry out an economic appraisal of the effect that a UK-based biofuels industry would have on farming. Further, I am pleased that DEFRA will publish detailed workings of that evaluation. DEFRA's central science laboratory has already assessed the impact of biofuels on habitats and biodiversity in the UK. It states that
  "biofuel production from a broad mix of arable crop feedstocks will have a neutral effect on the farmed environment".
  However, more scientific evidence must be collected on the effect of the large-scale production of biofuels on the environment and biodiversity.
  I encourage the Government to look for new and innovative ways to turn the sector into a vibrant new green industry in the UK. We must meet the EU Commission's target of 2 per cent. for the volume of biofuel to be used in the UK by 2005, and of 5.75 per cent. by the end of 2010. I hope that DEFRA—and the Department for Transport—will take those targets into account in consultations on meeting those requirements and will provide more resources for the industry, because time is of the essence. We need effective and proactive joined-up Government, not a lack of support for the admirable goals that I have laid out.
  The Government have stated, in response to the Committee's report on biofuels:
  "The Government fully agrees that fiscal incentives should always be considered alongside alternative methods of support, such as capital incentives, grants or regulatory solutions. The Government keeps all types of support under review."
  Clear steps can be taken now by the relevant Departments, in consultation with each other, to build the industry through such measures, quickly and effectively.
  Most important for DEFRA to consider, in my opinion, is the fact that the current regional selective assistance provided by the Department for Transport. while perfectly sensible in its own right, is not flexible enough to encourage national growth of the biofuels industry. It would be far more advantageous to establish a scheme similar to that which is already in place for bioenergy and wind farms. I would be interested to know what the Minister believes the potential of such a national scheme might be, as opposed to the regional assistance that can be provided at present.
  Other problems that must be thought through relate to the common agricultural policy, which allows payments of ₣45 a hectare for growers of energy crops. That will not have any significant impact on bridging cost differentials between bioethanol and fossil petrol. In its consultation with other Departments on that

  1727
  matter, DEFRA must also consider the benefit of other initiatives, such as the renewable transport fuel obligation. That scheme, if introduced, would require producers selling road transport fuel in the UK to show that a specific proportion of each fuel sold over the course of one calendar year was a biofuel. Such a step would be a bold and successful move and must be thoroughly assessed. According to the estimates of British Sugar plc, such a scheme could have a starting proportion of biofuels of 1 per cent. for 2006, increasing annually by 1 per cent. until 2010. The mandatory inclusion of that quota would ensure that the requirements of the EU directives were met, that there was a market for the new product and that oil companies played their part in the development of a new UK industry.
  While the Government should be congratulated on introducing a new rate of duty reduction for bioethanol, they should be bolder in setting a duty reduction in the region of around 30p a litre on that fuel. While it is true that such increasing duty reductions will lead to greater importation of biofuels, a measured introduction of further reductions over time, in conjunction with the establishment of the industry in the UK, would have a positive effect. Certainly, the lack of such an incentive is hampering the industry's growth at present.
  The threat of imported biofuels with lower environmental credentials could seriously undermine the fledgling industry. The real risk, however, is that UK producers with strict environmental standards will be undercut by less satisfactory non-EU imports. I find unsatisfactory the response of the Government to that threat, as outlined in the seventeenth report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Government state that they
  "anticipated that there will be limited international trade in refined liquid biofuels in the medium term. However, the Government has always considered that a higher level of duty derogation on biofuels could encourage imports of biofuels."
  They add that
  "auditing the environmental impact of biofuels in the countries in which they are produced is extremely problematic and it is unlikely that a cost-effective and robust system of regulation could be introduced."
  I do not criticise the Government on the specific issues raised in those two comments but question their willingness to consider how to alleviate the threat of an influx of imported goods if the duty reduction is increased. It seems that there is more willingness to forgo the idea of a larger reduction than to tackling the problem head on.
  As to the current exclusion of ethyl tertiary-butyl ether from the fuel duty rebate, experience in other European Union member states indicates that the preferred method of introducing bioethanol into the fuels market is by converting methyl tertiary-butyl ether to ETBE plants. Currently, the 47 per cent. bioethanol that makes up ETBE is not covered by the fuel duty rebate. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that addressing that anomaly would be another positive step in developing an effective biofuels market?
  There must be an increase in Government resources for the development of a strong UK bioethanol industry, whose development could be quick and
  1728
  successful. The production technology for such an endeavour is well known, and the industrial will is present. I encourage the Minister to take on board the comments raised today and to examine ways in which more resources can be freed up, to put the bioethanol industry on a sound footing for the future.
  I also hope that the draft transposition strategy for the biofuels directive, including targets for the level of biofuels used in the UK for 2005 and 2010. will indicate clear Government support for the development of the industry. We are not looking for excessive subsidies in the long term but for a promising start. The Government must act expeditiously to ensure that farmers and processors are sufficiently pre-warned of future biofuel targets.
  4.53 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: This debate illustrates perfectly the cross-party alliance on this issue. The Select Committee report was unanimous, the issue has stimulated several early-day motions and there have been well-supported debates in this Chamber and Westminster Hall. The Minister can be in no doubt about the size of the political lobby in favour of more help for biofuels. Treasury Ministers have also received many delegations. Last week the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and I met the Economic Secretary and an all-party lobbying group has been formed in Norfolk, of which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is a valued member. That group is supported by Members of the European Parliament, all Norfolk local authorities, the University of East Anglia institute of food research, British Sugar, hauliers, fuel and petroleum companies, the Royal Norfolk Agricultural Association, and others.
  The Government say that they support the case for more help for biofuels. After all, they introduced the 20p a litre reduction in the 2003 Budget, which will be implemented in January 2005. The Government's own Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended in the Curry report that duty on biofuels should be reduced.
  The Government have signed up to the European Union biofuels directive, which requires the UK to notify the EU Commission in just four months from now the volume of biofuels that it will use by the end of 2005. The Department for Transport has provided rather coy answers to questions on how it proposes to meet that timetable but it is there. Then there is the Government's energy White Paper, which refers to a commitment to produce
  "an assessment of the overall energy implications of a hydrogen economy and of large scale biomass-based fuels".
  There is no lack of Government commitment but a lack of action. All their commitments and the 20p duty reduction have resulted in very little. Indeed, one witness to the Select Committee rather shamingly described the results as
  "an extremely small cottage industry."
  That is correct. We make biodiesel from used cooking oil, and there is no bioethanol production for road use. That is the situation after all those commitments and the 20p reduction. The system does not work.
  What will happen? It is useful that we are holding this debate a week before the Budget. In his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor indicated that there might be some movement in the Budget. He said:

  1729
  "I propose also to consult on a new framework for the tax treatment of green fuels: that we make a commitment to prior announcements, three years ahead, of incentives to increase usage and thus promote investment in new fuel-efficient technologies. The Budget will announce the way forward on that measure."— [Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1066.]
  Everyone in the House is already in agreement on this matter, so I am sure that we all expect next Wednesday to be an extremely positive day. Let us hope that will be the case.
  The Government could do several other things, as other Members have outlined; they could introduce duty reductions, capital grant schemes or mandatory inclusion levels, which is the subject of an amendment in the other place to the Energy Bill, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke so fluently. Some of us who lobbied the Economic Secretary gained the impression that the mandatory inclusion route might be announced next Wednesday. In passing, I pay tribute to the patience and courtesy of the hon. Gentleman in his dealings with the many, many lobbying groups that he has met in connection with the issue.
  It is clear that the Treasury has taken charge of the matter, and I have no doubt that the Minister for the Environment will want to explain the strength and vigour of the arguments that he has used, face to face with the Treasury, in advancing the case for biofuels. I hope that he will also be glad that there is such strong cross-party and national support for such moves.
  The Select Committee report had to point out that
  "the departments involved do not speak with one voice … we deplore the fact that the Government has not nominated any one Department to lead on biofuels and consider that this is a prime reason for the slow progress that has been made".
  It noted that the Government had
  "expressed support for biofuels but the mechanisms used to promote their use have had little effect so far".
  That is indeed the position.
  Despite the fine words and the commitments to environmental goals that are repeated so often, production of biodiesel is a cottage industry, and we have no bioethanol production at all. Meanwhile, our competitors are forging ahead and rapeseed is exported from the UK to be re-imported as biofuel—at what cost to the environment, no one dare calculate.
  Next week's Budget will give the Chancellor the opportunity to put all those things right. Time is running out. Imported biofuels are already on sale on our forecourts. I know that the Minister is with us in spirit, and even in action and in bio-spirit. The time for pronouncement is over. He is persuaded of the rightness of the cause, in terms of sustainability, security of supply and consistency of action with the Government's objectives.
  As I said, the time for pronouncement is over—the time for action was yesterday. That should be the message from the House to the Chancellor.
  4.58 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I think that it was the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) who said in a newspaper article some while ago that to get the attention of the House for an idea, one has to enunciate it at least six times. This will
  1730
  be the fifth time that I have spoken in this place about an ethanol escalator, so I am optimistic about the progress of the idea.
  I am gratified that everyone in the Chamber agrees that some such device—an obligation for an escalating mix of biofuels with conventional fuel—might be a way forward.
  The word that has been used this afternoon is "action", but perhaps the right word is "traction". How do we get traction for a series of proposals that perhaps now have the merit of being obvious? That is, farmers can grow biofuel crops; a European Union directive is coming forward; there is a pressing and urgent need for further action on transport with regard to climate change; and we have an industry that in principle could make both biodiesel and bioethanol. The issue is one not of experiment, but of making these things happen.
  The alternative fuels market has been a little confused about what will be the winning fuels. Hon. Members may share my experience of wondering which car to buy in order to be a "goodie"—in order to drive a car that is environmentally more sound than one that I might have possessed before. The messages that have emerged over the past few years would have caused one to buy a different car every six months.
  Simply placing bioethanol into existing petrol tanks and driving about in the same cars, with the immense gain that that would represent in terms of CO2emissions and all the other benefits, is perhaps a much more stable and secure way forward in making a change in fuel. We do not need to imagine that, because we have the experience of Brazil. In its first attempt to introduce ethanol into its market, Brazil set up separate petrol pumps, made arrangements for new cars to be produced and introduced 85 per cent. ethanol into petrol pumps across the state. That did not work very well overall.
  What has worked much better is the escalator method that Brazil has introduced, increasing the amount of ethanol in petrol to, I think, 23 per cent. to 24 per cent.—far greater than anything proposed today. That has been a success, whereas the attempt to introduce a parallel system of fuelling vehicles was not. Therefore, I believe that the escalator that has been suggested this afternoon, and which we have discussed previously, is the right way forward.
  Ethanol is also the right way forward in that it can be not only a fuel in its own right, but a transitional fuel towards a long-term hydrogen fuel economy. When we envisage such an economy, we realise that one of the problems is that many people who talk about it neglect to say that one of the prime ways of making hydrogen, at least for the foreseeable future, is from mineral fuel. Therefore, one does not solve the problem of CO2emissions; one simply places it one stage up the chain.
  Recent work at the university of Minnesota has demonstrated methods of making hydrogen directly from ethanol. Among other things, the use of hydrogen for fuel can be reduced by using ethanol to create it. Therefore, any investment we may make in introducing it now also leads in the long term to a hydrogen fuel economy, if that is the direction in which we are going.
  The other advantage of an ethanol escalator of perhaps 1 per cent. a year over a period of time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) suggested, is that it would gear up the industry

  1731
  to create the ethanol that can go into petrol. Indeed, bioethanol can be made from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways. Sugar cane is used in Brazil. Sugar beet or wheat is used in the UK. A company called Iogen has recently proposed setting up a plant in the UK—it might not do so because of problems with the market—to make ethanol from the fermentation of straw. So an escalator that would bring that industry on stream and give it the traction needed to bring its products to market would be the right way forward.
  In talking about possible ethanol imports, we might reflect for a moment about the fact that, for a number of years, we in the House have happily talked about importing large quantities of mineral fuels to run our vehicles. We are about to become a net importer of mineral fuel again, yet we do not seem to find that particularly remarkable. Even if we did import some ethanol, it would not come from oil-producing countries. The pattern of importation would be different. Indeed, that could support some economies that are not oil rich and do not have the ability to take oil out of the ground.
  For all those reasons, I believe that an ethanol escalator represents the right way forward. The Government are seriously thinking about those issues, and I am proud of the fact that the energy White Paper identifies, for the first time, the need radically to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions as part of our energy policy. An escalator would be a way to ensure that that policy is pursued in respect of road transport, and I hope that it comes to fruition shortly.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Unsurprisingly, I will join the general consensus about the need to support biofuels, but I want to address the issue from a slightly different angle, by pointing to a fundamental inconsistency in the way in which the Government have dealt with the correct obligations that they undertook at Kyoto.
  My main thesis is my concern about climate change and the need for this country to do all that it can to help to minimise its impact, so I want to consider biofuels as part of the whole energy scenario, rather than concentrate on the narrow issue of road transport. We risk getting it wrong by narrowing our focus to road transport. I want to consider biofuels straightforwardly against the fundamental objective of reducing the impact of climate change. Of course we cannot ignore other issues, such as the security and reliability of supply, the environmental impacts of whatever steps we take and the economics—the cost of saving carbon dioxide and the impact on the rest of the economy of whatever decisions we take—but I start from a fundamental belief that biofuels have a significant role to play.
  The energy White Paper shows that the Government are planning a massive expansion of wind power for electrical generation, yet on 17 September in evidence to the EFRA Committee, the Economic Secretary said that the likely cost per tonne of carbon saved through offshore wind generation is the same as for biofuels. I ask the Minister to take back to the Government a
  1732
  question: why is there such a rush for wind power, yet such reticence about biofuels? Wind power is highly inefficient and unreliable—no one can guarantee that the wind will always blow in any location—and it has high maintenance costs. Most importantly, it has an atrocious environmental impact.
  The environmental footprint of wind power must be considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is here because his constituency contains one of the earliest fleets of windmills, which I have seen on several occasions, and they have a significant impact on the environment. I defy all those hon. Members who represent constituencies where planning applications for wind farms are in the pipeline—there are many of them—not to say that there is huge local resistance to them. They are all opposed.
  There is also the issue of substitution. The Government are running down nuclear power and replacing it with wind power, but they are not actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions at all. Whatever one's views about nuclear power, it does not generate carbon dioxide. I happen to be pro-nuclear but, even if one is not, one cannot pretend that running it down has an impact on the global environment. The rush to wind power is singularly unwise.
  Hon. Members have rightly referred to bioethanol and biodiesel and about the levels that can be put into existing engines. The figure is between 5 per cent. and perhaps 15 per cent. for bioethanol, but I understand that there is no upper limit for the maximum inclusion rate of biodiesel. We have discussed the duty derogation and, although I know that I am probably renowned as a bit of cynic, it really is a piece of green trickery by the Government.
  By introducing a 20p derogation, the Chancellor is able to claim green credentials in the full knowledge that that would not cost him anything. The derogation is not enough to trigger a realistic industry. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) neatly said, all we have got is a bit of chip oil. We have not got a serious industry, and we will not have one with the derogation that we have at the moment.
  The Economic Secretary, in his evidence, seemed to be very worried about sucking in imports and subsidising industries elsewhere. We have discussed agriculture and there has been a substantial increase in food imports, but the self-same Minister said that security of supply was not an important factor. I think he is wrong, but that is what he said. Therefore, worrying about whether the supply is from imports or domestic production would not seem that important. I passionately care about domestic production and, given the right incentives, I am convinced that we could have one.
  Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: I am sorry, but I shall not give way because other Members wish to speak.
  I wish to turn to a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) covered in a different way—the fundamental difference between the Government's policies for power generation and for

  1733
  road transport. The consumer pays for the introduction of renewables for power generation—whether that is wind power, wave, solar power or any other method—but, in the case of biofuels and road fuels, the Government wish to use a duty derogation. That is a total inconsistency from a Government who go on and on about joined-up government and working together.
  Cargill plc has said to me and, I am sure, to other Members that a 2 per cent. market share for biodiesel with a 28p derogation would cost £108 million, whereas a derogation of just 1.5p on a 95:5 blend would cost the same, but would satisfy 37 per cent. of diesel requirements. I put it to the Minister that there are alternative ways of addressing this fundamental problem without necessarily going down the wholesale route of a massive derogation.
  I want quickly to touch on the agricultural impact of an expansion of biofuels. Much has been said about that, and some environmental bodies have questioned whether that would be in the interests of our national environment. My principal concern is climate change, but I shall not debate issues involving the common agricultural policy. However, I believe that the reforms that are in train are, in principle, going in the right direction.
  If we have biofuels, there will obviously be a new market for wheat, sugar beet and oilseed rape. That must be good. Whether it would have a significant impact on the price—that is the fundamental issue for whether there is large-scale expansion in the acreage of those crops—is more questionable. In the past two years, the wheat price has varied by 100 per cent. Two years ago, it was £55 to £60 a tonne, but the price reached literally double that even though it has fallen back a bit now. It is therefore difficult to foresee what will happen to prices, and that is the case without a biofuel industry. It is difficult to be precise.
  For sugar beet, we are looking at the seed quota, but that is a wholly unsubsidised element of the sugar beet crop, so it is not a serious issue. The situation might have the greatest impact on the ultimate price of oilseed rape, but if we went down the derogation route, its price would be constrained by the duty relief. However, it would always be open to the Government to reduce the derogation if that were the way in which things went.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred to our mineral oil imports. No Minister of any Government can ever forecast what the oil price will be, so the questions of the economic impact on agriculture, whether the acreage would expand and the likely cost of developing the industry depend on crystal ball gazing into what the real price of oil will be. If any hon. Member can say what the oil price will be in the next five years, they frankly deserve to be awarded everything available—none of us knows.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. It has been said over and over again that the Minister is on our side, but he must take a message back to the Government. It is his bad luck that he is here to account not only for himself, but for the whole Government's woeful response thus far to biofuels. He must go back to his colleagues and say, "There is great inconsistency in how we are approaching the use of energy vis-á-vis its impact on climate change." It does not make sense to
  1734
  encourage the widespread use of wind power that will be paid for by the consumer—it will not necessarily reduce global warming one iota because it will be introduced largely at the expense of nuclear power—yet at the same time to refuse flatly to do what is necessary to generate a market for biofuels.
  At the end of the day, I do not mind whether the market is achieved through a duty reduction rather than a renewables obligation, although I personally prefer the incentive approach to that of regulation. I do not like the idea of using capital grants because they tend to be regionalised and we are not considering a regional issue, but a national one. Additionally, East Anglia, which is the biggest arable area in the country, receives little money through capital grants because it is reasonably economically prosperous. I am not raising that as an issue, but it demonstrates why regional capital grants are not the way forward. I do not mind which of the other two ways forward the Government ultimately choose, but for goodness' sake let us choose one and get on with it.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I shall make three main points in the small time available, but first I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on the way in which he presented the case in the report. The Committee has a reputation for churning out a certain quantity of reports, but this report shows that we can also produce the quality. The debate has been useful.
  My three points are fairly simple. I want to touch briefly on imports. There is a danger that the Government seem to be uniquely capable of achieving a lose-lose situation. When we heard evidence from the Financial Secretary—I do not want to chide him specifically—we were told that the market was seen to be the main determinant of the best way to produce biofuels, and that if that meant through imports, so be it. That is not good news for the domestic industry. The Government's response to the report, through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, argues that it is not terribly interesting to consider the environmental audit of what happens in other countries. We are signed up to Kyoto, which is an international agreement, so perhaps we should take account of not only our domestic industry, but the damage that we might do to other parts of the world. That is a problem, and we should have the strength of our convictions to do things locally—the Government also argue that—and perhaps more effectively.
  For the fifth time of asking, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on pushing forward the bioethanol escalator, but I wish to counterbalance the idea that we can achieve what is possible by simply blending that in with existing supplies of fuel.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and I visited the BMW plant in Sao Paulo., where we learned that biofuel production kick-started the Brazilian motor industry. Brazil will have a great hegemony in future vehicle production, because it is the first country to invest in such fuel. It has proved that biofuels work, and we should learn a lesson from it. However, we should opt for blending, and not pursue biofuels as an alternative.

  1735
  As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, biofuels provide an opportunity to overcome our reliance on traditional forms of energy. The Brazilians, of course, were not environmentally driven initially —they were scared to death that the Americans would turn the petrol pumps off, and wanted something else to increase their energy supply. We should not underestimate either the physical need for such fuels or the need for fiscal incentives.
  Other hon. Members have skated over the need for stability, but I shall be blunt about it, whether it is achieved through financial incentives or exhortation. I visited the Arbre plant with the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy. We have gone backwards, as we had a state-of-the-art biomass plant near Doncaster, which failed because there were no incentives for farmers to supply raw materials. There were no stable contracts, and we need to overcome that problem. We have taken a backward step, but we need go forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and I have worked together, and have discovered problems with renewables obligation certificates. We must give producers a guaranteed price so that there are stable conditions for trade and investment in future. That is crucial to biofuels, as it is to other forms of renewable energy.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I should declare an interest, because for a couple of years I had ministerial responsibility for renewables until I was given a little more time with my family, although not quite as much time as some of my hon. Friends. I am very much in favour of renewables, provided they are introduced in a sensible way and not at a completely uneconomic cost
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is quite right—hydrogen is the way forward, and the electricity supply need not be a problem. All we need do is introduce a sensible programme of nuclear power. We would then have a base load, and would never have a problem with the electricity supply again. The Government are blinkered about anything to do with nuclear power, but it would be contentious to develop that argument.
  Biofuels form part of the energy pie, but the flipside of that pie, if there can be such a thing, are the costs of pollution, CO2 and global warming. I promise not to be diverted down the route of making general points about renewable energy production, but biofuels play a part in such production. I welcome initiatives to reduce pollution and CO2to achieve climate control, but they should involve an appreciation of the commercial world in which our industry competes. It is fine to say that we want reductions in emissions and carbon trading, but not if countries from which we import do not impose the same burdens— responsibilities may be a better word— on production. If we do not acknowledge that, it would be small wonder if plants continue to relocate to countries that do not operate such levels of control. Do we wish to increase the number of our industries that relocate overseas? Over the past seven years, more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs have gone abroad, and we should consider whether we want gratuitously to increase that figure.
  1736
  Hon. Members have pointed out that biofuels have the virtues of a closed carbon cycle. The crop is grown, thanks mainly to the sun, which itself is a diminishing resource. There is not much we can do about that, but it should not worry even the younger Members of the House. The carbon from the atmosphere is locked into the crop, burned and locked in again— a balanced cycle and everything is hunky-dory. The process has the advantage of low pollution, it does not add to present CO2levels and it can usefully employ set-aside. It could have dramatic price advantages, subject to Exchequer approval. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, there is sufficient tax headroom on the cost of fuels to allow the Chancellor to be quite generous.
  The Government have helpfully signed up to the target for biofuel usage of 2 per cent. by the end of 2005. Unfortunately, that is the end of the good news. The target of 10 per cent. renewables by 2010 is, to put it bluntly, for the birds It is completely unrealistic, unless the Government suddenly announce some secret scientific advance, such as that photovoltaic cells will have a conversion rate of three times the present level, or that after all these years a way has been found to harness wave power. I even heard one Minister, who had better be nameless— enough Ministers are in trouble already—say to an audience of energy enthusiasts that if we do not reach the 10 per cent. target by 2010, it will be the responsibility of everybody in the energy business, not of the Government.
  I think that there is a reasonable chance that we can meet the target of 2 per cent. for transport usage in 2005, but if we miss it, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Government. The 10 per cent. level for renewables by 2010 is capricious; the 2 per cent. target is achievable. I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said about the Government's present position, other than to endorse his words when he called it muddled and unfocused. I say amen to that.
  The NFU brief issued to hon. Members has been mentioned. The union believes that farmers, who have had a very rough time, could take advantage of the move to biofuels and put their set-aside land to productive use to reduce pollution levels. I support that
  How do we go forward, following on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said? The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) called us used chip oil recyclers, and he is not far off the truth. Burning fuel oil is not the cleanest activity. As someone with some experience in transport oils, I would regard it as a positive sales pitch to be able to say that there were biofuels in the mix, and that customers would be helping the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) mentioned the problem that the Exchequer has with a product going abroad and coming back in the form of biofuel. The DTI has grant facilities and support facilities, and I see no reason why it does not start—through the challenge process, say— competitions to build plants in the UK. Once there were plants, the feedstocks would come to this country, go through those plants and be sold in this country. That would be the start of a virtuous circle.
  We have done that in the past. I remember that we gave support to chicken dropping electricity manufacturing— I think chicken litter is the polite word, although in the Department we used another word,

  1737
  which had better not be used in the Chamber. It works, and we exported some of those plants abroad. Why not support the bioethanol and biodiesel plants? It would overcome the problem of going abroad.
  I should have liked to spend considerably longer on this important subject, but the fact that we are under time constraints shows Members' interest in it. I hope that the Minister will take note of that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde is right. Let us blend the biofuel with fossil diesel, with a price obligation in place; let the Government positively support biofuel production plants in the United Kingdom, and— who knows? — they might meet a target. That must be a bonus.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I thank my hon. Friends in all parties for their courtesy in allowing me time to contribute. I want to begin by considering the phrase, "muddled and unfocused" debate, which many hon. Members used. It understates the complexity of the picture.
  I should perhaps technically declare an interest because I shall comment on the benefits of liquefied petroleum gas, from which I benefit as a user. I have also contributed to creating a new carbon sink in my area by planting 850 trees last year. I therefore have a reasonable track record in making some positive contribution.
  We all agree that there is no such thing as clean fuel. Even solar energy requires large amounts of glass to produce it, and that involves energy costs. We must exploit the best available technologies and, in the context of fuel that is used for generation, we must consider a balanced fuel policy. I believe that attempts in the vehicle industry to move towards becoming carbon free can technically succeed. I have had the privilege of driving two hydrogen-powered vehicles. One was a concept vehicle but the other was derived from a body that is used for a people carrier today. I am pleased that it will be in the United Kingdom next month. I hope that members of the select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will look at it. It is a Vauxhall-built vehicle
  I praise the work of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). However, I want to criticise one sentence in the Select Committee report. Paragraph 53 states
  "In our view, the environmental performance of biofuels is at least as good as that of liquid petroleum gas".
  That does not compare apples with apples. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Fylde for acknowledging that differences, including the distribution costs of LPG, need to be taken into account.
  I am proud that my constituency makes a big contribution to the good aspects. People view it as the dirty constituency, which makes all the things that pollute. However, recent work by the Environment Agency— it has not yet been published but I have permission to cite it— examines the total local impact figures of several vehicles that are currently on the roads. I am pleased that the first seven models on the list are Vauxhalls, which are built in my constituency and powered by LPG. Those are the cleanest vehicles
  1738
  available today, using today's technology. Taking into account overall pollution, not simply carbon issues— a whole well-to-wheel analysis has to be done—those vehicles come out on top in an urban environment.
  I am certain, on the basis of my knowledge of the industry, that there is an important place for the biofuels technologies that have been discussed today. We need to support those technologies, and I accept the Select Committee's analysis in that respect. However, on our route to an affordable hydrogen economy—I am told that I could not afford to insure the two vehicles that I have driven because their capital costs run into millions of pounds— we must ensure that the transitional steps work. There is a problem with that, because we need to incentivise vehicle manufacturers, fuel producers and consumers, but at the same time, the Treasury has to raise income from somewhere. I say openly that I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Fylde was frank and honest about the possible increased costs of his proposal, but it was only a couple of years ago that Brynle Williams— who is now a Conservative Welsh Assembly Member— and his crew were leading protests against fuel duty. We will have to deal carefully and sensitively with the market issue, but I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman's point is important.
  During the past few years, we have achieved just over 1,000 LPG filling points around the country. There are still gaps: LPG is not available down the Worcestershire stretch of the M5, for example, and it is also thin on the ground in rural Worcestershire, as I have discovered when trying to visit my daughter. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), it is readily available in Cornwall. The gaps need to be filled, and we need to keep the incentives going to fill them
  I am anxious that we should not allow this debate to submerge the importance of maintaining another good, clean, proven technology that involves vehicles made here in Britain and supports British jobs. Just like the jobs in East Anglia that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, those are British jobs, and we must support them. We must ensure that we do not incentivise one part of the market in a way that damages another. We must get the balance right, and the concept that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test dreamed up, and which the Committee has developed, might provide us with a route forward.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to acknowledge that in determining the best way forward we must continue to provide incentives to both LPG and the other fuels that we have discussed. I have already made that point to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Those incentives must take into account the driving forces—if hon. Members will excuse the awful pun—that encourage fleet buyers to buy, and must also ensure that the costs surrounding the distribution of the fuels are met. If we get those parts of the equation right, we will continue to encourage important work, which UK plc can capture ahead of many of our European competitors, on the transition to a hydrogen economy. I am certain that we can deliver that transition.
  5.39 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the Select Committee in preparing this report, and to all hon. Members present for speaking with such a high level of understanding on this subject. I feel that I am among cognoscenti. Also, I think that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box on an occasion when no one has dissented on the matter under discussion. That is quite extraordinary
  If I were to summarise the debate, I would have to say that there has been a tangible sense of frustration on both sides of the Chamber at the lack of progress in this area. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said that we were in danger of falling at the first fence, in terms of making progress on biofuels. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that at present we have nothing more than a cottage industry and that the time for action was yesterday. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that we were in danger of ending up with a lose-lose situation. All those remarks sum up our real frustration. I shall be adding a very positive view of biofuels, so I shall wait with great interest to hear whether the Minister is going to dissent from the consensus that has broken out to the effect that action is long overdue
  I should also like to make it clear that I stand at the Dispatch Box having spoken about this issue to my colleagues on our DTI and Treasury teams, as well as our Transport spokesman, who is part of my multi-departmental team. We speak with one voice on this subject, and I think that that is what is lacking elsewhere. The Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), called for a champion on the subject. The Chamber seems to be full of such champions, but we have one very big opponent. It is pretty clear that the opposition is coming from the Treasury. All the other Departments have said very nice things about bioethanol, but the plain fact is that they are in hock to the Treasury. This reality reminds me of an old adage that sums up exactly why there has been such inaction: when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. That certainly seems true in this case.
  I must declare an interest. Twenty years ago, I wrote my PhD setting out the economic case for bioethanol. I said at the time that the price of oil would have to rise to ․35 a barrel before bioethanol could ever be economic on straight competitive terms. It is a sad fact that that situation has not changed. I can hardly believe that so much time has elapsed without any underlying movement in the fundamental economics between the fossil fuel and its equivalent alternative of biological origin.
  Some important facts should lead the Minister to do all that he can to persuade the Chancellor not to dismiss the case for these biofuels on purely economic grounds. The biofuels are from a renewable source, while fossil fuels are not. The incredible reluctance in this country to explore biofuels more positively undoubtedly stems from the fact that we are in the quite luxurious position of having our own indigenous source of fossil fuel. We are therefore in a somewhat different position from our European competitors. It is therefore all the more surprising that one of the economic barriers to considering the opportunity for biofuels should exist in
  1740
  the context of our having the highest percentage of tax on gasoline of any European Union member state, despite our indigenous fossil fuel supply resulting in our having the lowest pre-tax cost of gasoline in the European Union. That seriously reduces the Treasury's room for manoeuvre when considering the biofuels option. Such a contradiction is worth mentioning in this context.
  One of the reasons given for the long-standing resistance to biofuels is the fact that we are a major oil producer. However it is worth noting that in January this year, the UK trade in oil was at a deficit of £37 million for the first time for more than 12 years, and that a deficit has been recorded showing a decline of £416 million from the previous month. So the situation is changing. That underlines the point that biofuels offer a strategic, if not immediately cheaper, alternative. That is another strong reason for their serious consideration.
  Several Members have pointed out that biofuels give the Government an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions by offering a closed carbon cycle. According to British Sugar, a saving of up to 70 per cent. can be achieved through the use of biofuels. The Government signed us up to Kyoto— a decision that my party entirely supports— but as a result of going beyond the Kyoto requirement to cut carbon emissions by 12.5 per cent., to 20 per cent., we as a nation will have to work much harder to find where these carbon savings can be made. That is another reason to look closely at the biofuel option.
  Instead of being clear on this issue, the Government have set this higher target—a gold-plated target— without giving any real thought as to how to achieve it. That is at serious odds with important decisions taken in other departmental areas. For example, we should consider the implications of the aviation White Paper, which will blow our Kyoto compliance right out of the water.
  Today, I received a very interesting answer to my parliamentary question to the Minister about the impact that the aviation White Paper will have on our capacity to reduce carbon emissions. It stated:
  "International flights from the UK do not currently count in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions as there is no international agreement yet on ways of allocating such emissions between countries."
  So we have an extraordinary situation whereby all aircraft emissions released into the atmosphere above this country simply do not count. So that's all right then, is it? It clearly is not, and a source of real concern to many Members is how on earth the Government will square the circle of their plans for expansion and their commitment to reducing carbon emissions.
  We have had a substantial discussion, and if we are all agreed that biofuels offer the way forward, the next question is whether they should be imported. It is clear from what a number of Members have said that if nothing more is done, the most likely scenario is that the fuel will be imported from Brazil, where the sugar plantations are enormous and the wages are lower. Because of those factors, it will be very difficult for us to compete, notwithstanding the freight costs. I support those Members who have called for an opportunity to secure a domestic source of biofuel.

  1741
  There is a very real opportunity for diversification that is not to be missed, at a time when farmers face the most radical reform to the common agricultural policy that I can remember.
  We must however heed the National Farmers Union's warning that set-aside payments and payments for the growing of energy crops will simply not be enough to kick-start the domestic industry. It will take more than that, and the Minister has heard a number of constructive suggestions as to how that can be achieved. We urge him to seize the opportunity to get this point across to the Chancellor just before the Budget, because it is clear that that is where the sticking point lies.
  I cannot complete my contribution without pointing out that, if we are all agreed that biofuels offer a way forward for strategic, environmental and wider rural and economic reasons, we must acknowledge that the way in which the crops are produced is very important to the overall economic argument. There are concerns that if biofuel feedstocks are grown en bloc in a concentrated manner, some of the environmental benefits that can accrue could be undermined. I want to pay tribute to the work done by English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in looking at biofuel production's impact on biodiversity—both plant and animal diversity. It is right to record that the question of how we produce such crops is just as important.
  Let me end by challenging the Government. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who criticised the Government for their obsession with wind farms as renewable technology to the detriment of biofuels. Why the rush to wind power, and why the reticence on biofuels, he asked? There is a distinctly un-level playing field. There is no doubt that wind farms are increasingly unpopular, partly because they seem to cause environmental damage. It is not just a question of their appearance in the countryside; as ScottishPower made plain to me, linking them to the grid would require the building of swathes of pylons. No one could argue that that has no environmental implications.
  I urge the Government to seek the opportunity provided by next week's Budget statement. I urge them to think again about adopting the comprehensible, comprehensive policy on renewable energy that is currently lacking, and to give biofuels the chance that has been ignored for far too long.
  5.51 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, and echo the comments that have been made about the effective way in which its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), put its case. I can honestly say that I have attended few debates during which the case has been made so persuasively, and Members have spoken with such authority. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), the hon.
  1742
  Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and, of course, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). All their contributions made a great deal of sense, and I shall try to respond to them. One or two specialist points were made, and I shall deal with those if I have time.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde set the scene very effectively. I was particularly interested to hear what he said about sugar, but let me put this to him and to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk. Has the present sugar regime been unhelpful in terms of support for innovation and new markets such as the market for ethanol? It is quota-controlled, which is quite restrictive. Is there an argument for reform? I am thinking of the part C quota, which was mentioned earlier. I was also interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments about spreading the costs of duty across all fuel duty. There is a good deal of merit in what he said, and I shall return to it shortly. I shall also return to what he said about the Lords amendment.
  I hope I can respond to the main points made today as positively as they were made. The hon. Member for Lewes said that I had been put at the wheel of a vehicle with no fuel. Well, I am often put at the wheel of a vehicle, but it usually contains something that is about to blow up in my face as the vehicle starts moving. In that respect, this debate is a bit of an improvement.
  I am sympathetic to what has been said, as are the Government. Of course some issues need to be addressed, and they are complicated, as my hon. Friends have pointed out; but the Government's objectives for biofuels were stated clearly in the energy White Paper. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that the production of hydrogen from ethanols may have a role to play in the future, along with that of other biofuels. They represent an important potential way of achieving the goal of zero-carbon transport. We have made good progress in relation to industry, but transport poses a big challenge.
  As to why we should support renewables from wind, it is that those will make a contribution. We will need a range of contributions to meet our targets for boosting renewables, to which biofuels can contribute. I do not dispute that for moment. I do not want it to be thought that wind energy is the be-all-and-end-all of the Government's approach, which it is not. Its contribution is perhaps more important than was being argued, however.
  Norman Lamb: Have the Government carried out a recent assessment of the extent to which a domestic industry for bioethanol will be in place when the duty reduction is introduced next January? I understand that no domestic production is anticipated with a 20p reduction in duty.
  Mr. Morley: An assessment has been made of the potential for jobs and the economy in relation to biofuels generally, and I will come to that point in a moment.

  1743
  We recognise that bioethanol and biodiesel from virgin crops can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about half when compared with conventional fuels. In the case of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, the life cycle benefits can be even higher. Achieving 5.75 per cent. substitution of biofuels for fossil fuels would save 2 million tonnes of carbon per annum in relation to the indicative targets that have been set by the EU. Environmental considerations are not the only issue, however. There is also the issue of new markets.
  The question is: how can the Government support this process? I am glad to be joined in the Chamber by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), which demonstrates the interest of the Treasury in these issues. Members are aware of the existing 20p per litre cut in duty, and it was announced in Budget 2003 that duty on bioethanol would be reduced by a similar amount from January 2005. Those measures have encouraged the production of 2 million litres of biodiesel per month, so it is not right to say that there has been no effect. There is a potential for 115 million litres per year from waste oils, and I am pleased to see the development of new plants such as Argent, which is producing biodiesels from tallow and waste oil, which in turn will make a big contribution. The pre-Budget report in December gave a commitment to a rolling three-year period of certainty for the reduction in the duty rate, which is important.
  Duty incentives, however, are only one way. Support grants exist for capital investment, which is important in relation to new development and new plants, and those are available through regional development agencies. Under last year's common agricultural policy reform agreement, crops for biofuels continue to be grown on set-aside land and will receive payments under the new single farm payment scheme, which is a form of inducement. From 1 January 2004, energy crops grown on non set-aside land can receive an additional ₣45 per hectare energy crops payment, which is another contribution. We also want to see the development of bioethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks such as straw
  1744
  and wood, as those are expected to reduce the cost of delivering the environmental benefits, which we are committed to support.
  Several Departments have an interest in promoting biofuels, and we work closely together to ensure a coordinated approach. A number of Cabinet Sub-Committees deal with energy policy and consider the issue of biofuels and the implementation of the energy White Paper, including this issue. As to support, I have outlined exactly the kind of approach that we have taken. We recognise that the biofuels directive can have an effect, although the targets are indicative— it should not be assumed that they are currently the Government's targets. Consultation will take place; it will be available soon.
  The biofuels obligation is one of the most important proposals. I want to make it clear that the case was persuasive, and although we could not support the form of the amendment tabled in the other place, the Government are not opposed in principle to some form of biofuels obligation for road transport. We will therefore have to consider the issue in more detail, and weigh the merits of tile obligation against those of other possible options. We will consider that as part of the process of consulting on the implementation of the biofuels directive. When that consultation is made public, therefore, it will include the issue of an obligation, which will be welcomed by many Members. We will explore how we can take that forward. DEFRA is also doing other work on the impact of biofuels on biodiversity, conservation and farming; the central science laboratory work on estimates of jobs that could be created and sustained by the biofuels industry, including ethanol; and work on setting out how the various—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings and the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings was deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) (Consideration of estimates).
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(5)(Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on supplementary estimates, 2003–04.

ESTIMATES

  DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
  Resolved,
  That further resources, not exceeding £1,377,992,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £41,854 000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Transport.

  DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  Resolved,
  That further resources, not exceeding £1,251,750,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £613,478,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 45,325 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That, during the year ending on 31st March 2005, a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III. IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 283 of this Session.

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2002–03
  Resolved,
  That resources, not exceeding £15,975,062.02, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2003, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,188.38, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 351.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2003–04
  Resolved,
  That further resources, not exceeding £24,448,658,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £10,013,491,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 349 and 350.
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: and that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Mr. John Healey accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the years ending with 31st March 2003 and 2004 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending with 31st March 2003 and 2004: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71].

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

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

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

  Hon. Members: Object.

  Post Office Closures
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker]
  6.3 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I am grateful that the Speaker has once again come to my aid in allowing me to raise a matter of concern for communities in my area and across the country. The subject is the role of Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch in taking decisions on post office closures. I believe that it is important to hear whether the Minister feels that he can take action against the injustice and misinformation that abounds around the euphemistically named "network reinvention", which is closing community post office facilities with only passing reference to community needs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for their presence. We are all affected by post office closures, and I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will take part in the debate.
  As far Cheadle is concerned, the process was flawed from the start. The information sheets supplied by Post Office Ltd. were riddled with errors, and Members of Parliament were not consulted in advance. Indeed, Postwatch told me on 4 December that Post Office Ltd. would not start consultation just before Christmas. However, it did just that, on 17 December. I applied for additional time, and was refused. Other areas were given extra time because the effects crossed constituency boundaries, but that was also true of my area. Postwatch appeared to have no powers over the process.
  For more than a year, I have disputed the categorisation of Woodford post office as an urban facility. The 2000 performance and innovation unit report defines an urban settlement as one with more than 10,000 people. Yet Woodford is separated by carefully protected green belt from the urban sprawl to which Post Office Ltd. persists in referring, and it has just over 1,000 inhabitants.
  The map used by Post Office Ltd. is wrong in detail and misleading in its entirety. A glance at the unitary development plan map, or even at an A to Z, would show the errors. The Greenway road post office in Heald Green serves an older and elderly population, and is located in one of the recognised pockets of deprivation in our area. Fortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Saleem, who run the nearby Long lane post office at the junction of Merwood avenue and Wilmslow road, are determined to carry on, even though Post Office Ltd. did not use it as a receiving branch.
  Turves road post office is closing because the sub-postmistress has decided to go. I know that, because she told me that she would be going, whether or not Post Office Ltd. agreed to closure. We do not have an official date for that, although a handwritten notice in the post office states that it will happen on 22 March. Turves road post office was a receiving branch for another closure at Cheadle road. That office closed only six weeks before the present consultation process began.
  The setting for the Turves road branch is such that it could be used as a model for a modernised post office at the centre of its community. It has a large surrounding
  1748
  population and is located in a run of shops as active as any in the area, now that the superstores have taken the weekly shoppers away. Of those responding to our campaign, 80 per cent. are over 55, some 40 per cent. have mobility problems and up to 20 per cent. lack cars. Many people chose to live in the area so that they could remain independent for as long as possible.
  Other shops will suffer after the post office closes. The main receiving branch is up a steep hill, with no public transport and a car park that is full at all times. The post office in Jacksons lane, together with the Macclesfield road and Norbury offices in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, serves a very large population. Most of the customers are older people, but there are a good number of young people and their parents.
  Saving at the post office is still regarded as an important part of a child's upbringing. The post office to which people will have to go is in a shop and already has queues that take 20 minutes to clear. It is difficult to reach and does not make good provision for disabled people.
  None of that seems to matter to Post Office Ltd. It is driven by the Government to become profitable. Although that is not in itself a bad aim, what is the human and social cost? What will be the cost to other small businesses that are supported by customers paying bills, collecting money and doing their shopping? What will be the cost to the Post Office's customer base? People must be close to avoiding using post office branches. By what process will Post Office Ltd. make itself profitable?
  My office received around 4,000 responses from individuals in the form of petitions and reply slips. Around 350 people came to public meetings. My office put together a 15-page report for Post Office Ltd., which was delivered on 27 January. It is difficult to see how we could have done more to alert Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch to the concerns of local communities. Representatives of Postwatch attended our meetings, and I was grateful for that, but they were dismissive. I was told that they were "not afraid" of me any more, that they were "not impressed", and that they had heard "nothing new". I am, sure that there was a reason for saying all that. We have seen little evidence of any concern for the consumers whom Postwatch is supposed to protect.
  The basic message from Post Office Ltd. in its correspondence with me was that the closures had to be carried out, that Post Office Ltd. was sorry that people were upset, that it was a shame about the inconvenience to customers, and that the closures were going ahead anyway. In my family, we call a response like that "sending out the cockroach letter". That is based on a joke, which we have long since forgotten, about a travel company writing to unhappy customers. Meanwhile, Postwatch sits on the sidelines, like a reluctant referee, giving information only when directly asked. The computer-generated letters come thick and fast, and occasionally someone personalises them with an extra paragraph; the process is a joke.
  I want the Minister to tell us that he will act on the way in which our communities are being treated. He must know that the Post Office ensures that post offices close by offering sub-postmasters and sub-

  1749
  postmistresses deals that they cannot refuse. An average of £55,000 for each sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress was paid out in the quarter to December 2003, and more than £38 million was paid out in total. That money could have been spent on expanding and diversifying the service in line with the performance and innovation unit report of 2000.
  The Minister will be familiar with early-day motion 725, which calls on the Department of Trade and Industry to halt forthwith the network reinvention programme of post office closures while an investigation is carried out into flaws in the notification, consultation and decision-making process. I have written to the Clerk and Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee asking them to investigate that. I am disappointed that no concessions have been made on the process, which proceeds with unseemly haste in spite of admissions from Post Office Ltd. that changes will be made to future constituency reinventions. That is no comfort to my constituents.
  I am disappointed by the Minister's response to my letter pointing out how Members of Parliament and Stockport metropolitan borough council were misled into thinking that Eddie Herbert from the north-west was working on our consultation responses, when a decision was in fact made the same day in Skipton to close one of the post offices. The Minister's letter states:
  "When Eddie Herbert wrote to you on 16 February that feedback was still being considered, neither he nor his POL colleagues would have known whether all the outstanding issues would be resolved at the first stage meeting that was taking place that day."
  However, Eddie Herbert said on 16 February:
  "I am still considering the feedback received in relation to the closure of Jackson's Lane and Turves Road".
  How could Post Office Ltd. present the case for closure to Postwatch members when the man in charge had not finished considering the consultation responses?
  Meanwhile, Judith Donovan of Postwatch, who was present at the meeting of 16 February, wrote on 23 February to say that
  "an escalation meeting … will be arranged".
  Perhaps she used the wrong tense When the decision was made in Skipton by Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch about our communities' post offices, hon. Members did not have the date, the time or the venue. We did not know and could not know that a meeting was occurring. Post Office Ltd. decided what would be presented to Postwatch committee members. Hon. Members do not know whether corrected information was supplied, what arguments—if any—were put forward, whether public views were put forward adequately, or whether alternatives were examined.
  The primary role of Members of Parliament must be to stand up for their constituents. I call on the Minister to do as my early-day motion asks to halt the flawed process forthwith and to apply the principles of fairness with a dash of imagination, which our democracy depends on. I challenge him to halt the process and to allow all the key players—Post Office Ltd., Postwatch, Stockport metropolitan borough council and the public—to produce the business case and the energy to get behind our local post offices, allowing our community the chance to find imaginative ways to make our post offices thrive. At least some post offices can be
  1750
  made into profitable assets, both socially and in business terms. Post Office Ltd. will destroy its customer base if it carries on in this vein.
  Post Office Ltd. should be required to transmit a clear, strategic, coherent vision of the future of the post offices at the heart of local communities, and Postwatch should have powers to ensure that public money is spent in the interests of the public and more wisely than has occurred so far.
  6.14 pm
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing this debate. She has been very active in voicing her concerns and she has conducted detailed scrutiny of Post Office Ltd.'s proposals for her constituency. We have exchanged correspondence on several occasions in the past year. I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the concerns that she wished to raise in this debate. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) in her place: she has also spoken to me a lot over the past few months about these issues.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle explained clearly and fully her concerns about the impact of the closures that will take place in her constituency and the consultation process that preceded those decisions. The performance and innovation unit report that she mentioned showed starkly that our network of post offices has not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers. Too often, post offices have become dingy and shabby as a result of a lack of investment. Nor has the Post Office been able to take advantage of its highly trusted status as the provider of financial services. It was losing business and facing big challenges. The PIU report made it clear that if it did become apparent that it was necessary to reduce the number of branches in urban areas, it should be done in the way that we have suggested and the House has agreed to.
  I was not entirely clear from the hon. Lady's remarks whether her argument was that in her constituency the wrong offices will be closed, because of problems with the process, or that none of them should be closed in any event. I suspect it was the latter, and we all sympathise with that point of view. None of us likes to see the closure of post offices, which inconveniences people. However, the realities of the Post Office's position are that the process is unavoidable. If we did not do it, branches would shut haphazardly and in an unplanned way, and that would cause far greater problems for her constituents and those in other urban communities than the present arrangements.
  Mrs. Calton: The Minister presents two stark alternatives, but there is—in the words of his leader— a third way. That third way has arisen out of the consultation responses from other shopkeepers and the public. Other alternatives can be examined and it is not necessary to create a desert for whole suburban communities. It would be wrong to treat suburban

  1751
  communities as amorphous, with no defining characteristics. Communities should be respected, but they are not being respected—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must remember that interventions are one thing, but speeches are quite another.
  Mr. Timms: It is a given of the process that at the end of it at least 95 per cent. of urban residents will be within a mile of their nearest post office. It is not about the creation of deserts. Indeed, the reverse is true: it is to ensure that there are no deserts that we are undertaking this careful process.
  The process itself is unavoidable. Simply moving a post office into another establishment does not tackle the problem. At the beginning of the exercise, there were more than 1,000 urban sub-post office branches that had 10 other such post offices within a mile. The network was too dense, given what has happened to the business of post offices in the past few years. Our response was to acknowledge the need for a reduction in the number of urban branches, and to invest in technology. Banking services are now offered at every post office branch in the country following Government investment of £0.5 billion—unprecedented in the history of the Post Office. Funding has also been provided for improvements at receiving offices. For the first time, there is support for an investment programme for urban sub-offices. Both approaches will give the network the viable commercial future that the Post Office needs.
  Sub-post offices have always been private businesses. The hon. Lady said that sub-postmasters have been offered deals that they cannot refuse. In reality, the payments made are those that sub-postmasters might reasonably have expected if they had sold their businesses a few years ago. Reductions in the use of sub-offices in recent years mean that the prices sub-postmasters may obtain for their businesses have sharply declined. We took the view that it was fair that compensation should reflect the prices sub-postmasters might have expected a few years ago—not more generous prices but comparable, which is fair. The individuals concerned have worked hard in serving their communities over many years. It is not right for the hon. Lady to suggest that compensation payments are excessive. They simply reflect the prices that sub-postmasters would have expected if they had sold their businesses a few years ago.
  Mrs. Calton: My point was not so much that compensation payments were excessive, but that the money could have been more wisely spent.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Lady referred to a deal that sub-postmasters could not refuse. The payments are based on the reasonable expectations of sub-postmasters if their businesses had been sold not long ago. As for whether that money should have been spent differently, the basis of the House's approval for the programme was that the rationalisation of sub-offices in urban areas would give the whole network a viable future in serving all our communities for many years to come.
  1752
  Postwatch has been critical of some developments in recent months and raised concerns about the consultation experience with me earlier—as did hon. Members. Postwatch has been a doughty and effective defender of communities. In a large number of cases, a decision has been withdrawn or reversed following representations from it or hon. Members. I do not accept the hon. Lady's criticism of Postwatch, which has recognised that rationalisation is indispensable if we are to secure a viable future for the post office network throughout urban communities.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Part of the fundamental difficulty with the consultation exercise is the basis on which, it has been undertaken, because closures were proposed against criteria that had already been set. In future it would be helpful if Postwatch could share its observations on proposed closures with hon. Members. I was not aware of Postwatch's views on proposed closures in my constituency.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes a helpful point. I will take it up with the chairman of Postwatch, with whom I regularly discuss such points. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that when Postwatch reaches a conclusion as a result of discussion with hon. Members and members of the community affected, it would be entirely reasonable for that information to be made known to MPs with whom Postwatch has been in discussion.
  As I said, one of the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit was that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding to compensate affected sub-postmasters adequately for the loss of their business. Thus, in November 2002, following parliamentary approval of the funding, the programme that we are discussing commenced.
  The network is made up of about 16,000 post office branches, split almost evenly between urban and rural communities—more than all the banks and building societies in the country put together. In many places, that network is dense, with damaging results for the individual businesses of sub-postmasters at a time when the number of people using post offices has been in decline. The heart of the problem was that the Post Office was locked into a shrinking customer base; its task now is to continue to serve those customers with excellence, but also to win new customers. It needs to access expanding banking markets, taking advantage of the technology that the Government's investment has provided, rather that remaining locked into dwindling markets, as in the past. That is the key to future success.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the Minister agree that social inclusion is an important criterion? The closure of post offices, such as those in Cherry Tree lane and Offerton in my constituency, seriously undermines the Government's intention to promote social inclusion.
  Mr. Timms: In almost every instance, the closure of a particular office causes inconvenience to some people. The purpose of the whole exercise, and why we provided substantial funding to Postwatch and why the Post

  1753
  Office itself is committing so many resources, is to ensure that the right post offices are closed. When Members raise concerns that the wrong office has been chosen and a different one should be closed instead, I always tell them that the case should be put to Postwatch and to the Post Office. As a result of the process, I hope that we end up with the right decisions.
  Those decisions will not be welcomed by everyone. The closure of any post office will cause inconvenience to some people, but I think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) will accept that business realities for the post office network over recent years make it necessary to introduce rationalisation of that kind, to give the network a viable future and to ensure that it can continue to serve our communities. As I said earlier, it is a given of the exercise that, at its end, 95 per cent. of people living in urban communities will be within a mile of their nearest post office branch. That is the basis of the exercise.
  Last week, I visited a directly managed post office in my constituency. The staff pointed out that for the first time in many years they can see that the organisation for which they work is being turned around. New customers are coming in to use the Post Office banking services, whereas, in the past, the number of such customers was in decline.
  In a couple of weeks, the Post Office's first financial service products will be on sale at branches throughout the country. Personal loans will be sold through the Post Office, new products will he available and new markets will be opened up. In that way, through the commitment of the new management team at Post Office Ltd.—the staff at my local branch told me that they thought the new team was doing a superb job—through the investment we are making and through the painful, but necessary, process of rationalisation of the post office network in urban areas, we shall see a viable and attractive commercial future for the network in all our urban communities, for the benefit of all the people who live in them.

PETITION

  Consumer Protection (New Homes)
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I wish to present a petition, containing over 1,100 signatures, which draws attention to the fact that, at present, buyers of new homes do not benefit from adequate consumer protection, and points out that they should be entitled to have a third-party representative check their home for quality, prior to completion.
  They should also be able to delay completion should the home not conform to standard, and if defects are not rectified they should have a legal right to withhold a retention until the works are completed.
  At the moment, insurance companies set the standards acceptable for new homes, and there are not legal requirements to adhere to these standards.
  My petitioners list their recommendations to Government on how to change this unacceptable situation.
  The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to establish an inquiry into the building of new homes, looking at quality standards and consumer protection, investigating the possibility of Government-set standards for new-build properties and the creation of a regulatory body and league tables in this area.
  To lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Media Intrusion
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Session 2002–03 HC 458–I and the responses thereto, and First Special Report Session 2003–04 HC 213.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On behalf of the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, let me say how much we appreciate the opportunity to debate the report. Although it was issued last year, its resonances are still with us, which is not surprising given that this is not the first time that a Committee under my chairmanship has dealt with the issue. It is almost 11 years to the day since the National Heritage Select Committee published a report entitled "Privacy and Media Intrusion". It is remarkable—two Parliaments and two Select Committees later, with a new Government in a new century—that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee should feel it necessary to carry out a further inquiry on precisely the same subject. That shows that this remains a live issue, which will not go away, regardless of the reactions of those responsible to our report. I welcome the presence of Committee members from both sides of the House, who put a great deal of work into the report.
Although advances in technology, such as mobile phones and computers, may have increased the possibility of intrusions into the privacy of individuals and families, the basic issues remain the same as they were more than 11 years ago, and the two Committees approached them from the same starting point. Like the House and the wider public, my colleagues and I believe in a free press—one that is privately owned, unshackled, able fearlessly to probe wrongdoing by individuals and organisations and able to hold Governments to account. We believe in self-regulation, not legislative shackles.
In approaching their inquiries, both Committees sought to establish whether self-regulation could be made to work better, although the latest report acknowledges more clearly than we could in the previous report that there have been considerable improvements in the results obtained by the Press Complaints Commission. I very much welcome the breath of fresh air introduced by Sir Christopher Meyer, and I pay tribute to Lord Wakeham, with whom I worked on the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords and keep in touch on several issues. Basically, although not solely, both reports recommend ways in which self-regulation might work better.
The second point that I want to make clear is that neither Committee was concerned with celebrities and public figures. Such people are generally able to take care of themselves. They are familiar with the media and
490WH
its practices and, as I shall point out later, some of them have quite a lot of money with which to pursue their grievances. However, we do take the view that celebrities and public figures are as entitled as anyone else to a private life, provided that they do not try to have it both ways by exploiting their privacy for publicity or financial gain. When we conducted our previous inquiry, I recall saying how much I resented, on his behalf, the intrusions into Norman Lamont's private credit-card transactions. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, but no one had any business to know anything about how he conducted his private finances.
The Committee's overriding concern is for private persons, who do not seek publicity, but who may suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of publicity through circumstances not of their choosing and which they would prefer not to have occurred. Because they are private persons, whose only acquaintance with the media is to buy and read a newspaper or to turn on their television and radio, they have no idea how to cope with the way in which an interested media can confront and surround them when, for example, something distressing happens to their family that can put them on the front pages of the newspapers.
Eleven years ago, the concerns of the National Heritage Committee included intrusion into the lives of rape victims and of families of servicemen killed in Northern Ireland. Happily, servicemen are no longer killed in Northern Ireland, but our inquiry last summer focused again on victims of crime, as well as families of servicemen in Iraq.
On both occasions, we welcomed the work being done by the PCC and sought, through our recommendations, to enhance the effectiveness of that work. For example, in our National Heritage Committee report we recommended that compliance with the PCC code of practice should be written into every journalist's contract of employment. The immediate reaction from the PCC was to oppose that recommendation and to say that it was not practicable. However, that provision now forms part of most, if not all, journalists' contracts of employment. It therefore behoves us all, including members of the Committee, to keep open minds when something new is put to us.
Sometimes our recommendations are vindicated. Last year, when the inquiry report that we are debating today was about to be published, it was anticipated, in some quarters, with dire forebodings. It was denounced in advance as "a censor's charter." Mr. Guy Black, the then director of the PCC, who has now moved on to higher things, was particularly blunt about what he thought we were up to. Just before the report was published, the PCC even gave a warning that it might lodge a complaint against us with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—the whole Select Committee would have been up for judgment.
However, once the report was published, all was sweetness and light.The Mail on Sunday, which was one of the newspapers most worried about what the report might say, welcomed our approach. So did The Sun. If I may say so without being patronising, which I have no right to be, the Committee was particularly impressed with the evidence and the approach of Rebekah Wade, the editor of The Sun. If some other witnesses had

491WH
comported themselves with the dignity of Rebekah Wade, our sittings might have been a little less convulsive.
We went from being seen as malevolent spoilers to being thoughtful and constructive overnight. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Sir Christopher Meyer, whose appointment to the commission I have already welcomed, welcomed our report and stated that he was ready to consider implementing some of our recommendations. The letter that he sent me and the PCC response were predominantly constructive. That does not mean to say that it accepted everything that we propose, as I shall point out. Nor did we expect them to do so. However, the tone was calm and dispassionate, and I particularly welcomed Sir Christopher's response to our suggestion that we might have periodic catching-up sessions with the PCC that are similar to the ones that we have with the chairman and governors of the BBC and the chairman of the Office of Communications. That might be a very useful development.
The PCC welcomed our suggestion that its code of practice should be updated to take account of developments in communications and of relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998—an Act that in some ways has made it more difficult to obtain information but which acts as a protection to private citizens. Certainly, it should protect private citizens. The PCC agreed with our recommendation—indeed, it acted in advance of it—that lay members of the commission should be appointed for fixed terms and that the lay majority should be increased by one. It also agreed that the appointments system for lay members should be much more open and give more opportunities to people who might not usually be regarded as the great and the good.
The PCC shared our view that the appointments commission should appoint an independent figure to implement a procedural appeals process. Earlier this year, it appointed its first charter commissioner. Again, that is progress. The PCC is consulting the industry on our proposal that the text of a PCC adjudication should be clearly and consistently set out.
Many people—I am one of them—have found that a newspaper can cause an offence against someone and be found to have breached the code or to be otherwise at fault, but that the apology is not necessarily in proportion to the offence. I was blackguarded all over the front page of the Sunday Express. The entire front page was given over to my crimes. When it was acknowledged that those crimes did not exist, the apology was buried somewhere in the middle of the newspaper such that one almost needed a magnifying glass to find it. As I said, I can stick up for myself, but the aggrieved feelings of ordinary citizens placed in that predicament are not so easily assuaged.
The Committee proposed that the text of the PCC adjudication should be clearly and consistently set out. The PCC has not accepted outright that a taster for an apology should be published on the front page of a newspaper, but we hope that it will. It does, however, favour what it calls "due prominence" and is keeping the matter under review. Importantly, it agrees that the press archives should be annotated so that offending
492WH
material is removed from publicly available databases. We all know what happened in the past if something inaccurate, intrusive or objectionable were published about someone. Tagging was not available. Anyone looking up the story either in newspaper clippings or on the internet would find it and use it. Therefore, we welcome the PCC acceptance of the annotation decision.
Rosemary McKenna: Does my right lion. Friend agree that an apology on the front page would go a long way to allay people's fears and address their concerns? It would also make journalists and editors who put such articles on the front page think again about doing so unless they are sure of the facts.
Mr. Kaufman: I agree entirely. When members of the PCC appeared before us in this inquiry and on the previous occasion, it was said again and again that journalists and editors have a feeling of shame if a complaint against their newspaper is upheld and they have to publish an apology. That would be more emphatic if due prominence were given to it and particularly if it was mentioned on the front page of a newspaper. I hope that the PCC will come round to our recommendation.
It would be misleading to imply that the PCC has simply rubber-stamped our report. There are aspects with which it disagrees or which it rejected outright. For example, it does not agree with our view that journalists should be entitled to refuse assignments that they believe would violate the code. I hope that the PCC will reconsider that as, on a previous occasion, it reconsidered the question of inserting the code into contracts of employment.
The PCC is not as firm as we would like about reminding newspapers about taking special care in advance with events and issues—for example, the Iraq war—that may generate intense media activity. I acknowledge immediately that most sensible newspapers would take great care in such situations. However, one of my hon. Friends who represents a Plymouth constituency drew to the attention of the House her concerns that before the Iraq war the families of servicemen who had gone to the Gulf were already being approached by newspapers. Any family would be vulnerable at that time, and a little over-fastidiousness is appropriate in such circumstances.
The PCC does not accept our view that it should publish annual league tables showing how publications have fared in relation to complaints and adjudications. I suppose that we could all compile a database, but such league tables would be yet another weapon in the PCC armoury, in that persistently offending newspapers would once a year be held up for attention. That would improve self-regulation. Nor does the PCC accept our view that in some cases successful complainants should be compensated financially, that offending publications should be fined when 'appropriate, or that complainants' costs, for example, in obtaining transcripts of trials, should be reimbursed. Of course, our Committee accepts that any such penalties should be administered sensibly. It would not be a good idea, for example, to pay expenses to somebody whose complaint was not upheld. Nevertheless, and taking into account the

493WH
wealth of some newspapers, we believe that the ability to use both fines and compensation would be an appropriate weapon—not invariably to be used, but available if the PCC felt that a publication had offended particularly seriously.
Although we are gratified with the general response of the PCC to our report, we believe that the PCC and the Government could be more responsive on two major issues. The first is media scrums. We are pleased to see that the PCC has accepted our recommendation that it should co-operate with the Office of Communications in preventing them. Of course, our report dealt with radio and television as well as with the printed press. We have a completely new body in Ofcom, and we will all be watching to see how it deals with complaints. However, there are far fewer complaints of intrusions on privacy from radio and television than from the printed press.
When it comes to doorstepping, however, all public figures who have suffered from it know how intimidating can be an agglomeration of microphones—those woolly things like huge cats—when thrust into one's face; but such people are often surrounded also by a mass of journalists with notebooks calling out for comments. It must be incomparably more alarming for private individuals, whose predicament as victims of crime or as bereaved relatives is hard enough to bear in itself. It is made worse by the sieges that can sometimes take place, with pavement mobs, access to and from their homes blocked and telephone lines jammed by incessant, unwanted calls. All that can range to remote members of their families.
The National Heritage Committee report drew attention to fairly old legislation that deals with besetting, suggesting that it could be brought back into use. It was meant to deal with picketing trade unionists, but it ought to be used again because we believe that the sheer burden of doorstepping, particularly for private individuals, should be dealt with by the police.
Secondly, there is the issue of payments to police for tip-offs. It is true that such action is a criminal offence, but that ought not to relieve the Press Complaints Commission from reminding editors that they should not do it, either directly or through private detectives. The growth in the use of private detectives is something that was brought to our attention repeatedly when we were carrying out our inquiry. With admirable frankness, some editors conceded that they have done it, but it is wrong. It is corruption; it is bribery; it is a breach by those police who do it of their terms of employment. Even though it is a criminal offence, it would not harm the PCC to insert a prohibition in its code of practice and to remind editors about it. Nor ought its illegality preclude the Government from reminding chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to enforce the prohibition.
I have to say, with all good will to the Minister for the Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), that the Government's response to our report was a good deal more passive than that of the Press Complaints Commission. I know from many years' experience that Governments are wary of offending the press. When we published our report in 1993, the then Conservative Government could have been very worried that if they took action that was offensive to the press, it would turn against them, but the press turned against them anyhow.
494WH
Who knows when the general election will be? The Government, who as everyone knows have my total support, may be worried that taking action in this sphere could offend newspapers. I pick up my newspapers every day and it does not seem to me that it needs very much to cause them offence, so the Government might as well take action.
It is no good saying that legal recourse is available to victims of intrusion who feel that they should be compensated, as I fear that the Government did in response to the report, because that requires resources. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, and Sara Cox had recourse to redress in the courts. When photographs of Sara Cox and her husband on their honeymoon, bathing unclothed, were published in The Sunday People—the editor was a member of the Press Complaints Commission Mr. Guy Black implied that Sara Cox was a spoilsport for going to the law. But the Press Complaints Commission obtained a 63-word apology from The Sunday People for the gross way in which the privacy of Sara Cox and her husband had been violated. The couple received £50,000-worth of damages and the legal action cost £250,000. That was a useful lesson. It is why, 11 years ago, we recommended consideration of a privacy law with a strong public interest defence.
The National Heritage Committee report listed in an appendix the provisions of the privacy laws of states in the USA. They were not brutally restrictive; they all provided a public interest defence. Many journalists in this country believe that journalists in the United States have much more freedom than ours do here and that they are not inhibited by legislation of that kind. Taking into account the United States, such laws are not regarded as licences for big brother to swoop or snoop. We believe that that should be considered, not to be oppressive or to limit the freedom of the press, but always with the strong public interest defence that enabled a jury to acquit Clive Ponting of violating the Official Secrets Act when he was prosecuted for doing so.
We expressed our concern that the Human Rights Act 1998, under which Sara Cox took legal action, is becoming by default a privacy law, but it is a privacy law only for the rich, made by judges, not by Parliament. Press and public reaction to our report acknowledged that even when we do not agree, the issues we considered are important for a free democracy. Whether we wait another two Parliaments before returning to the subject under my chairmanship may depend on progress meanwhile.
2.59 pm
Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the reasonableness of his approach and on his elegance. I am glad that our debate is likely to be broadcast on radio rather than television, as I would not have his boldness in making the Select Committee recommendations or in respect of how his tie and shirt complement each other.
I ought to declare that I have, on occasion, taken defamation proceedings against newspapers. I hope never to do so again, whether justified or not, because it is not a nice experience. I have also made some use of the

495WH
Press Complaints Commission in relation to a member of my family. I am putting that on the record, rather than trying to develop an argument from it.
When Sir David Calcutt's report came out, I thought that he was wrong. From what I recall of the National Heritage Committee's report, I thought that it went too far. The present report is better balanced, although I prefer the Government's response and some of their recommendations that do not agree with the report. I do not regard myself as an expert on the detail of such issues.
I think that it is important that there are always people in Parliament who will defend the role of the media to suck up all the dirt, to sift it and to decide what is true, what matters and what is publishable. There is a danger that the action of the Data Protection Act 1998 is leading a number of people to withhold information from the media—that includes official bodies such as courts. In Worthing, one of our local newspapers, the Worthing Herald, has found it difficult to persuade court officials to allow information about what has happened in court into the open. People can argue that data protection or privacy allows them to withhold information that ought to be made available to all. The role of the media is to make available to all what is known to a few.
I recognise that the debate is primarily about privacy and not about defamation, but the issues can come together for those who want to maintain their privacy or to maintain a degree of privacy about actions that they have taken or are thought to have taken. The press need to have the right to he wrong; they need to have the right to do what is wrong, and they need to be robust enough to take the criticism or the exposure when that comes. The best way of dealing with that is generally for broadcasters to be prepared to be robust about the printed press and for the printed press to be robust about the broadcasters. I regret that some programmes—I think that "Hard News", with Ray Snoddy, was one of them—are no longer available that could give a running commentary, not quite in real time but within a week, on what has been going on. Some newspaper articles are good, but in general one needs to have a programme and a set of columns that are prepared to go into issues as though they are as interesting as debates in Parliament are at times.
Too often, the herd instinct of the media leads to the kind of scrum that has been properly referred to in the Select Committee report. It is curious, and it has been observed elsewhere, that the number of pickets that can be outside someone's house is limited, but that there is no limit on the number of media people who can be there. I do not think that there is a statutory answer to that, besides in extreme cases getting an order from a magistrate banishing people to a certain distance.
The PCC and the broadcasting regulators should be able to take the kind of action to which the Select Committee referred. It is a practical problem that is capable of resolution, but there have been some disasters on a fairly grand scale, and it is difficult to see how that can happen in the short term. For example, with the terrible consequences of the bombs in Madrid today, where hundreds have been killed and injured, it is ludicrous to believe that there will not be some
496WH
intrusion into privacy. I can think of four other examples: the King's Cross tube disaster, the Kegworth plane crash, the Heysel stadium disaster and the funeral of Oscar Romero in San Salvador.
Where the media are either present or attracted, the intrusion will cause a great deal of shock and horror to some families when they discover that someone that they are close to has been involved. That is unavoidable. However, some intrusion is avoidable, and the Press Complaints Commission, or perhaps the local police and a certain sense of restraint among the media, managed to achieve that in Soham. That is an example of where there were very few substantiated complaints of serious intrusion.
The problem for the media is where to draw the line between investigation and the herd instinct: the mentality that they need to be there because everybody else is there. I defend the media most on the issue of what I call digging for dirt. For example, if one of my constituents were to say that the insurance for his block of flats appeared to be coming out at six times the rate at which an ordinary insurance company would cover it and wonder whether the freeholder, who takes out the insurance and then passes the cost on to the leaseholders or tenants, is ripping them off, obviously, it is possible to ask the police to take an interest in whether there might be a fraud, or, on a larger scale, to ask the Serious Fraud Office to investigate, but it is often just as easy to find a local or regional newspaper that will investigate the matter and then raise the question in the open, while insurance companies will say that it is a privacy or data protection issue.
The media should be encouraged to take on such cases, because the disinfectant quality of investigation by a newspaper or broadcaster, or the transparency effect of a report, can be mighty impressive. That is what Esther Rantzen used to do on "That's Life!", and what some of the consumer protection programmes on television, and a fail number of people in the press, especially the financial press, have done.
The Select Committee's main concern is for people in their private lives rather than in business: for people to whom something happens that leads to interest from the media that they do not welcome and that many would say is not justified. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that the newspapers can be pretty arbitrary in some of those cases and can give them a prominence that is nor justified in the minds of most people. The question of proportionality is least susceptible to regulations laid down in the Press Complaints Commission or by the courts. It is far better to have strong arguments, criticisms and rebuttals, or attempted rebuttals, and to have the process go around again than ever to get to the stage at which we seriously believe ourselves to be at the last-chance saloon.
Rosemary McKenna: We heard evidence in private from people who had been seriously damaged by the media. What would the hon. Gentleman say to someone like the person who told us about a completely inaccurate report that was published on the front page of a newspaper, which was incredibly damaging to their family, and although they eventually got an apology, they still felt that they and their family had lost out?
Peter Bottomley: If that happened to me, I hope that I would think, "We are prepared to accept casualties in

497WH
wartime, yet the open society in peacetime will not be casualty free." It is arbitrary and it is unfair. The question that we have to face is whether a system guaranteed to prevent that from happening would have a higher cost overall, and whether there would be many more innocent victims if the press were unable to go in for things that are wrong and disproportionate. In such a situation, I should hope that proprietors would admit that the complaints were justified, and would tell the editor or duty editor responsible, "You were wrong, and I'd like you to go and see the family and explain how it happened, why it happened, and that not only are we, the organisation, sorry, but that you are as well.".
The number of occasions on which proprietors have done that, or ensured that it happened, is limited. I can think of only one such example—or possibly two—involving Rupert Murdoch, and I can think of a few occasions on which newspapers have clearly got things disproportionately wrong or have been incredibly offensive to groups. What the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) rightly says is that that happens to individuals, and individual families, and one needs to have a way of getting people to say openly, "I'm sorry, we made a mistake," if not shaming them. If people are prepared to say that, they are less likely to make the mistake in the first place.
I do not want to put too much into this debate because of the level of detail that the Select Committee went into, but I reiterate that whoever helped the Ministers to draft their reply was right: the Government are correct to be reluctant to go as far as the Committee has invited them to go.
3.9 pm
Chris Bryant: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because the Committee went through a fascinating; process. Many of us approached the debate from the beginning with an open mind, because we recognise that a free press is one of the most important bulwarks of a free society. More than that, the right to publish one's version of a story is an essential part of a modern democracy, even though it may sometimes conflict with an individual's desire to enjoy their privacy, and the desire of their family, extended family and those whom they love to do likewise.
We did not want to examine the issues with the minds of politicians who might at any moment be subjected to all sorts of interest. Perhaps I should declare an interest myself. We also wanted to ensure that our approach would be of significant value to our constituents. I think that every member of the Committee had constituents whose story had been told, normally in a local newspaper, rather than a national newspaper. Sometimes the story had been reported fairly calmly, albeit slightly intrusively, in the local newspaper, but when it was translated into a national newspaper, the reporting was less calm and more hysterical, and carried a bigger headline. Obviously, the story also received much greater publicity, because it was in the national arena.
The intrusion into people's lives that was felt during that transition from a local newspaper to a national newspaper, sometimes without the facts having been
498WH
checked a second time, added to the sadness and the sense of being violated that the individuals concerned felt. There was one such case in my constituency, although I shall not recount the details, because for me to do so would to repeat the original breach of that family's privacy. That is an example of the biggest difficulty in trying to introduce a system that matches the rights to privacy with a free press and freedom of expression. Once a newspaper or broadcaster publishes a story that breaches somebody's privacy, how can the system give that person redress without the problem being put into the public domain again?.
Probably every debating society in the land holds a debate at least once a year about whether public figures have a right to a private life, but the Committee tried to stick clearly to the understanding that that was not the issue for us. We were concerned with those who, without prior knowledge or desire, were unwittingly thrown into the limelight, such as victims of a tragedy. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) referred to today's tragedy in Spain. Many people in Spain, and doubtless in the UK too, who watch the images of Atocha station on the news today, will be worried that they are about to see people whom they know and love in distress or injured—or, for that matter, dead.
In addition to that, however, many journalists over the coming days will understandably want—I do not mean to use a pejorative word—to crawl around, trying to find people who have been hurt or families that have been affected. In that process, the original hurt and damage can be made that much worse for families and individuals, but I do not think that any of us would want to condemn journalists for wanting to do that. They are simply trying to tell the story of a great tragedy on the European mainland. However, there must be a sense of decency, so that people are allowed to live their lives and recuperate from an event such as today's.
A similar example concerned Soham. The horrific events that we all know about were reported at some length, and that was understandable. However, in the desire to tell the fullest possible story of what had happened there, many newspapers were almost camped out in Soham. It took the local vicar, Tim Alban Jones, to stand up for the community and say. "Hang on. This community is having a very difficult time living through this process. We need a bit of space to be able to get on and rebuild it.".
Soham was very fortunate in having Tim Alban Jones, someone who obviously had depth of insight into the workings of the media, and courage and independence, to speak up in that way. However, many communities would not have that.
In my constituency, there have been two double murders in the past 18 months, in one small part of the Rhondda, in Tylorstown. The media, including the BBC in Wales. HTV and local newspapers, have dealt quite well with that community, trying not to pry too much into the private lives of neighbours and distant relatives of those affected. However, it is difficult to get the balance right, and a story of national or international renown makes the difficulty for the media even greater.
Peter Bottomley: The point that I want to make is slightly disconnected, but is prompted by the hon. Gentleman's remarks on Soham. Part of the report is

499WH
about the media and the police. Discussion between the media and the police is often important. It may be—and I am not just speaking with hind sight that had the police and the media talked more on previous occasions, the Soham murderer's circumstances might have drawn more consistent and persistent attention. That is another example of a need to put something in the balance—not allowing payments to police, which are wrong, but recognising that the police and the media can interact for the benefit of society.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a wise point. It is true that the relationship between the police and the media must be constant and trusting. I shall come on to the issue of newspapers' attempts, by payments to police officers, to gain information that they should not have, which is different from the right and proper process of enabling a good dialogue to take place between the police and local media. Indeed, often, background briefing of the media by the police is essential if the media are to play a proper role in enabling the police to do their job effectively. Sometimes, that goes wrong.

Privacy is an issue not only when someone is a victim of crime or tragedy, but also sometimes when they have had a great success, such as winning the lottery. That is another interesting area in which the Press Complaints Commission has acted, although, in the end, somewhat ambiguously.
From 1993 to 1995, there was a lengthy debate between the PCC, the Government, Camelot and the courts about whether it was right, first, for a newspaper to offer a reward for the name of someone who had won a multi-million pound lottery award, and secondly, to name such an individual, despite the fact that that person had sought anonymity. The PCC produced an interesting paper, but the issue still, in the end, relies on a hinge point on public interest in the PCC code of conduct.
Broadly speaking, the PCC and many people would argue that where there is a public interest it is all right to breach the anonymity that an individual who has just won the lottery might want to maintain. The difficulty arises over the question whether, while everyone is interested in who has won, that means that there is genuinely a public interest. Sometimes those two issues are conflated.
I have already said that the report was not at all about public figures' right, or lack of a right, to privacy. The report was about ordinary members of the public. That means that it was not about the right to privacy, although we reached a view on that, but primarily about the standards and methods used by broadcast and print media to tell news stories.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has already alluded to some of the issues, but one of the most difficult to address is that of the TV and radio scrums that appear outside people's houses. Leaving aside the fact that by recording the house, the crews are revealing that that is where a certain person lives, and that the mere revealing of someone's
500WH
address is a breach of privacy, we must consider the intimidation that someone feels when they have five or 10 journalists sitting outside their house because they are the victim of a crime or something that has happened in their community.
The individual phone call. repeated three or four times, from a journalist saying that they are from such and-such a place arid asking for a piece of information can also cause trouble. Others have told of instances in which someone has phoned to say that they are ringing on behalf of the police, but it subsequently turns out that they are from a newspaper trying to gain information. Those are practices that every editor in the land would condemn but that many journalists, in private conversations, would own up to.
Those processes are wrong. The intimidation that individuals feel might be alleviated if they knew the process of phoning the Press Complaints Commission and demanding that the scrums desist. Indeed, such a process exists, and whenever it is initiated, it seems to work. However, it would be difficult for ordinary members of the public, who do not spend their time considering such issues, to go through that process.
Consequently, our suggestion that the PCC should make itself more readily known in national newspapers and magazines is important. There should be frequent adverts giving people the telephone number to ring if they have any problem and telling them that there is a way of preventing media scrums outside their house. Most people never think that it will happen to them, but if the information was published regularly, people might manage to get in touch when they needed to.
There is also the issue of how photographs can be deliberately chosen or manipulated. It is hard for an ordinary member of the public to see a photo that deliberately makes them look unhappy, fat, ugly or badly dressed. That is another point to consider when trying to change the standards in modern journalism, and it is especially important when the person is the victim rather than the perpetrator of a crime. One could perhaps understand that someone trying to portray someone as an ogre. for example Myra Hindley, would probably take and use the ogre photo, but many members of the public have found themselves abused by newspapers' deliberate use of unflattering photographs.
The use of private detectives and surveillance firms is also a problem. The PCC code of practice is relatively clear about what is permissible. Article 8 states:
"Journalists must not obtain or publish material obtained by using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private telephone conversations."
However, nowhere does the code say that journalists may not use private detectives and other third parties to engage in those activities, and that is one point that we want to be clarified in the code.
In response to the Committee's report and the specific question on banning payments to the police for information, the PCC said:
"The government's response to the Select Committee sets out in detail why this behaviour would be illegal. It is axiomatic that the Press Complaints Commission condemns lawbreaking. However, it would be for the Code Committee to consider whether it is necessary for the Code of Practice to duplicate the law. The Committee will consider this proposal at its next annual review of the Code, which is due to take place in early 2004."

501WH
Given that we are halfway through March, I wonder how early in 2004 that review will take place. I hope that we shall not lose sight of the issue, because such payments suborn police officers and often elicit information that not only should not be in the public domain but may be inaccurate. Such practices are wrong, and we should put a stop 10 them.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, rightly said, Rebekah Wade was admirably straightforward in telling the Committee that her newspaper had paid police officers for information, and many editors said that we should take evidence of such practices to the Home Office. However, even though every senior police officer to whom I have spoken has told me that the problem is endemic in their force, the Home Office and the PCC have done remarkably little. Such practices are still a problem in our criminal justice system and in the press, and we must deal with them. I therefore hope that the Minister will say something specific about them and that the PCC will write to us fairly soon to tell us precisely what the code committee decides at its meeting in early 2004.
The Select Committee wants self-regulation to work, and among the other major issues that we considered were the nature of the commission and the code committee, and in particular their memberships. We asked one woman how she had become a member of the commission, and she said—this may sound patronising, but I think that this was accidental, because she seemed like a good woman and an eminent, possibly appropriate member of the PCC—that she had applied because its director, Guy Black, who had been a friend of hers for 18 years, had rung up to suggest that she apply. I am therefore glad that the PCC has taken on board our recommendation that it should have a much more open and transparent method of appointing people, and it is good to see that it has increased by one the number of its lay members.
Two issues remain with regard to the code committee, which produced a code of practice for newspapers. An ordinary member of the public who read a list of the committee's members would find it phenomenally difficult to think anything other than that the committee was incestuous. It consists of Les Hinton, from News International, who is the chairman; James Bishop of The Illustrated London News; Mike Gilson of The News in Portsmouth; Peter Wright, editor of The Mail on Sunday;Doug Melloy of the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser; Ian Murray of the Southern Daily Echo, Paul Potts of the Press Association; Derek Tucker of The Press and Journal; Neil Wallis of the News of the World; John Witherow of The Sunday Times; Alan Rusbridger of The Guardian; Neil Benson of Trinity Mirror and Ian Beales, who is the sole lay member and secretary to the committee. It is difficult to understand why the whole code committee consists of editors of newspapers. I understand why it is important to have journalists' input, because, as the PCC told us, they understand the industry and the organisations, but if there is to be a heightened sense of the PCC's value, and it is not simply to be judge and jury in its own case, the number of lay members on the code committee must increase.
Peter Bottomley: Writing the code is not the same as being the jury. It has always struck me that one of the stronger arguments for editors writing the code is that they are the people who are supposed to abide by it. The judgment afterwards is separate.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a clever and an interesting point.
Peter Bottomley indicated dissent.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to resile from my suggesting that the point was clever. The point that I am trying to make is that numerous times during the past few years, the commission has found several of the editors on the code committee guilty of breaches. It is therefore difficult to see that they are not both judge and jury. They are writing a code and refusing to include in it practices that other people might want to see in it, because they know that they will use them in the operation of their newspapers.
The Select Committee made two points about this issue. First, should press members of the code committee be barred from that committee if they have persistently offended against the code, on the basis of, say, "three strikes and you are out."? I am afraid that the PCC responded:
"This proposal would not in fact be practical."
It then gave several reasons why it would not be practical. To my mind, its arguments were fallacious. The honest truth is that no other professional organisation in the world writes and adjudicates on its own code, and once it has adjudicated against itself and its members, allows them to remain to write and adjudicate on that code.
We must be robust with the PCC and say that the lay membership of the code committee should be increased. The code committee should not consist entirely of lay people, but some of its members should be lay people. Again, when we said that the code committee should be re-established with a significant minority of lay members, the PCC said:
"This proposal does not take account of the fact that there is already a significant lay input into the Code."
For the life of me, I do not see how that happens. It certainly does not happen through any formal process, and I do not believe that there is an informal process, other than the Select Committee regularly making suggestions to it about how it should change the code.
Mr. Don Foster: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he fails to cite the second paragraph of the PCC response to that issue. As he rightly said, the PCC said that the proposal does not take account of the fact that there is already a significant lay input into the code, but it goes on to say:
"Moreover, the Code is ratified by the PCC itself which has a clear lay majority."
That is crucial and was picked up by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). Surely it is the ratification of the code that is important. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is making a mountain of this issue.
Chris Bryant: The code committee has a narrow lay majority, not a significant one, and the process is one of

503WH
ratification. Statutory instruments pass through the House and, in theory, we ratify them. However, I am not aware of any statutory instrument ever having been amended by the House and I rather feel that the process is the same for the PCC. The code is written by editors and published with the approval of the chairman of the whole commission. I am not aware of anyone ever having sought to amend it.
Mr. Foster: I apologise for pursuing what the hon. Gentleman himself has said is a relatively small point. However, his example of statutory instruments is also fallacious. In fact, most members of a Committee that considers statutory instruments are Government Members, so in any analogous committee, there must be a minority of lay people.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has made my point rather than his own, for which I thank him. My point is that whoever has the majority usually wins. In this case, those who write the code are not even in the majority, but are 100 per cent. of the committee, which consists of editors. I may be labouring this issue too much, because the real issue is whether the code is right and proper or whether it needs amendment, rather than the membership of the code committee. If the public are to have a greater sense of confidence in the work of the PCC, the PCC could do more to bring other members into the code committee as well as into the commission. I openly acknowledge that it has made moves in that direction as far as the commission is concerned.
In terms of the code of practice, I have already referred to the need to update article 8, and I also believe that the code should be updated to allow for significant recent technological changes, as was acknowledged in our report. However, my biggest query is about the way in which the public interest aspect of the code operates. I will briefly read it for the benefit of hon. Members:
"1. The public interest includes: i) Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour, ii) Protecting public health and safety, iii) Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation."
I do not think that anybody would quarrel with any of that. The article continues:

"2. In any case where the public interest is invoked, the Press Complaints Commission will require a full explanation by the editor demonstrating how the public interest was served.

3. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself. The Commission will therefore have regard to the extent to which material has, or is about to, become available to the public.

4. In cases involving children editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of the child."

That all seems reasonable, but the difficulty with a code such as this, which faces in two directions, is that it is all too easy simply to use the argument that because the public is interested in something there is a public interest in it. The public interest must be shown to be substantial if one is to breach the privacy of an ordinary member of the public. The line:
"There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself",
is the point through which the horse and carriage is driven on every occasion in which these issues are disputed before the PCC.
504WH
I have two final points, the first of which is the PCC clear preference not to adjudicate. Perhaps understandably, the PCC always prefers not to adjudicate, but to resolve. In most cases a resolution means that the complainant and the editor of the newspaper are brought together and an agreement is made. The difficulty is that because there are so few adjudications, one cannot precisely test what is happening in the industry. In the last three months of 2003—the last period for which figures are available—there were 886 complaints to the PCC. Only six of those were adjudicated on. In the three months before that there were 1,105 complaints and only eight were adjudicated on.
In other organisations there is a deliberate desire to adjudicate so that case law starts to develop and people understand what is acceptable in certain circumstances. I would prefer the FCC to adjudicate in more cases. I understand why many people do not want to go to adjudication. If the case involves privacy or inaccuracy, people do not want to go through lengthy complicated rows with a newspaper and they do not want to perpetuate the story and keep it running day after day and week after week, because that re-emphasises the original problem.
It remains a worry that, of 1,986 complaints made to the PCC in the last six months of 2003, only four were upheld. The PCC would say that that shows that people make vexatious claims.
Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is going a bit fast. The fact that some cases were determined does not mean that others were not accepted by the editors.
Chris Bryant: Well, it depends what accepted by the editor means. For instance, if a wholly inaccurate report of an event appears in a newspaper and someone complains and the newspaper editor agrees that the paper will carry a letter from the person on page 23 three weeks later, that is counted as a resolution. In both the two quarters to which I refer there are some 150 resolutions of that sort. It is difficult to know whether those resolutions are real in the sense that the claimant is properly satisfied. One could argue that if claimants were not satisfied, they would have pushed for more. However, I believe that there is so much pressure from the PCC to agree the resolution that has been accepted that it is difficult for the complainants to get the proper justice that they deserve.
That brings me to my final point, which is about adjudication. Once there has been an adjudication—in the few cases in which that occurs—and a correction is required, I am concerned about the due prominence that is given to that cot ruction when it is printed in the newspaper. Due prominence on television—on electronic programme guides for the BBC, for instance— means position No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 or No. 5. However, in a national newspaper, due prominence usually seems not to mean a taster on a front page, as we suggested in our report, nor even a significant-sized reply on the same page on which the original inaccurate report was made, but something tucked away on the page that is least regularly read. That therefore remains an injustice.
The PCC, in its reply to the Select Committee report, said that newspaper editors are fully aware of the fact that failure to print a correction with due prominence.

505WH
might in itself be a breach of the code, and that therefore they could be committing a second breach. However, newspapers have no financial disincentive not to breach the code again and have little other incentive not to breach the code, because the penalties against them are so minor. I therefore believe that the PCC should take more proactive steps to ensure that the concept of due prominence is clear and readily understood by both sides. In my opinion, that means that if there is a two-inch headline on page 1 giving inaccurate information, there should be a two-inch headline on page 1 when the correction is made.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I am aware that the PCC has made significant progress, not least by virtue of the way in which it engaged with us and we engaged with it. However, there is still a substantial way for the PCC and the industry to go if we are to have the kind of press that we can all have confidence and pride in.
3.37 pm
John Thurso: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on securing the debate and enabling this important matter to be discussed. I also congratulate him on the excellent way in which he chairs our Committee. He made his remarks today with the same eloquence and elegance to which we have become used.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, of all the reports that we have undertaken, this one attracted the most attention and, throughout our deliberations, caused something or a media scrum in itself. Many Select Committee proceedings on subjects of great seriousness and importance take place throughout the House in many Committee Rooms every day, but they are rarely subject to the level of attention that we received. At one point, I described it as being "carpet-bombed" by the press. It was interesting to observe the way in which different editors and different segments of the press chose to treat us during that process.
As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said, it is interesting to note that when the report was published, there was a much more measured response. That proved that Parliament and a Select Committee were able to undertake scrutiny in a measured way and to produce a measured report that merited a measured response from those who were its subject.
At the heart of our discussion is the question of the freedom of the press. I do not think any hon. Member would deny that that freedom is fundamental and an essential part of democracy—not only of ours, but of any real democracy. The freedom of the press to scrutinise, to investigate and to help hold public figures to account is undeniable, but that was not the subject of the report.
The freedom of the press, however vital it is to democracy, should be like all great freedoms: it should not be unfettered. Balanced against that freedom is another freedom—that of the individual to enjoy privacy and to be free from undue intrusion. We are talking about the ordinary citizen, not those who have put themselves forward for public office or those who seek a place on the public stage, on the sports field, in the
506WH
cinema or wherever. We are talking about those who live normal, ordinary lives and who do not seek attention. In most of the cases that we considered, the people concerned had done nothing wrong. They were not involved in crimes, but were merely caught up in events. That is what seemed to cause so much distress.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). He said that it was extremely important that the press should be able to dig dirt, and I utterly agree with him. He went on to say that there would be casualties. However, I parted company with him when he said that we should accept those casualties and anticipate some collateral damage if we are to maintain those freedoms. We tried to convey in the report what our investigations had shown—that the damage and casualties are more than occasional and that they are avoidable. Indeed, that kind of collateral damage is unnecessary. As I said, I am not talking about public figures. We who enter into public life take our chances and most of us have some knowledge, experience or training in dealing with the press and do our best.
I shall mention only one case, which arose subsequent to the completion of our report. I shall not mention the name of the constituent concerned, because he does not want publicity. However, he has been forced into the public eye, which is why I am taking up his complaint with the PCC. His original complaint was not satisfactorily resolved. He and his wife were unable to have children. They decided on fertility treatment, and embryos from another source were fertilised by him. Unfortunately, before anything further could happen, he and his wife divorced and she went to live in another part of the country.
A couple of years later, because the law states that embryos cannot be used if a couple have split up, those embryos were scheduled for destruction. There is nothing incorrect or wrong in that, but my constituent's wife has been campaigning against it. Because she is infertile, she is campaigning for those embryos to remain available to her so that she can have children at a later stage. As a result of that, another hon. Member—whom I shall not mention because it would identify the couple—began a campaign on behalf of the wife. That became known to the press.
My constituent was tracked down by the press and doorstepped. One press photograph shows him standing at the door with the son that he had by his new partner—a relationship that had started in the intervening time. He told me that the picture was taken by a journalist hiding in a car and using a telephoto lens, while another journalist knocked on the door asking him if he was who he was. He never at any time consented to the photograph being taken. That is the essential complaint that I am taking up.
The sad consequence, two years after those photographs were taken, was that my constituent's new partner found the situation so stressful that she left him and took the child with her. He is now £60,000 poorer because of the legal process that he went through to try to recover the child and deal with his circumstances. That is wholly unacceptable collateral damage for the sake of a few more copies of newspapers circulated for a few pence. That is why our report was about achieving the important balance between the freedom of the press and the freedom of the individual.

507WH
I reiterate what a number of members of the Committee have said, which is that we are pleased by the PCC's response and the way in which it dealt with many points that we raised. I must mention one, because our excellent Clerk brought it to my attention. Paragraph 66 in our report highlights the fact that we had suggested that an audit committee might be put in place so that the PCC could audit its own work, as plcs do as part of normal corporate governance. I may even have made that suggestion myself. I notice that the PCC's response in paragraph 12 took that on board and agreed to do it—so one of our suggestions has come to pass.
There are items in our suggestions that the PCC should take on board but has not. One of them is that journalists should be enabled by the code to refuse an assignment on the grounds that it breaches the code. The PCC responded that it was a matter not for the commission but for the editor and employer. We heard evidence that some journalists would refuse assignments if they felt that they would be backed up. The PCC could easily do that, which would give it more teeth and help redress the balance.
Chris Bryant: On that point, it seems that one difficulty is that so many journalists are now on very short-term contracts and their security of tenure is minimal. For those people, the thought of saying to an editor, "I'm sorry-I can't take part in that," is almost unthinkable. Is there is a way of trying to ensure greater continuity of contracts in the newspaper industry?
John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. It may be that by insisting that the code allows that, it is more cosmetic than real. However, much of what we are dealing with is about perception and message. The debate is about moving that perception and the message to editors, and the line lies slightly further across than they would like.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the balance is between the article that is written, which may be incorrect or require an apology or correction, and the actual correction or apology that is published. One is in 32-point bold type on the front page and the other is in 10-point Times New Roman, hidden away under the weather, so there is an imbalance. We public figures have the ability to redress the balance. We can say things that are privileged and defend ourselves. The private individual caught up in an event does not have that ability. I firmly believe that we still have a way to go to get the balance right.
In that spirit, we approached the question of a privacy law. I hope that I am right in saying that if one took a straw poll at the beginning of our inquiry, the majority of members—I would like to say all members, but I am not sure that that is accurate—had a reticence about recommending a privacy law. The vast majority came to the inquiry with the view that that was not where we would end up. Therefore, the fact that we made our recommendation was as a result of the process, and was not a preconception that we had when we started.
I was passed a note at the beginning of this debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), which says, "If you speak in favour of privacy law,
508WH
please say you're on your own and I'll be rapping your knuckles, cos it's not party policy." I look forward to that rhetorical flagellation in due course.
As the Select Committee took and considered evidence, it became clear that the legal position is very uncertain. Our argument should not be misunderstood: it is not that there must be a privacy law because the press are bad and must be controlled. It is that the legal position has become unclear and must be clarified, and Parliament must undertake that role. It is probably best put in paragraph 109, where we referred to what Mr. Justice Lindsay said:
"The recent judgment in Peck v. United Kingdom in the ECHR … shows that in certain circumstances where the law of confidence did not operate our domestic law has already been held to be inadequate. That inadequacy will have to made good and if Parliament does not step in then the Courts will be obliged to."
That is the real crux of our recommendation and why, on balance, we firmly recommend that the Government reconsider their position. We are asking the Government to introduce legislative proposals to clarify the protection that individuals can expect from unwarranted intrusion. We are not arguing for any draconian privacy law, but simply for clarifications in the law and reasonable protection for civilians in the media that we all enjoy so much.
Above all, our report, and the process that it went through, showed that a Select Committee undertaking a difficult inquiry in the face of some quite public opposition, was able to produce a measured report to which those at whom it was aimed were able to respond well. The movement in and the evolution of the PCC is in no way different from the conclusions of this Select Committee, and its predecessors, which have been leading it along the right path.
3.57 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss the establishment of a new PCC—not, as in this case, the Press Complaints Commission, but the Privilege Complaints Commission. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), whose speech I thoroughly enjoyed, that he managed very cleverly to avoid the rapping of his knuckles by pointing out at the end of his speech that the Committee had not after all proposed a full-blown privacy law, but was merely asking the Government to consider the issue. I have to say that that is not entirely how I read the Committee's report, but if that is the interpretation that he wants to put on it, he has got himself out of the knuckle-rapping that he was otherwise owed.
Chris Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Liberal Democrat would use sophistry to get out of a difficult position in politics?
Mr. Foster: The Liberal Democrats use a lot of methods to get themselves out of difficult positions, but I am delighted to say, as was admirably demonstrated by my hon. Friend, that we are consistent in what we say on these issues.
I begin more seriously by saying that I genuinely welcome the timely report from the Select Committee. I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Select

509WH
Committee on their work on it. I was going to describe the Chairman as "colourful", but for part of our deliberations we were joined by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who showed that there is a rivalry among members of the Committee for that appellation.
I welcome the report and the helpful and constructive responses of the Government and the PCC. The report is timely, not least because, as it says, the current situation is one of uncertainty. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, it will always be a difficult balancing act between two competing issues, the first of which is freedom of expression for the media, which is vital in a free and democratic society. If anyone doubts how important that is, they have only to look at two countries: Zimbabwe, with its growing move to totalitarianism and the impact that it is having on the freedom of the press and its restrict ions on journalists and newspapers; and Iraq, which ha, moved away from the tyranny of dictatorship, and is witnessing the burgeoning of a free press.
It is crucial in a democratic society for the media to have freedom of expression. I say in passing, as I have referred to the media and not just to the press, that it is a pity that in response to the Hutton inquiry leading members of the BBC suggested that the corporation should not be involved in breaking news stories. That seems to mean that there will be less investigative journalism from the BBC, which would be a retrograde step, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and others.
The second issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and others said, is the fact that it is crucial to respect individuals' private lives and get the balance right. However, as the report acknowledges, there are already laws relating to both issues, including, most recently, data protection and human rights legislation.
I was almost overwhelmed by the list of relevant legislation quoted in paragraph 100 by one of the Committee's witnesses, Mr. Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail and editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers. He wrote:
"The press in this country works under some of the most stringent and powerful laws of any western democracy. The libel laws, contempt of court, the provisions at the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, the Children Acts, the Law of Confidence, the body of law restricting the reporting of certain cases in court, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Copyright laws, the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act, the Sexual Offences Act, the Representation of the People Act, the Access to Justice Act, and other numerous restrictive laws already add up to a huge body of legal controls."
In view of that long list, it would be tempting, for that reason alone, to support the Government's opposition to the Committee's recommendations in respect of the possible establishment of a new privacy law, but I support the Government's argument for rejecting that proposal, as set out in paragraph's 2.3 to 2.6 of their response. They are right to say that a privacy law is, certainly currently, unnecessary and undesirable. The Government go on to say, and I agree with them, that the
"weighing of competing rights in individual cases is the quintessential task of the courts, not of Government, or Parliament."
510WH
Saying that does not mean that I believe that there are no other areas where further legislation or amendments to existing legislation should be considered-not necessarily areas covered by the report. Nevertheless, I remain to be convinced that we yet have adequate legislation on physical intrusion or libel. We currently have unpredictable awards and too many legitimate cases that go unheard.
In spite of what I have said, I believe that the Government are right in their firm rejection of the proposals for a new privacy law. I also support other aspects of the Government's response to the Committee's report. However, some of their responses are odd, to say the least; some seem inconsistent with the approach that they have adopted; and, in some, they have simply got things wrong.
Other hon. Members have dwelt on positive aspects of the response, and it was right that they should do so. Rather than repeat what others have said, including the Chairman of the Select Committee—who pointed out how the PCC has adopted, or at least accepted for future adoption, many of the recommendations—I shall spend a few minutes pointing out some of the inconsistencies in the response received by the Committee.
I happen to agree with the PCC's outright rejection of a league table for offenders against its code. but I am surprised that the Government, who are usually a huge promoter of league tables, as the Minister would be first to acknowledge, have gone silent on the issue. It would be useful to hear her view, and the Government's, on that proposal, which, as I have said, I do not support.
Chris Bryant: Why?
Mr. Foster: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the PCC's response to the question, which I am sure he has already read thoroughly, in which it points out the possibility of inaccuracy and misinformation, leading to great unfairness. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's position on school league tables, but I am sure he would acknowledge that although those have been developed, modified, codified and added to for some years, many people still believe them to be misleading and a cause of problems.
Chris Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that readers of The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or The Times might want to know fairly regularly—annually—whether their newspaper was constantly being told off by the PCC? Would they not like to know whether the PCC believed that the information regularly being put before readers was likely to be true and accurate or in breach of the code?.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I am in favour of intelligent league tables.
Mr. Foster: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman can convince me that there is a way in which we can produce intelligent league tables I may change my mind. My answer to his legitimate question is that I do want to know about the newspapers that I read and the accuracy of their reporting, which is why I agree with the Select Committee report about the prominence that must be given in any newspaper to an adjudication against it. That is a far better approach than a potentially spurious and inaccurate league table.

511WH
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee's report gives its own version of a league table, on page 22. I suspect that on analysing some of the data, we may begin to disagree about whether the figures are correct.
The Government, while rightly willing to give their views on many matters dealt with in the report that are outwith their control, are strangely silent on some that are within their control—in particular some of the recommendations. For example, the Committee recommends, sensibly in my view, that it should be possible during an Ofcom hearing about a complaint against a broadcaster for the complainant to be allowed to make a full recording of the proceedings. I find it odd that that issue is missed, given the large number of issues that the Government touch and comment on.
One of the issues is the Committee's proposal for the PCC to establish a twin-track procedure. I may have misunderstood the Committee's intention, but when I read the Government's and the PCC's responses, I think that on both occasions they have totally misunderstood what it proposes. As I understand it, and I would be grateful for clarification from the Chairman if I have got it wrong, the Committee is proposing that on some occasions complainants will not wish to go through a form of adjudication procedure but will simply want the PCC to determine their case, whether they are right or wrong. They do not want a mediation stage, but want to go straight on and to have a decision made. Both the PCC and the Government have completely missed what seems to be a very sensible recommendation. It would be useful to have a response from the Minister.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly touched on the issue of illegal payments to policemen. That is an issue of which I have personal experience. A few years ago, I was involved as someone who was running barefoot down the street chasing an armed mugger. I knew that I was involved in that; the person who was mugged knew that she was involved; the armed mugger knew that he was involved. However, the only other people who knew about it in the middle of the night were the police. I found it strange. therefore, that within a few hours of the incident I received a large number of phone calls from journalists. One wonders how they got that information.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Government's response deals with the issue with some complacency, as the hon. Member for Rhondda says. It is particularly interesting that after the report was produced, the Government made reference to the issue in rather a strange way by drawing attention to a Home Office report. However, they did not actually quote the crucial section of that report, which states:
"Some PSU staff reported problems with officers leaking information to journalists, particularly in relation to high profile cases. In a number of examples discussed, sensitive operational police information emerged in the media, which directly implicated police sources. In this regard, one investigator remarked that his force was "like the Titanic, it's got so many holes". PSU staff suggested that this tended to involve payment of police staff by journalists."
That is in a report published only a few months ago. It is a serious issue; the practice is of course illegal. That does not alter the fact that, as the Committee
512WH
recommends, it should be incorporated within the code and given as much prominence as possible. I certainly share the Committee's view that the confusion over the issue needs to be resolved.
The Government's responses are generally welcome, and I have touched only on those with which I have problems. The FCC's response has been equally welcome. It has already adopted or agreed to adopt in the future a large number of the Committee's recommendations. I welcome that. Nevertheless, I find some of its responses somewhat confusing. For example, it suggests that there is no evidence that journalists are asked to undertake assignments that would breach the code in the absence of a public interest. As we have already heard, we welcome the steps that have been taken to make that part of the employment contract and so on. However, the evidence given to the Committee, by the National Union of Journalists, for instance, contradicted the way in which the PCC reports the situation.
The Chairman of the Committee raised, quite rightly, the issue of the visibility and prominence of adjudications. The PCC, in saying that it accepts that there needs to be due prominence but not accepting the notion of a front-page reference, suggests that there have been no complaints about prominence, yet the thrust of the evidence given to the Committee, certainly as I read it, expressed a different view.
Those are some of the matters on which I have problems with the responses that have been offered, but generally I welcome the report and the thrust of the responses from the Government and the PCC. I recognise what the report says: progress has been made, but from a very low base. That said, the Committee's recommendations provide a real opportunity to make progress on the issues and improve the situation still further and to do sc in large measure through the right approach—an improved self-regulatory system.
4.16 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I welcome the opportunity to follow two Liberal contributors, who merely go to prove the old adage that the one thing we can expect from the Liberal party is consistent inconsistency.
Like most other contributors to the debate, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), not only on chairing his second inquiry into this subject, but on expecting to be here in 20 years' time, by which time he will have chaired at least another two inquiries. I hope that no one will take it the wrong way or think that I am making an announcement if I say that I doubt whether I shall be here in 20 years' time. I admire his persistence.
This has been an interesting debate on an interesting report, for which there was a large measure of support on both sides of the Chamber. Most of the points that needed to be made have probably already been raised, so I shall try not to take up too much time, but I hope that I will be able to cover a number of issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
I think that all hon. Members who contributed raised the issue of a privacy law, which is the key to the report and the Government's response—indeed, the report has its origins in the demand for such a law. The interesting

513WH
point is that practically all hon. Members talked about a privacy law not in terms of people in the public eye, such as us, but in terms of people who are not and the difficulties that they have when faced with the media scrum in its various manifestations. We all agree about what an unpleasant experience that can be. Even those of us who have experienced it in only a minor way know that it is difficult to handle.
My primary concern is about what could easily happen with a law that was designed to protect such people. In any case, it would be extraordinarily hard, even for our expert parliamentary draftsmen, to draw up a law that was aimed entirely at people who did not have such experience. That is perhaps the basic difficulty that we all have with the introduction of a privacy law. In addition, I do not think that their right to free speech is any more curbed than ours, although we have to recognise article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to privacy—which is enshrined in our own human rights legislation. The issue creates a tension. One suspects that that will probably be resolved through the courts rather than in Westminster, and test cases in the courts may indeed be the more effective way to resolve it.
Chris Bryant: That point strikes at the heart of the debate, and the hon. Lady's comments are right and wise. The biggest difficulty is the lack of a sharp divide between someone who is in public life and someone who is not. Is an ordinary schoolteacher in public life? It is hard to draw the distinction. The difficulty that we faced as a Committee was that the people furthest from being in public life, who fall into the public gaze by virtue of an accident or a tragedy, are often those who have least recourse to law because they have the fewest financial resources. That is the injustice.
Mrs. Lait: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point and all of us have great sympathy with people who find themselves in such a situation. Another complication is that many people when faced with a microphone react by thinking that they are adding to the sum total of human knowledge and then find themselves facing a media intrusion that they cannot cope with. That is not an improbable situation and it makes the law even more difficult to draft, leaving aside any attempt to translate it to cover people in public life. Even with the best legal training in the world, I would not want to be involved in trying to draft a privacy law to ensure that the people who are least capable of dealing with a media serum do not have to face it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned Soham and we saw the terrible pressure that everyone came under there. We can all probably quote other such instances. The Damilola Taylor case is one, where there were terrible problems with the witness who was code-named Bromley after the borough. I represent part of that borough and the family police liaison committee did a first-class job in insulating the people who had a crucial part to play in the case from media intrusion. I do not know the details of the Soham case—my hon. Friend will know more—but one suspects that the experience of liaison officers is increasing so that there is much greater protection for people who are caught up in such appalling circumstances.
514WH
That protection may reinforce the argument for the continuation of self-regulation, which I support, but I must also welcome the changes that have been introduced both before and since Sir Christopher Meyer took over as chairman of the PCC. He is obviously having a positive input into its future development in response to the pressures that emerge from time to time through the public reaction to various events.
I welcome the fact that the Committee will see Sir Christopher on a regular basis. I hope that its members have a date in the diary, knowing how difficult it is for meetings to be set up. I noticed that last year, he promised to meet them in May so if a meeting has not been organised, I would get the diaries out fairly soon. I welcome also the positive response of many hon. Members to how he has updated the PCC following the various recommendations that were made to it.
Obviously, the PCC and press have to address some of the changes themselves, which is one positive side of self-regulation, albeit one that is more difficult for the industry to deal with. If the media are to secure the public confidence that they need to maintain self-regulation, they must stay ahead of the public, rather than follow them. It is easy for the press to get into a bunker and say, "Thus far and no further," when, because of the development of new technology, for instance, they do not update the code of conduct for journalists, or whatever the pressure may be. One consequence of today's debate may be an improvement in the way newspapers acknowledge that they have made a mistake.
About 20 years ago I worked in television news and regularly used a cuttings library. Even then. one was conscious that wrong facts had, in the jargon, got into the ether and were repeated time after time. Although new cuttings may be annotated, when one reads some stories, one wonders whether anybody has gone back to the old files to annotate and update them. That would be a serious piece of research work, which the PCC could well consider funding. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) explored all those issues in some detail and I commend him on his interest.
Fundamentally, however, I think that we are all most concerned about the potential difficulties with a privacy law. In a democracy, we need to balance free speech with privacy. However, we must do so in such as way that our media are not looked on in the same way that, for instance, the French media are. Many people in public life in France enjoy a charmed life, but details often emerge only years after their death. We need to ensure that our press and our broadcasters retain the public's respect and that what they say is considered to be as close to the truth as possible: the truth being a moveable, not an absolute. Interestingly, television, which is one of the most intrusive forms of communication, is the medium that the British public trust most, not the press. When one learns of the more devious means that journalists use to get information, however, one can perhaps understand their difficulties.
Again, I commend the Select Committee on the hard work that it has put into the report. Whenever I say that I agree with the Government, I always remember the fallout from the Child Support Agency. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I both agree with the Government, which sends a tremor down my spine. However, I believe that self-regulation is absolutely the

515WH
best way forward for the press. I hope that Sir Christopher Meyer and his colleagues reform and update the PCC, so that not only does it meet the difficulties that people see in its format, but self-regulation continues and we manage to maintain our respect for the individual and free speech.
4.29 pm
The Minister for the Arts(Estelle Morris): I join all those who have spoken in thanking the Select Committee, in particular the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for the report. The report is timely and should become an annual event—I shall refer to that later, when I reply to the debate on privacy.
The issue is incredibly difficult, and no Select Committee, democracy or Parliament will or should say, "It's done". We should never feel sure that the press does everything that the public expects and that we can rest on our laurels. That is not the nature of the press, of democracy or of the relationship between the two. My right hon. Friend's opening comments, in which he said that much has improved since 1992 but that there are still areas of concern and much needs to be done—I hope that I do not sound too much like the last Labour manifesto—are probably right and I suspect that that will always be the case.

The issue is a moveable feast in that demands and reflections will change in the light of new events and public concerns. If we solve one set of problems, the public will bring another set of issues to our attention in the next five years. If the Select Committee is setting out an ongoing relationship with the PCC that involves monitoring and reporting back to the House, I welcome that. Given that the House has decided on a self-regulatory rather than a statutory system, the relationship between the Select Committee and the PCC is even more essential.
I want to do three things: first, reflect on the nature of the press; secondly, respond to some of the long list of concerns of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster); and thirdly, reflect on the privacy issue. Before that, I want to join other hon. and right hon. Members in emphasising the importance of the press in our democracy and parliamentary life. Every week we, as a nation, read or glance through 162 million newspapers—that is a heck of a lot of printed words and pictures to look at. Although every one of the 3,000 or so complaints must be investigated and everything that is wrong must be remedied, we should point out that on the whole the press serves us well. We are discussing what can be done about instances in which we have concerns.
As constituency MPs and national parliamentarians, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, we know the role that the press can play in unearthing things that go wrong, from thalidomide onwards, and we are aware of the issues and scams, for example in areas of consumer choice, that the press has given attention to. We know what delving by the press can do for our democracy and our constituents and we use that for our good when it serves us. However, we see the consequences of individuals suffering when that goes
516WH
wrong and the press goes too far. We have been talking about the effect on ordinary individuals rather than those who choose to put their lives in the public domain.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) gave an excellent example in which the good and bad aspects of press delving came into conflict when she mentioned the case of Damilola Taylor. I will mention the case of Stephen Lawrence. In the case of Damilola Taylor, one could argue that the press sometimes went too far. However, had it not been for the prominence given by the press to the case of a young lad who was stabbed to death on a rough estate in Peckham, government might not have been able to respond. We certainly would not have had a national debate about the nature of a society in which a lad behaving himself on the way home from school can come to that end. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, one could argue that his friends and family experienced too much press intrusion at a time of grief. However, the case has led to the rewriting of the way that we do business, and race relations and the way in which the press, politicians and the police act.
Peter Bottomley: This is not the time to go into detail on the Stephen Lawrence case—I regret to say that I am an expert on it—but the key point is that if the press had taken the killing of a teenager in Eltham as seriously as they had taken the murder of a white woman in Luton, more evidence might have come forward; that again would have been a good interaction between the media and the police in solving a crime.
Estelle Morris: I had forgotten entirely the hon. Gentleman's involvement in what, for him, was a constituency issue. I pay tribute to the strength with which he has pursued that case. Interestingly, he has proved my point: his example shows that if the press had done that, national attention would have been focused on the case. I mention that only because it is so difficult to place the dividing line. It is not clear cut.
We heard that people can sometimes be public figures and sometimes not. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda—or it might have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton; I cannot remember—said that even public figures have the right to a private life. We politicians have always known that we need some private time. We shall never stop discussing the question; all that we can seek to do is to remedy existing errors.
I am sure that other hon. Members will have found it to be so, but when constituents visit my advice bureau to ask me to do something, they sometimes seem to have great confidence in the local press. Indeed, the local press is different from the national press in that respect. If I have to say how difficult it might be to resolve a case, they put their hands up and say, "I'll go to the Evening Mail." They speak as if the local papers can do what politicians cannot do—what none of the rest of the system can do. The public have the strange point of view that although they o lien bemoan the press, they often look to it to remedy wrongs. Therein lies the entire relationship between politicians, the public and the press. When the press do it well, when they get it right. they are the best friends that one could have, and the best buttress of democracy. However, when they get it wrong, the consequences are dire.

517WH
Part of the problem is the 24-hour news service. Society sometimes pays the price of wanting and expecting such a service. The media scrums are the result of needing another angle on a story, of needing one more bit of information, one more clip for a programme. The need sometimes becomes so great that it pushes the media into acting wrongly and in ways that might be against the code. That, however, is the society in which we live, and we cannot turn it back.
One of the difficulties that I find as a Minister is that it is a roundabout sort of argument. Having gone for a system of self-regulation for the press, it is easy for the Government—but not acceptable, and perhaps that underlies some of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton about the Government's response to the report—to say, "If it's self-regulatory, it's nothing to do with us." The Government did not intend that to be read into our response. Sometimes, however, it is difficult for the Government to find the right words to express our legitimate hopes and aspirations for press coverage that defends democracy and the public, while acknowledging that the media are self-regulatory. Ministers do not always have the freedom to say what they might say as Back Benchers. What I might have said as a Back Bencher will have to stay in my mind on this occasion.
The strongest complaint made by my right hon. Friend was against the tone of the Government's response, but finding the right words—words that still give the clear message to the press and the public that we accept self-regulation—means that we sometimes have to accept behaviour that we might not tolerate without self-regulation. Sometimes we do not get it right, and we will reflect on that; we shall try to do better for the next report.
The media scrum thing is awful and ought not to happen to ordinary people—it is pretty awful when it happens to anyone. We should not forget that we are ordinary people as well as politicians. I think that we have all experienced how difficult that can be. There has been a preliminary meeting on this issue between the PCC and Ofcom, and more meetings are to follow. Whatever the report says, I would welcome any agreement under which that would not happen to ordinary people, but the media would be able to gather the information that they need to serve democracy and to inform the public. I welcome the fact that that meeting has taken place, and hope that it will come to something.
I find myself in some difficulty over the issue of payments to the police. Of course that practice is wrong, and of course it goes on. I have reread the Government's response. I may get into terrible trouble for saying this, but perhaps it is not quite as clear as it should be on the fact that the practice does go on and that it ought not to. I suspect that anyone who says that they have never heard of that going on, especially in the press, does not have their eyes as open as they should. It is against the law, and nobody—including editors, politicians, people at the Home Office or any other people who have been referred to—is saying that it should be acceptable. However, there is an issue over whether it should be put into the code. Should it be repeated or is it sufficient to rely on the fact that it is already in the law? I do not know whether it would add more weight to repeat it in
518WH
the code. It is a matter of implementation, not of what is in the law and what is not. It is a matter of the police taking action where they know that there are offenders.
Chris Bryant: Lots of people keep saying that it is illegal, and we all presume that it is, but nobody is very good at specifying the law under which it is an offence. That is why I wonder whether there is not still some room for legislation on this matter.
Estelle Morris: Luckily, I have the relevant page open, so I can answer that question, although the answer will be fairly technical—or perhaps I cannot, after all.
Yes, I can. There are several laws that make it an offence for police officers to receive payments for information, including the Prevention of Corruption Acts, the Data Protection Act 1998 and common-law provisions on misconduct in public office. A police officer receiving payments would also be subject to disciplinary proceedings under the codes of conduct. The issue is not whether the law is there, but whether there is a will to implement it.
Chris Bryant: The point is that it is illegal for a police officer to receive money, but it is not illegal to offer money to a police officer.
Estelle Morris: I am not a lawyer, but I am not sure how a law could be framed under which one cannot offer money to a police officer. For example, if an officer's mum wants to give him a birthday present, she might give him a fiver. I am not sure how that would diminish anything. There is a legal framework that police officers can use to take action. To give is to receive. The receiving of money can be dealt with. What I gathered from the Select Committee was that payments were being made and accepted. The message that I am trying to put across is that, if that happens, action should be taken. The problem then becomes one of implementation.
Mr. Adrian Flook: We wrote our report with the evidence of a national editor in mind: she brazenly said that money had been passed to the police. Since then, a Home Office report and plenty of newspaper accounts have said that that practice still goes on. I am not sure whether it needs to be legislated on, because it is already in law, but surely the fact that it is against the law should be backed up and strengthened in the code, so that nobody can push it aside or say that it does not matter. It would be much more helpful if it was strengthened in the code. According to the commission, however, it is up to the code committee to consider whether it is necessary for the code to duplicate the law.
Estelle Morris: I would have no problem if it were repeated in the code. The code is reviewed annually, although it has not yet been reviewed this year. This is a little like the parliamentary year, in that we are getting into March and beyond. I would have no problem with that, but the code is a matter for the code committee, and it is for the PCC to ratify it. My concern is that it is no good repeating it in the code if the code is not enforced. The point that I was trying to make was that everyone knows that it should not happen, but we know

519WH
that it does happen, and we look to those with the responsibility for ensuring that the law is enforced. The matter is of concern, and no doubt the Committee will reconsider it in another report.
I agree with the comments made about the prominence given to corrections. It is not for the Government to tell editors what the font size should be when corrections are printed, and it would be silly to do so. I simply acknowledge the frustration felt by people when the correction is not as prominent as the error was. I have no doubt that editors and PCC members who read the record of the debate will reflect on the comments made by members of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Bath talked about league tables. The key point is that the information is there and can be gathered together. There is a league table in the Select Committee report, which proves the case. For many years, he and I have argued over a particular league table—the school performance tables—with which we are both familiar, and to which he may have been referring. The position is the same in this case. The requirement is that data be published, so the data are available. School performance information gets into a league table because someone chooses to put it there. The press choose to convert it into a performance table. It would not happen if the newspapers did not choose to publish school examination results as a performance table, because the Government do not publish performance tables.
Exactly the same situation obtains in this case. The information exists, but the press have not chosen to put it into a performance table. The Government will not make them do so, because they do not make them do that with education results. The Select Committee chose to do that. I do not believe that it had any information when it gathered the data. The key point to make is that the data exist. One newspaper chooses not to publish the data, while another one does. It is an editorial decision. It is not for the Government to decide. I would be concerned, however, if the data did not exist. As it is, however, I am not sure whether there is a strong case to be made.
Mr. Foster: Yes, I was referring to the league table that the Minister mentioned. I entirely accept her point about how they are compiled and who compiles them. However, we are debating a specific recommendation made by the Select Committee that the PCC should publish league tables showing how publications have fared in a particular year. It would be helpful if the Government responded clearly on that issue. However, since the Minister said that it can so easily be done and referred to the example on page 22 of the Select Committee report, which I mentioned earlier, will she tell me whether she believes that this league table is helpful where, for example, it combines upheld or partly upheld adjudications, without indicating how much of the adjudication was upheld or how serious the matter was? I find the information totally unhelpful and misleading. What does she believe?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes my point: we get into difficulties of definition the minute we start to talk about performance tables. We have always had
520WH
this problem. He and I both know that other league tables with which we are familiar have been amended and adjusted for years. and he still does not believe that they should be published. The Government are not going to say that a league table should be published. The Select Committee made the recommendation, but the PCC said that it would not do it. The Government should not comment on whether it should. It is a difficult area. I do not want the public to think that the Government have said that such a league table should be published. Given that we do not do so in relation to statutory services such as tests for 11-year-olds, we will certainly not do so on non-statutory services such as the PCC. Whether the Government express a firm opinion on the matter does not add to the debate.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bath on the twin-track approach and agree with the PCC's response. Speed is of the essence, and one of the good things about the PCC process is that it deals with cases much more rapidly than most tribunal cases, and other cases that have a legal underpinning, are dealt with. It is important that that speed be retained.
In other areas of our lives in which there is conflict between an organised body and the public, we try to inject mediation into that conflict, whereas in this instance the suggestion is that it should be taken out. I do not see a problem in trying to resolve such complaints without having recourse to a formal process. When a conflict between officialdom and the individual becomes tied up in quasi-legal procedures, and lawyers become involved, there is a danger that it will take much longer and that nine, 10 or 11 months after the process has started, people will say, "If only we could have sat you down in the same room to begin with, we could have solved the problem at that stage." One of the things that I like about the PCC procedure is that there is an obligation to see whether the situation can be resolved with mediation at an early stage. I believe that to be in the interests of "ordinary people", who are not legal people or politicians. Ordinary people want satisfaction, not a big, convoluted case.
I am told that Ofcom is reviewing the codes and procedures, and that the recording of procedures has not been ruled out. That is a matter for Ofcom rather than the Government, but it is still early in the new year as far as that process is concerned. No doubt, as summer approaches, Ofcom will proceed with that.
I turn now to the last but most vital issue: whether there should be a privacy law. In my opening remarks, I commented on the difficulty related to that matter, and I find myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Bath and for Beckenham, but not with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton—perhaps on this occasion all Front-Bench spokespeople are finding themselves with unusual bedfellows.
The key—and legitimate—question to ask is whether a privacy law would make a real difference. That is a legitimate question about which to have a debate, but I am not persuaded, and the Government are not persuaded, that such a law would make a difference. It would not make the judgment any easier. I cannot think of a law that could define all the difficulties that we have discussed—what is public and private, what is in the public interest, when someone is a public figure and when they are a private figure, and whether there is a

521WH
crime involved—and that would give people privacy, and make it easier for the press to make judgments in a way that does not overstep the mark, and that would do that better than the present legislation. We could end up in a mess.
We could end up giving the impression that Parliament seeks to undermine the freedom of the press. I am told also that it would be the first time in 400 years that there was that statutory underpinning of the way in which the press behave. I think that we must continue with the laws as at present—the hon. Member for Bath listed those laws—and use them as guidance. The Human Rights Act 1998 has been an incredible additional law under which people can choose to take cases, but a privacy law would not be the way forward, for two reasons. Such a law would step across the boundary between a free press and public interest, and it would be a huge step for very little extra.
522WH
I should like to conclude by paying tribute again to the Select Committee. As democratically elected politicians, there can be no greater job that we can do, both for our profession and for the public, than ensuring that our press remains free and responsible. Our problem, because of the nature of our position, is that that relationship is sometimes quite difficult to define. It is entirely proper, from time to time, that the Select Committee consider the issue and give Parliament the opportunity to debate it. I welcome this debate. Like the hon. Member for Beckenham, I suppose that I shall not be here to respond to a debate on the same subject in 20 years' time, but I wish my right hon. Friend and the members of his Committee well, and thank them for ensuring that we shall have an opportunity to respond to any future report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Hazardous Waste
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the future provision of sites for the disposal of hazardous waste. [160300]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise that implementation of the Landfill Directive will have a significant impact on the disposal of hazardous waste. In particular the ending of co-disposal from 16 July 2004 will lead to a reduction in the number of landfill sites taking hazardous waste. Coupled with the requirements for treatment of hazardous waste prior to landfill, this will lead to better management of hazardous waste and more incentive on producers to minimise the amount of waste produced.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support she plans to give to Challenge Fund proposals with regard to waste disposal; and if she will make a statement. 156388]

  Mr. Morley
  The Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) has been established to help push England's waste management practices up the waste hierarchy, and specifically to divert increasing amounts of waste away from landfill. Properly known as the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund, the Challenge Fund is managed by WIP and does not provide funding for final disposal facilities. Rather, it provides local authorities with opportunities to pursue schemes that reduce the volume of the household waste stream, and to increase the amount of household waste recycled and composted. From 2005–06, the Challenge Fund will be replaced by a new Waste Management Performance Reward Grant, and Defra is currently consulting on its proposals for the design of this grant.

  It is recognised that final disposal will remain an important element in local authorities' waste management plans. This need is addressed through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) block funding, which covers waste management among other local authority services. In addition, WIP is managing £355 million of waste PFI credits over the three-year period to 2006, providing the necessary investment in large-scale waste management facilities. WIP's New Technologies work stream is also promoting investment in near-market technologies that will encourage more sustainable ways of disposing of waste.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much hazardous waste can be(a) delivered and (b) deposited in each month from 16 July at landfill sites that have applied to take only hazardous waste from 16 July. [156411]
  1622W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is undertaking a permitting exercise for sites proposing to take hazardous waste after 16 July 2004. Latest information available indicates that, if all the permits were issued, the monthly capacity from 16 July 2004 would be approximately 95,000 tonnes (derived from expected annual inputs). This figure is for those sites accepting hazardous waste on a "merchant" basis. The amounts delivered would equate to those deposited.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many businesses produced hazardous waste in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003; and what estimate she has made of the number of busin esses producing hazardous waste in each year from 2004 to 2008. [156421]

  Mr. Morley
  Data on this for the years 2002 and 2003 are not yet available. The average number of active special waste producers over previous years (1999 to 2001) was 100,000.

  The number of active producers of hazardous waste is expected to rise to 750,000 when the revised European hazardous waste list is fully implemented.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) tonnage and (b) proportion of hazardous waste will require treatment from 16 July; and what the capacity of existing waste treatment infrastructure is. [156422]

  Mr. Morley
  The tonnage requiring treatment will depend on a number of factors, not least the amount arising. In 2002, some 5 million tonnes of special waste was consigned, and 47 per cent. was specifically consigned to treatment facilities (including recycling and reuse), 39 per cent. to landfill and 4 per cent. to incineration.

  From 16 July 2004, all hazardous waste sent for disposal at a landfill will require some form of pre-treatment, unless this is of no practical benefit towards meeting the aims of the Landfill Directive. For hazardous waste, the Government believe that treatments are available that will reduce the mass to be landfilled, as well as the hazards to human health and/or the environment. Any decision that treatments are not available can only be made following a thorough evaluation of the treatment options.

  Estimates on available capacity of existing hazardous waste treatment infrastructure were prepared for the Hazardous Waste Forum in September 2003 and posted on the forum's website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/hazforum/031021/enviros.pdf

  The forum continues to keep this information under review as it becomes aware of changes to waste industry plans.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy that there should be no stockpiles of hazardous waste from 16 July. [156424]

  Mr. Morley
  It is Government policy to ensure as smooth a transition as possible of the implementation of the requirements of the Landfill Directive, in particular the ending of the practice of co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste in the same cell from 16 July,
  1623W
  and to that end to avoid the need for storage of hazardous waste over and above that which normally occurs.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which hazardous waste streams she has identified as the most problematic to treat and manage after 16 July; and what steps she has taken to ensure the safe management of these waste streams. [156426]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have taken the advice from hazardous waste stakeholders through the Hazardous Waste Forum to identify the following waste streams which warrant particular attention.

  Construction and demolition

  Contaminated soils

  Air pollution controls residues

  Waste oils

  Wastes from non-ferrous metals industry

  Filter cakes from waste treatment

  The task force on treatment and capacity is investigating in more detail these waste streams, and has set up two work streams paying particular attention to construction and demolition wastes (including contaminated soils) and waste oils. The task force is assessing the arisings and alternative capacity available, communicating the issues to the industries concerned, and looking at environmentally sound methods of managing the wastes.

  In addition, the Environment Agency are identifying the top five waste streams per region, based on potential risk to the environment (quantities and hazardousness) and public health. Cradle to grave audits on these waste streams will be carried out which will include taking targeted enforcement action when appropriate.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Environment Agency has spent in the last year for which figures are available on the(a) detection and (b) prosecution of illegal disposal of hazardous waste; and how much it proposes to spend on these activities in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [156428]

  Mr. Morley
  The agency spends in the order of £12 million annually on detection and prosecution of illegal waste activities including fly-tipping. Figures relating only to hazardous waste are not available. The amount that the agency spends is driven in part by the level of criminal activity. Between 2001 and 2002 the number of incidents the agency responded to increased by 19 per cent. across England and Wales. However, this masked a 73 per cent. increase in the number of incidents responded to in Thames region alone.

  During 2003–04 additional funding has been made available for the development of "Flycapture", a national fly-tipping database, being set up by the Environment Agency. This will allow the collection and collation of summary data on fly-tipping incidents dealt with by the agency and local authorities.
  1624W
  The agency anticipates that its spend in this area will be in the order of £12 million during 2004–05. Spending in future years is subject to a spending review.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to alert small and medium enterprises to their obligations as producers of hazardous waste. [156430]

  Mr. Morley
  Guidance will be issued at least three months before the implementation of the new regulations for hazardous waste to explain the obligations to be placed on producers. The guidance will be available in both paper and electronic formats to ensure that it is accessible to small and medium sized enterprises and we will be liaising with the Small Business Service and Federation of Small Businesses to ensure that the guidance is both appropriate and helpful to those in such enterprises.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what funding she has allocated for 2004–05 for a campaign to inform waste producers of their obligations under the Landfill Directive. [156434]

  Mr. Morley
  A strategy to inform waste producers of their obligations under the Landfill Directive is an integral part of the Hazardous Waste Forum's Action Plan, published in December 2003. This strategy will receive the necessary funding although no specific budget has been allocated to cover the Government's role in this work. Also, Defra officials will continue to present papers on Landfill Directive issues at industry seminars on waste disposal as part of their normal duties.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much hazardous waste was illegally dumped in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three years; and how many prosecutions resulted. [157262]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for tackling illegal dumping and fly-tipping is shared between local authorities and the Environment Agency. Information on local authority incidents is not held centrally.

  With regard to illegal special waste dumping, the Agency responded to 29 (2001), 54 (2002) and 62 (2003) incidents in Lancashire and of these 3 (2001), 1 (2002) and 0 (2003) were in the Chorley District.

  Prosecutions, North West Region (Central Area): 2001–03

  In the Environment Agency's North West Central Area as a whole (which includes Lancashire and Chorley) prosecutions taken were as follows:
  Under Section 33 1,(a) of the Environmental Prosecution Act 1990 (these may include Special Waste):
  2001—11
  Prosecutions under Regulation 5 (2) (a) of the Special Waste Regulations 1996
  2002—1
  Section 1, Control of Pollution (Amendment Act) 1989
  2003—1

  Agency Budgets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget
  1625W
  of the (a) Environment Agency and (b) Countryside Agency were in each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06 (planned); and if she will make a statement. 156601]

  Alun Michael
  (a) The budget for the Environment Agency from 1998–99 to 2003––04 was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  593.0

  1999–2000

  617.9

  2000–01

  640.3

  2001–02

  702.8

  2002–03

  782.5

  2003–04

  805.2

  (b) The Countryside Agency was established on 1 April 1999. Its budget from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 was as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  54.1

  2000–01

  63.5

  2001–02

  100.6

  2002–03

  108.7

  2003–04

  112.0

  The budget of the Environment Agency and Countryside Agency for future years will be confirmed in due course.

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the buildings occupied by her Department's staff, including agencies, which require(a) remedial work on and (b) the removal of asbestos; what that work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159364]

  Alun Michael
  No buildings occupied by Defra or its Executive Agencies staff require remedial work to residual asbestos. In 2003–04, £260,000 was spent on surveys and

  Date

  Type of contact

  Detail

  24 February 2003

  Correspondence

  Asgard made an application to the Environment Agency for registration as an exempt activity from Waste Management Licensing

  24 July 2003

  Meeting

  Mr. Donovan met Environment Agency officials (followed by a letter from the Environment Agency to Mr. Donovan, clarifying that his plant would be subject to the Waste Incineration Directive, according to the Government's Waste Incineration Regulations issued in December 2002)

  11 September 2003

  Correspondence

  Asgard e-mailed Defra official

  11 September 2003

  Telephone conversation

  Defra official telephoned Asgard

  19 September 2003

  Correspondence

  Mr. Donovan e-mailed Defra official

  14 November 2003

  Meeting

  Defra and Environment Agency officials visited Mr. Donovan and colleagues at prototype plant near Milton Keynes

  14 November 2003

  Correspondence

  Defra official e-mailed Mr. Donovan

  28 November 2003

  Telephone conversation

  Defra official telephoned Mr. Donovan

  16 December 2003

  Correspondence

  Defra official wrote to Mr. Donovan

  29 January 2004

  Meeting

  Mr. Donovan, his colleagues and Alistair Burt MP met Elliot Morley (Minister for the Environment). and Defra and Environment Agency officials

  1626W
  preparation of management plans as required by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.

  In 2004–05, £200,000 has been allocated to complete the management plans. No further surveys are planned.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of buildings occupied by(a) staff of the Department and (b) staff of the Department's executive agencies have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos prior to implementation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159374]

  Alun Michael
  All of them.

  Asgard Systems
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what advice was given by the Environment Agency to Mr. Ross Donovan in answer to his letter of 14 February 2001, asking for information on any legislation which a prototype waste to energy plant might need to comply with; and if she will make a statement. [156715]

  Mr. Morley
  On the basis of the information provided to the Environment Agency, the Agency advised Mr. Donovan that the activity did not require a permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations, but that the registration of the activity as an exempt activity under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations was required. The Agency reached this view based on the Pollution Prevention Control Regulations existing at that time.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) meetings, (b) correspondence and (c) phone conversations between (i) her Department and (ii) the Environment Agency and (a) Mr. Ross Donovan of Biggleswade and (b) Asgard Systems Ltd of Bedford relating to the development of a waste to energy plant by Mr. Donovan. [156716]

  Mr. Morley
  A list of recorded communications with Mr Donovan and Asgard Systems Ltd. relating to the development of a waste to energy plant is provided in the table.
  1627W
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct the Environment Agency to conduct an inquiry into the part played by the Agency in the liquidation of Asgard Systems Ltd of Bedford. [156719]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has a well established "Complaints and Commendations Procedure" which is used to investigate any complaints against it. If Asgard Systems Ltd. makes a complaint to the Agency, it will undertake an appropriate inquiry according to this procedure.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Aviation)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to include aviation in the target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. [158830]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The Government are committed to putting the UK on a path to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent. by 2050. International flights from the UK do not currently count in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions as there is no international agreement yet on ways of allocating such emissions between countries. However, the Government's Energy White Paper made it clear that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming.

  This was restated, and built on, in the recently published Air Transport White Paper which announced a package of measures to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change. This included the Government's intention to press for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the forthcoming EU emissions trading scheme, and that this will be a priority for the UK Presidency in 2005, with a view to aviation joining the scheme from 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter.

  Batteries
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental consequences of disposing of spent batteries to landfill. [156347]

  Mr. Morley
  The main environmental concerns associated with the landfilling of batteries relate to the potential generation and discharge of leachate into the environment of hazardous substances i.e. cadmium, lead and mercury, all known to be toxic to the aquatic environment and human health. Discharge of these substances to the environment are likely to occur through(a) the compaction of weight, leading to substances discharging from the battery and (b) percolation of rainfall further leaching these substances into groundwater. It is however worth noting that spent batteries constitute only 0.1 per cent. of the Municipal Solid Waste stream.

  The Belgian Government recently commissioned a study Targeted Risk Assessment Report, (TRAR) currently under scientific peer review, to identify the environmental impacts of disposing batteries in landfill.
  1628W
  The TRAR study mainly focused on cadmium containing batteries and concluded that the impact of batteries on landfill leachate could not be judged, based upon current lack of knowledge and methodology. In addition, risks related to the uncertainties of hazardous substances from batteries going to leachate, would require the adoption of risk management measures.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of batteries were recycled in each European Union country in the last year for which figures are available. [156348]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on percentage of batteries recycled in European Union countries is not readily available for all battery chemistries. Member states have not been required to provide this in the past. However, officials are in the process of acquiring this data.

  Portable battery collection rates are available for 2002 and are as follows.

  Country

  Collection rate in percentage of sales in 2002

  Grams per inhabitant

  Austria

  44

  179

  Belgium

  59

  228

  France

  16

  69

  Germany

  39

  157

  Netherlands

  32

  116

  Sweden

  55

  193

  Spain

  14

  61

  UK

  0.5

  2

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many spent batteries, other than vehicle batteries, are generated each year in the United Kingdom; what quantity of each heavy metal is involved; and what percentage of these batteries are recycled. [156349]

  Mr. Morley
  No studies have been undertaken, so far, to assess the quantities of batteries that enter the waste stream annually in the UK. However, we do know that in 2002, 45.5 per cent. of the annual sales of the 15 European member states, went for final disposal (incineration or landfill) instead of being collected and recycled.

  The following quantities of heavy metals are found in each battery.

  Recyclable materials of portable batteries.

  Percentage

  Non rechargeable general purpose battery

  Zinc

  20

  Manganese

  20

  Ferrous Metal

  20

  Copper

  10

  Non rechargeable button cell

  Zinc

  26

  Silver

  34

  Ferrous Metal

  30

  1629W

  Recyclable materials of rechargeable batteries

  Percentage

  Nickel Cadmium

  Cadmium

  15

  Nickel

  25

  Steel

  35

  Nickel Metal Hydride

  Nickel

  40

  Steel

  18

  Lithium Ion

  Acier

  22

  Cobalt

  17

  The European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA) estimated that the UK sent 424 tonnes of nickel cadmium batteries, 45 tonnes of nickel metal hydride and 38 tonnes of zinc carbon, alkali and zinc air batteries for recycling in 2002.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the preparedness of(a) her Department and (b) the UK to meet the targets in the draft EU Directive on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators; [156362]

  (2) what steps she is taking to increase the percentage of batteries other than vehicle batteries that are recovered from the waste stream. [156346]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft Batteries Directive requires member states to achieve collection targets for household batteries (44 per cent.) and household Nickel Cadmium batteries (80 per cent.), and that all automotive and industrial batteries are collected and sent for recycling. At present, the UK is collecting less than one per cent. of household batteries and in 2002, 87 per cent. of the total automotive batteries put on the market were collected and sent for recycling. HMG will be commissioning work, in the near future, to obtain data on the collection and recycling rates of industrial batteries.

  The Government welcome the draft Directive. Defra and DTI are already in talks with those stakeholders affected by the proposal and are looking at ways to secure early participation, to enable the UK to successfully meet the collection target within the given timeframe. In addition, both Departments are fully involved in discussions with the Commission and the European Parliament, to ensure that targets for the collection and recycling of household batteries are challenging, but achievable.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the help given by her Department to each type of biofuels energy in order to encourage the development of this part of the energy sector. [160299]

  Margaret Beckett
  A range of support is available to farmers to grow energy crops. Funding has been provided for open days, conferences, a biofuels leaflet, R&D and reports to support the development of bio-energy. DEFRA works closely with other Government Departments on the development of policy.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to promote international agreement on measures to respond to climate change. [160297]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government takes every opportunity to promote international action on climate change bilaterally, through the EU and in international fora. Our commitment to the international existing agreements and our Energy White Paper's long-term vision show climate change action and healthy economic growth are compatible.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what representations she has received about problems in the diary sector. [160294]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly receives letters from MPs and others on dairy issues. Ministers frequently meet with representatives from all parts of the dairy sector and matters affecting the whole dairy supply chain are regularly discussed at the Forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty.

  Environment Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position she will be taking at this month's EU Environment Council in respect of(a) medium and long-term greenhouse gas reductions and (b) the EU Chemicals Directive. [159798]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]: The UK successfully pressed for language in the Environment Council Conclusions that established a process under which the EU will develop strategies for further action to tackle climate change post-2012 including medium-and long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets. This will kick-start the process of establishing our position in advance of the international negotiations on future action, which are due to start next year.

  Regarding the new EU chemicals strategy (REACH), the Presidency invited the Council to consider its progress report on the work done so far by the ad hoc working group, and in particular the need for further work to be carried out to understand the full impact of the proposed Regulation. There was no substantive debate on the issue. We believe that it is essential that the Environment Council has the opportunity to be fully involved in decisions on REACH and we welcome the formation of the ad hoc working group as a way for both economic and environment ministry expertise to contribute to the discussions. The efforts made by the Presidency to take forward such a complex dossier are to be welcomed.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost to local authorities of meeting the Government's recycling targets. [159011]
  1631W
  Mr. Morley
  Waste Strategy 2000 sets out the Government's targets on recycling and composting. Appendix C to Annex C provides estimates of the cost of various municipal waste management options from 2000 to 2020. The present value of the additional costs to local authorities of reaching the recycling and composting targets, over and above a 'base case' which assumed current levels (in absolute terms) of recycling, composting and energy recovery, with all other waste going to landfill, were estimated at between £3.4 billion and £7.7 billion over the 20 year period.

  GM Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what separation distance would be required to keep the contamination of non-GM crops with GM varieties below a level of 0.1 per cent. for(a) maize, (b) oil-seed rape and (c) sugar beet. [154708]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Union has agreed a threshold of 0.9 per cent. for labelling adventitious GM presence in non-GM products. We recognise that there are arguments for a lower threshold to apply particularly in relation to organic production, although no conclusion has been reached on this.

  The separation distances needed between fields to limit cross-pollination to 0.1 per cent. (on a whole-field basis) were considered in a review produced for Defra in 2000 by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB). This suggested the following distances on the basis of fields of an average size of two hectares or more:

  oilseed rape (fully-fertile varieties): 100 metres

  sweetcorn maize: 420 metres

  forage maize: 290 metres

  No distance was estimated in relation to sugar beet because cross-pollination does not affect the composition of the utilised plant tissues (only vegetative parts of the plant are harvested, rather than seeds or fruits). Moreover, beet crops are normally harvested before they flower and farmers usually control any `bolting' plants that flower prematurely.

  The information in the NIAB report needs to be considered further in the light of data from a Defra-funded research report on gene flow from the GM maize crops in the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials (available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/ research/epg-1-5-138.htm). This study concluded that in the case of a GM and non-GM maize crop growing alongside each other, the rate of individual GM cross-pollination events (per maize kernel) would be below 0.1 per cent. at a distance of 258 metres into the non-GM crop. A parallel report on gene flow from the FSE oilseed rape crops is in preparation and will be published in due course.

  Another relevant Defra-funded research project has studied landscape-scale gene flow in oilseed rape crops (report available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environments gm/research/epg-rg0216.htm). This does not estimate the separation distances needed for specific cross-pollination thresholds, but it notes that relatively small distances will limit cross-pollination between fully-fertile oilseed rape varieties to around 0.1 per cent. or below, and that pollination from one field to the next is
  1632W
  likely to be less than 0.1 per cent. averaged over the field. At present it is difficult to estimate the separation distances that would be needed for a 0.1 per cent. threshold in relation to oilseed rape varieties that are not fully fertile. Further information that is relevant to this will be provided by the report noted above on gene flow from the FSE oilseed rape crops.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she commissioned into(a) product liability insurance and (b) co-existence, with regard to the possible introduction of GM crops. [159406]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The issues of co-existence and liability have been explored in a report to the Government by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. We will set out our thinking on this shortly. The Government have not commissioned any specific research on insurance but has funded various projects on co-existence-related topics. These studies are published on our website www.defra.gov.uk when finalised.

  Household Waste
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what household recycling levels have been attained in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1997. [158449]

  Mr. Morley
  The Information requested is contained in Defra's Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001–02, copies of which are in the Library. Table 5B gives the information request ed for London for the financial years 1996 –97 2001–02. Annex B gives information for individual London local authorities for the financial years 1998–99–2001–02. Information for the years before 1998–99 was not published at the local authority level. The Management Survey can be downloaded from: http://defrawebienvironment/statistics/wastats/mwb0102/ index.htm. Further data on London's waste can be found at www.capitalwastefacts.com

  The household waste recycling and composting rates for 2002–03 can be obtained from the following website: www.bvpi.gov.uk

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress made on pilot schemes for direct and variable charging for collection and disposal of household waste. [158232]

  Mr. Morley
  In its response to the Strategy Unit Report Waste Not Want Not, the Government undertook to carry out further work before a decision is taken on whether to enable local authorities to introduce pilot direct and variable charging schemes for collection and disposal of household waste. In co-operation with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders, and drawing on international experience, work is being undertaken to consider the practicalities of operating such schemes and how potential disadvantages could be overcome.

  The Government will consider the results of this work during 2004.
  1633W

  Oak Disease
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent steps taken by her Department to combat oak disease. [160277]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have recently stepped up inspections of imported plants, doubled checks on nurseries, increased surveys of woodland and heathland around outbreaks. We are also taking special measures to deal with the most worrying outbreaks in two historic gardens in Cornwall.

  Plastic Bags
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentives are in place in the UK to discourage the(a) production and (b) handing out of plastic bags. [158279]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: None at present. Under the Packaging Regulations, businesses have tonnage obligations and they can reduce these, and their costs, by reducing the amount of packaging they handle.

  While there are no formal measures in place targeted specifically at plastic bags, the Government fully support the retailers in the introduction of 'bag for life', reusable bags and plastic bag recycling schemes.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to include radon testing in CON29 within the proposed Housing Investment Programme. [159894]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such plans. Under our proposals for home information packs, the pack is likely to include information on whether the property is located within a radon affected area. Issues of practicality and cost suggest that it would not be appropriate to require radon testing as part of a statutory home information pack scheme. However, this will be considered further by specialist working groups that are being set up to consider the contents of the pack before any final decisions are taken.

  Refrigerators
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many refrigerators were disposed of in each year since 1997 in the United Kingdom; what quantity of ozone depleting substances were on average contained in the coolant and foam from refrigerators being destroyed; and whether these ozone depleting substances are controlled substances within the remit of Article 16 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No. 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council. [158088]

  Mr. Morley
  As EC Regulation 2037/2000 only applied to domestic refrigeration units containing ODS from the 1 January 2002, the Environment Agency does not have accurate figures for fridges disposed of prior to that date.
  1634W

  Number of fridges

  2002

  2003

  Disposed (units) in England and Wales

  299,000

  979,336

  Exported for treatment to Germany and the Netherlands and Denmark (units)

  418,000

  377,168

  The average quantities of ozone depleting substances contained in the coolant and foam from fridges being destroyed are not collected through the current reporting mechanism. However, the average quantity of controlled substances recovered from the refrigerant and blowing agent that was subsequently destroyed in England and Wales for 2003 was 236.63g per fridge.

  CFC contained in fridges are controlled substances under EC Regulation 2037/2000.

CABINET OFFICE

  Supplier Companies Staffing
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is issued to Government purchasing staff on requesting from potential supplier companies information about the number of people they employ. [160046]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Procurement Guidance does not recommend that Departments request information from potential suppliers on the number of people they employ. However there is provision under the EC Services Directive (92/50/EEC) for Departments should they wish to do so, to request a
  "statement of the service provider's average annual manpower and the number of managerial staff for the last three years."

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of IVF treatment in the UK; and what the criteria are for IVF treatment on the NHS. [154324]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has revolutionised the treatment of infertility, allowing couples to have children they would otherwise have been denied. The success rate of IVF has continually increased over the years, as techniques have been refined. Currently the live birth rate per treatment cycle started in the United Kingdom is 22 per cent, (all women) and 25 per cent. (woman under 38).

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is expected to publish its guideline on the provision of National Health Service infertility services, including IVF, shortly. The Department of Health will consider issues of implementation in light of the recommendations in the NICE guideline.
  1635W

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Charities Bill
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Government about the draft Charities Bill. [158943]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners and the Archbishops' Council both responded to the Strategy Unit's report on charity law reform and remain in discussion with the Home Office about the likely implications of the proposed legislation for the various parts of the Church of England.

  Lambeth Palace Library
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the future of Lambeth Palace Library. [158944]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners have, in consultation with the other National Institutions of the Church of England, instigated a review of the arrangements for housing and conserving the documentary heritage held by those institutions, and this will consider Lambeth Palace and other libraries. Extensive consultation has taken place and responses are being collated.

  Parish Priest Salaries
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what the total salary cost of parish priests was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04. [158945]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  In 1996 the total stipend cost for parochial clergy (not including Employer's National Insurance contributions) was approximately £130.5 million. In 2003 the figure was approximately £151.8 million.

  Graveyards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners how much was spent maintaining church graveyards in each of the last three years. [158940]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  Such information is not held centrally. Responsibility for maintenance of churchyards lies with the Parochial Church Council. Grants may be available from local authorities, since they have a special power to contribute to maintenance. Where a churchyard has been closed by Order in Council, the PCC may transfer the maintenance burden to the local authority.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Government are giving to Afghanistan in relation to road reconstruction. [160230]
  1636W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Rebuilding Afghanistan's road networks is key to promoting regional trade and revitalising the Afghan economy. The UK contributes to road construction through our funding of the European Commission and the Asia Development bank, both of which are actively involved in major road building in Afghanistan. The Asia Development bank is engaged in several priority road projects, including the rehabilitation of the critically important Kabul-Kandahar-Spin Boldak road. The European Commission has undertaken the reconstruction of the Kabul-Jalalabad-Torkham road, another very important transport route. The travel times on this road have now been cut from six to three hours.

  Departmental Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which companies have contracts for furniture provision for his Department; and what measures have been implemented to ensure that when a product contains wood, it can be shown to come from legal and sustainable sources. [158106]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not have contracts for the supply of furniture, but makes use of Office of Government Commerce (OGC) arrangements for pretendered goods and services. However, all suppliers used are provided with model specification clauses which set out Government procurement policies and so ensure that all timber used is from legal and sustainable sources. The two main suppliers used are both certified as operating systems that meet the standards set by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC).

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what construction and refurbishment his Department is undertaking; at what locations; and what measures are being implemented to ensure that all timber used(a) on the construction sites and (b) in the final projects will come from legal and sustainable sources. [158104]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We are currently undertaking the refurbishment of our office at Abercrombie House, East Kilbride.

  Throughout the project the contractor and the project managers have been informed of Government policy regarding procurement of timber used, and DFID has issued a model specification clause in accordance with the guidelines as issued by Defra. Documentation to support the sourcing of timber from the lead contractor, and also all relevant sub-contractors, is being obtained and independently verified.

  Uzbekistan
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects his Department is funding in Uzbekistan. [159844]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is currently assisting the Government of Uzbekistan and the World Bank in the design of a new health care reform project; providing organisational capacity-building support to civil society organisations; and providing financial support to small local projects through a small grants scheme. Uzbekistan will also be included in a Central Asia region HIV/AIDS project starting in September this year.
  1637W
  Additionally, the UK provides assistance to Uzbekistan through the EU programme of Technical Assistance to the Countries of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia (TACIS). In calendar year 2002 (the most recent year figures are available) the UK's attributed contribution was £0.96 million.

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [155931]

  Mrs. McGuire
  While records on average processing times for parliamentary questions are not collected, the Department answered approximately 70 per cent. of its Session 2002–03 ordinary written questions on time (five sitting days). Ministers attach great importance to Parliamentary Questions and endeavour to reply within the parliamentary deadlines wherever possible.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to reply in person to debates in Westminster Hall. [159682]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Opportunities Fund (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Crosby in each year since 1997. [160450]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Crosby are shown in the table.

  £

  1999

  0

  2000

  900,513

  2001

  155,946

  2002

  69,425

  2003

  610,475

  To February 2004

  0

  Television Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of BBC licence revenue is derived from notional payments from persons aged over 75 years. [160682]
  1638W
  Estelle Morris
  In the financial year 2002–03, 14 per cent. of the BBC's television licence fee revenue was derived from payments from the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of free licences issued to people aged 75 or over.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many TV licences were(a) issued and (b) paid for in each of the last six years; and what the unit cost of the collection process was in each of those years. [159690]

  Estelle Morris
  All television licences have to be paid for, whether by the individual or, in the case of free licences issued to people aged 75 or over, by the Department for Work and Pensions. The total number of licences issued in each of the last six years, the number of free licences issued in each year since their introduction in November 2000 and the gross cost of issue per licence were:

  Total licences issued (million)

  Free licences issued (million)

  Gross cost per licence (£)

  1997–98

  22.4

  —

  4.88

  1998–99

  23.0

  —

  5.79

  1999–2000

  23.2

  —

  4.91

  2000–01

  23.5

  3.0

  5.61

  2001–02

  23.9

  3.2

  113.99

  2002–03

  24.4

  3.3

  6.00

  1Licence fee collection costs were significantly reduced in 2001–02 by a rebate from Consignia for non-performance of contractual obligations.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the cost is of the National Television Licensing Authority's Get One or Get Done advertising campaign; who pays for it; which advertising agency is responsible for the campaign; and if she will ask the authority to sever its connection with this agency forthwith; [158578]

  (2) who in the National Television Licensing Authority is responsible for its Get One or Get Done campaign; and if she will make representations to the authority for the dismissal of the person or persons responsible; [158579]

  (3) what connection the BBC has with the National Television Licensing Authority's Get One or Get Done campaign. [158580]

  Tessa Jowell
  As Licensing Authority, the BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system. TV Licensing's marketing and communications are carried out by the AMV Consortium under contract to the BBC.

  The BBC has indicated that it does not publicise the costs of individual advertising campaigns, for reasons of commercial sensitivity. However, the corporation has confirmed that all such campaigns undergo a series of legal compliance checks before they are approved by the corporation.

  The Government have no power to intervene in the everyday management of the television licensing system nor would it be appropriate for it to seek to influence the BBC's choice of contractors, staff or advertising campaigns.
  1639W

  Television Programme Guidelines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what procedures are applicable to a company bound by the Independent Television guidelines on the amount of(a) political and (b) current affairs coverage that fails to meet its requirements; [160128]

  (2) how many complaints she has received concerning failures of companies bound by the Independent Television guidelines to meet the appropriate level of (a) political and (b) current affairs coverage. [160129]

  Estelle Morris
  These are matters for Ofcom.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Clerk's Department
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many full-time appointments there have been to the Clerk's Department in the last five years; and how many were(a) female and (b) of an ethnic minority. [160417]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  There have been 155 full-time appointments to the Clerk's Department in the five year period up to 10 March 2004, of whom 86 were female (55.5 per cent.). 13 of the 155 have since left the Clerk's Department (six of whom were female). Of the 142 appointees still employed, 80 are female (56.3 per cent.).

  House of Commons staff are currently in the process of completing and returning revised ethnicity survey questionnaires. Of the 142 current staff who started within the last five years, approximately half have so far returned their questionnaires. Of these, 5.3 per cent. are from an ethnic minority background. If this proportion holds good for all the staff in this group, approximately eight of them will be from an ethnic minority background.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police Numbers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Transport police officers were based in each British Transport police force area in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [160648]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport police have provided the following information.

  Police officers

  Area

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Force Headquarters

  110

  139

  131

  London North

  310

  311

  295

  London South

  300

  324

  314

  London Underground

  405

  476

  537

  North Eastern

  192

  193

  201

  North Western

  270

  263

  258

  Midland1

  179

  166

  —

  South Western1

  141

  127

  —

  1640W

  Police officers

  Area

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Western1

  —

  2

  279

  Scotland

  202

  205

  207

  On secondment

  —

  —

  29

  Total

  2,109

  2,206

  2,251

  1Midland and South Western Areas were merged to form Western Area in 2003–04.

  Council Tax (DVLA)
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency supplies local authorities with the vehicle registration numbers of people who are in arrears with their council tax payments. [160635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DVLA vehicle register is maintained primarily for vehicle taxation and law enforcement purposes and DVLA is registered under the Data Protection Act 1998 to carry out those duties.

  The vehicle register is not an open record but information may be released in a number of circumstances. Section 29 (3) of the Data Protection Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions information required for the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature. Under this exemption, local authorities apply to DVLA for keeper details to trace council tax debtors through the registration numbers of their vehicles.

  Motorcycle Training
  Lembit Őpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the regulations which enable(a) a motorcycle rider to complete compulsory basic training on an automatic machine and progress to ride a geared bike with no further training, (b) a novice rider to obtain a motorcycle restricted licence allowing him to ride a more powerful motorbike on the roads without providing proof that he has undertaken training or riding in the previous two years and (c) newly qualified motorcycle instructors to train others as instructors; and if he will make a statement. [159470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no plans to make such amendments to the regulations at this time. We shall, however, keep under review the training arrangements for novice riders, and the persons authorised to instruct them, in the light of recommendations made to Government by the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, forthcoming changes to the practical motorcycling test and European proposals to amend motorcycle categories.

  Lembit Őpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on post-test training qualifications for motorcyclists. [159471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency is working in partnership with trainer and industry interests to create a voluntary rider development scheme to improve safety for motorcyclists who hold a full licence. Consultation with all interested parties is planned for later this year.
  1641W

  Permanent Equipment (Highways)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require(a) the privatised former public utilities and (b) other companies providing similar services to pay a site rent to local authorities for permanent equipment located on the public highway. [157559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no plans to require such bodies to pay a rent for locating permanent apparatus on the public highway.

  Resurfacing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason no regulations have been introduced under section 78 of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 to require statutory undertakings to contribute to resurfacing costs. [159731]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Over recent years research has been undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, on behalf of my Department, examining the effect of utility trenching on the long-term performance of roads. Any decision on whether to make regulations under section 78 of the 1991 Act will be taken in the light of this and other evidence collected into the effect on the quality of roads of works carried out by statutory undertakers.

  The Traffic Management Bill contains more explicit provision supplementing the general powers in section 78, so that, should a decision be taken that it would be appropriate for utilities and others to £million

  Outturn

  Forecast outturn

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Highways agency1

  318

  300

  427

  491

  413

  Local authorities outside London2

  —

  —

  94

  118

  104

  London (TfL)3

  —

  —

  23

  17

  10

  Total

  318

  300

  544

  626

  527

  1Highways Agency expenditure is that on, major road schemes costing over £5 million. It also includes spend on trunk roads in London until July 2000.

  2 Local Authority spend is the value of Credit Approvals issued to support major local road schemes over £5 million. The Department does not hold figures for road building projects prior to the year 2001 when its database was set

  3London spend is Transport for London's expenditure on major road schemes over £5 million. TfL, has been responsible for road improvements in London since July 2000

  Notes:

  1. Road building projects outside of England are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  The 10 Year Plan for Transport provided for a balance of investment between roads, public transport and railways. Future spending is being reviewed as part of Spending Review 2004. In respect of switching funds from road to rail, we would consider this following the outcome of SR2004 and the rail review.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent by the Highways Agency on non-motorway roads in(a) Somerset, (b) Dorset, (c) Devon, (d) Cornwall, (e) North Somerset, (f) Wiltshire, (g) Bristol (h) Bath and North East Somerset, (i) South Gloucestershire and (j) Gloucestershire in each year since 1990. [160499]
  1642W
  contribute towards the cost of putting right any damage caused to roads by works, then these costs can be fairly shared between the relevant parties.

  Road Deaths and Injuries (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on roads in Crosby has been since 1997. [160544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to the numbers of killed and seriously injured road casualties in the local authority district of Sefton, which includes the constituency of Crosby, and is given in the following table.

  1997

  2002

  Percentage change

  Killed

  10

  10

  —

  Seriously injured

  100

  88

  –12.0

  Roads (Funding)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent on road building projects in each of the last five years; and if he will use funds allocated to future schemes to encourage rail travel instead. [155887]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The expenditure on road building projects in England in the last five years is set out in the following table:

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency started to collect information on expenditure on a county-by-county basis in 2001. Expenditure totals for the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 are therefore shown in the following table. Equivalent figures for earlier years are not available.

  Total spent on non motorways £

  £

  County

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Bath and North East

  1,162,018.27

  1,631,470.05

  817,756.63

  Somerset

  Bristol

  12,362.45

  10,157.40

  11,302.04

  Cornwall

  9,654.395.57

  12,044,323.34

  10,079,002.14

  Devon

  38,596,255.32

  37,682.602.50

  35,572,643.94

  1643W
  Total spent on non motorways £

  £

  County

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Dorset

  4,272,792.34

  3,688,271.91

  4,285.587.89

  Gloucestershire

  9,383,633.66

  21,770,465.06

  21,619,119.63

  North Somerset

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Somerset

  3,914,427.23

  2,405,165.16

  3,188,763.41

  South Gloucestershire

  326,983.05

  461,811.81

  347,131.44

  Wiltshire

  10,454,631.81

  10,294,957.81

  12,887,648.06

  The Highways Agency has no roads in North Somerset that are not motorways.

  Transport Spending (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money was spent on transport in the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey between(a) 1992 and 1997, (b) 1997 and 2001 and (c) 2001 to 2004. [159490]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on transport spending is not collected in the format requested.

  Weight Limits (Lorries)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to increase the penalties for lorry drivers breaching weight limits set on smaller bridges for second and subsequent offences; [161008]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the penalty for lorry drivers breaching weight limits set on smaller bridges. [161009]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no plans to increase the penalties for lorry drivers breaching weight limits on smaller bridges for first or subsequent offences. Weight limits on bridges are notified by traffic signs, and failure to comply with such signs is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £1,000 plus a three point endorsement.

TREASURY

  Unemployment (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the change in the level of unemployment has been in the Jarrow constituency in each year since 1997; [159508]

  (2) what the level of youth unemployment was in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [159524]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 11 March 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about unemployment in the Jarrow constituency. I am replying in his absence. (159508, 159524)
  1644W
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Jarrow Parliamentary Constituency.

  The ONS also publishes data on the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA). Table 1 gives information on the change in the number of JSA claimants in the Jarrow Constituency for each year since 1997. Table 2 gives information, also for each year since 1997, on the number of the JSA claimants aged between 18 and 24 years in the Jarrow Constituency, the South Tyneside Unitary Authority, the Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear and in the UK as a whole.

  Table 1: Total number of claimants1 of Jobseekers Allowance in Jarrow parliamentary constituency: 1997–2003

  Claimants

  Number of claimants

  Difference from previous year

  1997

  3,119

  —

  1998

  2,766

  -353

  1999

  2,820

  54

  2000

  2,625

  -195

  2001

  2,377

  -248

  2002

  2,273

  -104

  2003

  1,986

  -287

  1Annual average.

  Source:

  Jobcentre plus administrative system.

  Table 2: Number of claimants1 of Jobseekers Allowance aged 18–24 in the areas shown: 1997–2003

  Claimants

  Jarrow Parliamentary Constituency

  South Tyneside Unitary Authority

  Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear

  United Kingdom

  1997

  802

  1,800

  11,563

  406,417

  1998

  665

  1,500

  9,780

  339,001

  1999

  654

  1,458

  8,903

  294,124

  2000

  583

  1,300

  8,223

  261,472

  2001

  557

  1,234

  7,637

  241,222

  2002

  523

  1,169

  7,466

  242,930

  2003

  512

  1,158

  7,267

  249,054

  1Annual average.

  Source:

  Jobcentre plus administrative system.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total cost of the Child Trust Fund for each year from 2004–05 to 2009–10, broken down by(a) start-up costs, (b) annual administration costs and (c) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [156758]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the Regulatory Impact Assessment published with the Child Trust Fund Bill in November 2003, the Explanatory Note that accompanied the publication of the Child Trust Fund Bill on 4 February 2004; and the answers I gave the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on 4 December 2003,Official Report, columns 138–39W.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions his Department has placed advertisements in Hello magazine; [157965]
  1645W
  (2)what the total cost of his Department's advertising in Hello magazine was in each of the last five years; [157967]

  (3)what the cost is of each of his Department's advertisements in Hello magazine for tax credits. [157968]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A small amount of advertising has been placed in Hello! magazine by the Inland Revenue (IR) in recent years in support of its Tax Credits campaigns. This is because analysis of its readership indicated an appropriate percentage of people entitled to claim Tax Credits.

  There was no advertising prior to 2002, but in the last three years IR placed:

  2002: 4 insertions

  2003: 2–insertions

  2004: 3 insertions

  There have been no advertisements placed in support of other issues or by any other departments responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Like most central Government Departments, the IR buys media space using specialist agencies contracted through the Central Office of Information (COI).

  Through its bulk-buying power, COI negotiates significant discounts on rate-card prices. To protect this, and the thus the added value it achieves for taxpayers' money, it maintains commercial confidentiality agreements in which it undertakes not to publicise charges levied by individual publications in single instances.

  Media planning and buying for large campaigns such as New Tax Credits is focused purely on the most effective way of reaching the target audience-the publications they read or TV channels they watch, for example.

  Overall spends for major campaigns are published regularly, often in response to parliamentary questions or press queries.

  Environmentally Sustainable Procurement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways environmentally sustainable procurement strategies within the Department have driven innovation in the design and supply of products. [159148]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury's procurement has been handled by Inland Revenue since April 2002. Inland Revenue are continuing to develop their environmentally sustainable procurement strategies. It is too early at present to judge whet her there is evidence of innovation in the design and supply of products.

  Income Tax (10p hate)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Crosby qualified for the 10p rate of income tax it each year since its introduction. [160581]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p pence starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 8,000 stale retirement pension 1646W
  age taxpayers in the Crosby constituency in 2000–01. Constituency level estimates are not available for earlier years.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will leave the basic rate of insurance premium tax unchanged in this year's Budget. [160324]

  Ruth Kelly
  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.

  Museums
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds of Gift Aid provisions used by the museum sector was in each year since it was introduced, broken down by(a) institution and (b) amount received. [160422]

  John Healey
  It is not possible to ascertain the amount repaid in Gift Aid in relation to the museum sector. Inland Revenue records do not distinguish amounts repaid to charities according to the type of charity. Information held by the Inland Revenue about the tax affairs of individual businesses could not be disclosed, Exemption 15 of the Open Government Code applies.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship of the Maastricht criteria to public expenditure levels, with reference to(a) the Treasury Red Books since 1997 and (b) the Treasury Paper of June 2003 on "Policy Frameworks in the UK and EMU". [160647]

  Ruth Kelly
  The scope of the Maastricht criteria is set out in Annexe A of the EMU study on "Policy Frameworks in the UK and EMU".

  Projections for the public finances presented in the 2003 pre-Budget report, show that the UK continues to meet a prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, that takes into account the economic cycle, the long-term sustainability of the public finances and the important role of public investment.

  Projections of the public finances will be updated, as usual, in the forthcoming Budget.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the administration of the Child Tax Credit and the Working Tax Credit since 6 April 2003; [158268]
  1647W
  (2) what discussions he has had with officials from the Inland Revenue regarding the administration of the Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit since 6 April 2003. [158269]

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with officials from the Inland Revenue regarding the administration of tax credits. [158706]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have had regular discussions with Inland Revenue officials regarding the administration of Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit since 6 April 2003, including plans for the next stage of tax credits implementation.The process of finalising tax credit awards for 2003–04, and renewing claims for 2004–05, begins in April. We also plan in 2004–05 to bring within Child Tax Credit (CTC) those families with children receiving support for them though Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (IS/JSA). The process of moving these families into Child Tax Credit will begin in April as planned. Families on IS/JSA already receiving CTC will start to receive support for their children solely through CTC. And new claimants of IS/JSA will no longer be awarded child allowances in those benefits and will receive CTC instead. The automatic phased transfer onto CTC of the remaining families with children within IS/JSA is planned to begin from October, subject to a final review in the summer. Meanwhile, families will continue to receive the same level of support through their benefits as they would from CTC.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Crosby have received Child Tax Credit. [160442]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated numbers of families receiving Child and/or Working Tax Credits in each constituency at 5 January 2004 are shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics, Geographical analyses—January 2004", which is on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personaltax-credits/menu.htm.

  NATO Rank Codes and UK Service Designations

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  OF-10

  Admiral of the Fleet

  Field Marshal

  Marshal of the RAF

  OF-9

  Admiral

  General

  General

  Air Chief Marshal

  OF-8

  Vice Admiral

  Lieutenant General

  Lieutenant General

  Air Marshal

  OF-7

  Rear Admiral

  Major General

  Major General

  Air Vice Marshal

  OF-6

  Commodore

  Brigadier

  Brigadier

  Air Commodore

  OF-5

  Captain

  Colonel

  Colonel

  Group Captain

  OF-4

  Commander

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Wing Commander

  OF-3

  Lieutenant Commander

  Major

  Major

  Squadron Leader

  OF-2

  Lieutenant

  Captain

  Captain

  Fight Lieutenant

  OF-1

  Sub-Lieutenant

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  Frying Officer/Pilot Officer

  OF(D)

  Midshipman

  —

  Officer Designate

  Officer Designate

  OR-9

  Warrant Officer

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  W arrant Officer

  OR-8

  —

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  —

  OR-7

  Chief Petty Officer

  Colour Sergeant

  Staff Sergeant

  Flight Sergeant/Chief Tech'n

  OR-6

  Petty Officer

  Sergeant

  Sergeant

  Sergeant

  OR-4

  Leading Rate

  Corporal

  Corporal

  Corporal

  OR-3

  —

  —

  Lance Corporal

  —

  OR-2

  Able Rate

  Marine

  Private (Classes 1 to 3)

  Junior Technician/Leading Aircraftman/

  Senior Aircraftman

  OR-1

  —

  —

  Private (Class 4)/Junior

  Aircraftman

  Note:

  The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines together make up the Naval Service.

  1648W
  The estimates ar based on a sample of cases and are subject to sampling; uncertainty.

DEFENCE

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on local purchase of vegetables and meat by the garrison at Mount Pleasant in the Falkland Islands. [159872]

  Mr. Ingram
  Locally grown salad vegetables are purchased for use at Mount Pleasant Airfield, but the produce available is limited. Local meat has not been procured because, prior to this year, it did not meet the Armed Forces Quality Standard and the Falkland Island abattoir was not EC approved. However, the Falkland Island Development Corporation has recently opened a fully compliant, purpose-built abattoir, and they are working to improve the quality of local lamb and mutton, with a view to supplying to Angliss (UK), the MOD's meat supplier, in the near future. An exploratory visit in January 2004 by Angliss (UK) proved to be most encouraging.

  Armed Forces Dentists
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) dental personnel and (b) dentists are employed within Her Majesty's Armed Forces, broken down by(a) grade, (b) whole-time equivalents and (c) headcount numbers for each year since 1990. [159673]

  Mr. Caplin
  Figures for all dental service personnel are shown in the table. The figures for officers represent qualified dentists for each service. The tables show figures for each equivalent NATO rank and these are set out. Since there are no part-time dental personnel. the total figure represents both the headcount and the whole-time equivalents.
  1649W
  Naval Service

  Naval Service1,2

  OF-7

  OF-6

  OF-5

  OF-4

  OF-3

  OF-2

  Total

  (a) Officers

  April 1990

  —

  —

  7

  30

  19

  15

  72

  April 1991

  —

  1

  7

  27

  22

  18

  75

  April 1992

  —

  1

  6

  27

  18

  20

  72

  April 1993

  —

  1

  5

  27

  20

  23

  76

  April 1994

  —

  1

  5

  22

  18

  29

  75

  April 1995

  —

  1

  5

  21

  19

  24

  70

  April 1996

  —

  1

  6

  16

  19

  20

  62

  April 1997

  —

  1

  6

  12

  26

  20

  65

  April 1998

  —

  1

  5

  14

  20

  24

  64

  April 1999

  —

  1

  5

  15

  23

  19

  63

  April 2000

  —

  1

  6

  15

  17

  21

  60

  April 2001

  —

  1

  6

  16

  16

  23

  62

  April 2002

  —

  1

  5

  17

  17

  21

  61

  April 2003

  —

  1

  6

  14

  19

  17

  57

  January 2004

  —

  1

  7

  13

  23

  13

  57

  (b) Ratings

  April 1990

  —

  3

  19

  40

  47

  13

  122

  April 1991

  1

  3

  20

  41

  49

  10

  124

  April 1992

  1

  3

  19

  38

  52

  6

  119

  April 1993

  1

  5

  18

  41

  45

  4

  114

  April 1094

  —

  5

  17

  40

  42

  4

  108

  April 1995

  —

  4

  17

  43

  36

  10

  110

  April 1996

  —

  3

  16

  41

  43

  2

  105

  April 1997

  1

  4

  16

  35

  35

  4

  95

  April 1998

  1

  4

  16

  34

  36

  9

  100

  April 1999

  1

  4

  17

  34

  38

  5

  99

  April 2000

  1

  5

  15

  28

  45

  —

  94

  April 2001

  1

  5

  14

  26

  42

  —

  88

  April 2002

  1

  5

  14

  40

  33

  —

  93

  April 2003

  2

  6

  13

  35

  42

  —

  98

  January 2004

  2

  5

  14

  32

  48

  —

  101

  1 All Naval Service Officers in the tables are qualified dentists

  2 The ratings figures comprise of hygienists and dental surgical assistants

  Note:

  Officers at OF-6 and above in the Naval Service are no longer practising dentists.

  — denotes zero

  Army

  The figures in the tables are for the Royal Army Dental Core (RADC) which contains all dental personnel within the Army.

  Army1,2,3

  OF-7

  OF-6

  OF-5

  OF-4

  OF-3

  OF-2

  Total

  (a) Officers

  April 1990

  —

  3

  27

  51

  64

  52

  197

  April 1991

  1

  2

  30

  56

  60

  45

  194

  April 1992

  1

  2

  30

  52

  64

  34

  183

  April 1993

  —

  3

  24

  57

  53

  41

  178

  April 1994

  —

  3

  23

  51

  59

  32

  168

  April 1995

  —

  3

  20

  47

  56

  28

  154

  April 1996

  —

  2

  19

  57

  41

  26

  145

  April 1997

  —

  1

  18

  52

  39

  29

  139

  April 1998

  1

  17

  50

  40

  32

  140

  April 1999

  —

  1

  16

  45

  38

  41

  141

  April 2000

  —

  1

  17

  46

  31

  49

  144

  April 2001

  1

  1

  19

  45

  31

  52

  149

  April 2002

  1

  2

  18

  46

  33

  41

  141

  April 2003

  1

  2

  19

  41

  40

  48

  151

  January 2004

  1

  2

  17

  40

  47

  47

  154

  1650W 1651W

  OR-9

  OR-8

  OR-7

  OR-6

  OR-4

  OR-3

  OR-2/OR-1

  Total

  (b) Soldiers

  April 1990

  9

  17

  24

  64

  31

  27

  18

  190

  April 1991

  9

  17

  25

  55

  28

  24

  21

  179

  April 1992

  8

  17

  21

  54

  33

  24

  15

  172

  April 1993

  8

  19

  25

  69

  64

  67

  50

  302

  April 1994

  8

  16

  23

  50

  66

  55

  45

  263

  April 1995

  6

  12

  26

  44

  59

  51

  45

  243

  April 1996

  9

  10

  23

  48

  63

  48

  41

  242

  April 1997

  6

  11

  24

  44

  53

  46

  49

  233

  April 1998

  4

  14

  22

  43

  49

  44

  38

  214

  April 1999

  5

  12

  24

  45

  45

  50

  38

  219

  April 2000

  5

  13

  24

  46

  54

  51

  33

  226

  April 2001

  5

  15

  21

  42

  65

  50

  42

  240

  April 2002

  5

  13

  22

  40

  69

  49

  47

  245

  April 2003

  6

  15

  22

  38

  70

  55

  59

  265

  January 2004

  7

  14

  21

  44

  68

  52

  51

  257

  1All Army officers in the table are qualified dentists, however as at 1 January 2004 there were 15 officers within the RADC who had an unallocated trade.

  2The soldiers figures are a mixture of hygienists, dental technicians, support specialists and other dental personnel

  3Officers at OF-7 are no longer practising dentists.

  —denotes zero

  Royal Air Force

  Royal Air Force1,2,3

  OF-7

  OF-6

  OF-5

  OF-4

  OF-3

  OF-2

  OF-21/OF(D)

  Total

  (a) Officers

  April 1990

  —

  3

  13

  36

  36

  32

  —

  120

  April 1991

  —

  3

  11

  33

  44

  29

  —

  120

  April 1992

  —

  3

  13

  29

  48

  28

  —

  121

  April 1993

  1

  2

  14

  31

  44

  27

  —

  119

  April 1994

  1

  2

  12

  29

  48

  22

  1

  115

  April 1995

  1

  2

  9

  32

  47

  19

  —

  110

  April 1996

  1

  2

  8

  32

  44

  17

  —

  104

  April 1997

  2

  2

  9

  20

  43

  11

  87

  April 1998

  1

  2

  9

  22

  38

  8

  80

  April 1999

  1

  2

  10

  24

  36

  12

  85

  April 2000

  1

  3

  8

  32

  25

  9

  —

  78

  April 2001

  1

  3

  7

  35

  19

  11

  —

  76

  April 2002

  —

  2

  7

  31

  21

  12

  —

  73

  April 2003

  —

  1

  8

  28

  19

  10

  —

  66

  January 2004

  —

  1

  10

  23

  26

  16

  —

  76

  OR-9

  OR-7

  OR-6

  OR-4

  OR-2

  OR-I

  Total

  (b) Airmen

  April 1990

  7

  22

  45

  48

  27

  147

  296

  April 1991

  7

  23

  46

  49

  26

  146

  297

  April 1992

  7

  23

  46

  52

  17

  157

  302

  April 1993

  7

  24

  44

  51

  9

  153

  288

  April 1994

  6

  23

  42

  51

  12

  149

  283

  April 1995

  4

  22

  47

  52

  17

  141

  283

  April 1996

  4

  14

  44

  42

  14

  126

  244

  April 1997

  4

  13

  45

  39

  7

  110

  218

  April 1998

  4

  14

  43

  36

  4

  103

  204

  April 1999

  3

  14

  41

  38

  2

  97

  195

  April 2000

  4

  14

  36

  39

  2

  97

  192

  April 2001

  4

  18

  33

  44

  4

  99

  202

  April 2002

  4

  16

  32

  48

  3

  89

  192

  April 2003

  6

  17

  25

  51

  0

  91

  190

  January 2004

  6

  17

  27

  48

  0

  105

  203

  1All RAF officers in the table are dentists

  2The Airmen figures are a mixture of hygienists, administrative staff, and technicians and nurses

  3Officers at OF-6 and above are no longer practising dentists. However there may be service personnel between OF-3 to OF-5 who although being qualified dentists may not be practising due to being posted on staff appointments.

  —denotes zero

  1652W

  Armed Forces Personnel (Overseas)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from other countries are serving in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force; and from which countries they come. [156134]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of foreign nationals serving in the Army at 1 January 2004 is 5,540. The following table gives a more detailed breakdown.

  Nationality

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Irish Republican

  25

  175

  Australian

  35

  40

  Barbadian

  1—

  5

  British Commonwealth

  5

  10

  Cameroon

  0

  10

  Canadian

  20

  45

  Dominican

  0

  10

  Fijian

  1—

  1,720

  Gambian

  0

  55

  Ghanaian

  1—

  395

  Grenadian

  0

  45

  Guyanese

  0

  10

  Indian

  10

  25

  Jamaican

  1—

  870

  Kenyan

  5

  60

  Malawi

  0

  55

  Maltese

  1—

  5

  Mauritian

  0

  15

  New Zealander

  25

  45

  Nigerian

  1—

  45

  Pakistani

  1—

  5

  Seychellois

  0

  5

  Sierra Leone

  1—

  20

  South African

  35

  445

  Sri Lankan

  1—

  10

  St. Lucia

  1—

  215

  St. Vincent

  0

  285

  Tongan

  0

  5

  Trinidadian

  1—

  60

  Ugandan

  0

  20

  Zambian

  1—

  10

  Zimbabwean

  25

  485

  St. Helenian

  0

  25

  Nepalese

  10

  1—

  Not known/stateless

  35

  1—

  1Denotes less than five

  The following nationalities have less than five officers and/or less than five soldiers:

  Antiguan

  Bangalee

  Belizean

  Botswana

  Cypriot

  Malaysian

  Namibian (formally South West African)

  Papuan

  Singaporean

  St. Kitts

  Swazi

  Tanzanian

  West Indian

  Falkland Islander

  Gibraltarian

  Montserrat Islander

  American

  1654W

  German West

  Iranian

  Iraqi

  Pacific Islander Rhodesian

  Swiss

  For the Naval Service and RAF some information on `not British' personnel is held but data are not accurate enough to provide a reliable estimate.

  Challenger 2
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the operational effectiveness of Challenger 2 main battle tanks when crews are wearing individual protective equipment against nuclear, biological and chemical attack. [159266]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The effect on the operational effectiveness of Challenger 2 tanks when their crew members are wearing individual protective equipment against nuclear, biological and chemical attack depends on a number of related and variable factors. These include the ambient temperature and the effectiveness of the crew cooling system; the length of time the equipment has been worn at high protection state; the amount of prior training undertaken by the crew; their physical fitness levels; and the psychological stresses imposed during battle. The requirement to operate Challenger 2 tanks in individual protection equipment is reflected in annual training.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok with the answer he undertook to provide on 20 November 2003. [151197]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to my hon. Friend today.

  Hawk Trainer
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hawk advanced jet trainers have been procured: and when delivery will take place. [158261]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the announcement last summer of our intention to procure Hawk 128 to meet our Advanced Jet Trainer requirement, detailed contractual negotiations with BAE SYSTEMS are continuing. Subject to a satisfactory conclusion, we are planning on placing an order for 20 aircraft with options for up to a further 24. The first aircraft would be delivered during 2008.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an assessment of the contribution of United Kingdom forces to the delivery of humanitarian aid in Iraq. [143725]

  Mr. Ingram
  Enabling the delivery of humanitarian aid has been a key priority for UK forces since the end of major combat operations on 1 May 2003.
  1655W
  In the period immediately after major combat operations ended UK forces cleared mines and other dangers in the waterway leading to Umm Qasr port and made safe the port area itself, opening the most important route into Iraq for humanitarian aid.

  Since then UK forces have delivered limited amounts of aid themselves and, when requested, have provided assistance to Non-Governmental Organisations working on humanitarian programmes in Iraq.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the humanitarian projects that United Kingdom forces have(a) completed and (b) not yet completed in Iraq since 1 May 2003. [147156]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces have undertaken over 700 reconstruction projects in Iraq since the end of major combat operations. For a list of projects I refer my hon. Friend to my letter reference: D/MIN(AF)/5234N dated 10 March a copy of which is available in the Library of the House in response to question number 137519 from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what force protection measures are in place to protect the operatives of non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations within the UK sphere of military operations in Iraq. [150226]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK does not routinely provide force protection to humanitarian or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Such organisations are directly responsible for assessing the risks to their staff. UK local commanders do discuss security and other practical issues with them on a regular basis.

  The coalition as a whole is working to secure conditions in which UN agencies, NGOs, humanitarian organisations and the Iraqi people are able to go about their business.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much has been paid to Iraqi families following the death of a member of their family while being held in British military custody. [158032]

  Mr. Ingram
  UK Authorities have paid £1,875 to an Iraqi family following a death in custody.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status of UK forces in Iraq will be after 31 July; what legal mandate will govern their presence and operations; and if he will make a statement. [158147]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]: The status of UK forces in Iraq and the legal mandate that will govern their presence and operations after the handover of authority to an Iraqi government remain under consideration.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether techniques of sensory deprivation have been used on Iraqi detainees by members of the British armed forces. [158860]
  1656W
  Mr. Ingram
  Members of the armed forces may only use blindfolds on apprehended individuals for reasons of operational security, such as movement through military sensitive areas. No other forms of sensory deprivation are permitted.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for providing compensation to the(a) residents and (b) businesses of Skye and Wester Ross in the event of a nuclear incident involving a nuclear submarine using the Z Berths at Aultbea and Broadford; and if he will make a statement. [159625]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government underwrite the nuclear risks associated with the consequences of the operation of its nuclear submarines. The indemnification of these risks is not limited either financially or geographically and depending on the location and type of incident, would cover the local residents and businesses on the Isle of Skye and at Wester Ross.

  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many procurement contracts were placed by his Department with companies based in Scotland in financial year(a) 2002–03, (b) 2001–02 and (c)2000–01; what the (i) most expensive and (ii) least expensive contracts were; and what the total value of contracts was. [159245]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of procurement contracts directly placed by the Department with companies based in Scotland in each of the financial years requested is detailed in the following table:

  Financial Year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Number of new contracts let

  724

  604

  600

  Total value of these contracts

  £250 million

  £1.2 billion

  £850 million

  Most valuable new contract let

  £59 million

  £395 million

  £418 million

  It is not possible to provide meaningful data on the least valuable contracts let in each of these years because certain types of MOD contract are set up with a nominal value (normally £1) under which goods or services are then 'called-off' and paid for during the contract term.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research contracts were placed by his Department with research institutions based in Scotland in fiscal year(a) 2002–03, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2000–01; what the total value of these contracts was; and what the total value of research contracts placed within the UK was. [159246]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what
  1657W
  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. [158250]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ship-borne Tomahawk cruise missiles. [158138]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is a conventionally armed land attack missile. TLAM represents a major step forward in capability, enabling precision attacks at long range against selected targets. The missile's effectiveness is not affected by the platform from which it is launched.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159615]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hen Member to the answer given to him on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons.

PRIME MINISTER

  Geoff Mulgan
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hours Mr. Geoff Mulgan has spent working on the Big Conversation Project; and if he will make a statement. [160603]

  The Prime Minister
  Civil Servants act in accordance with the Civil Service Code.

  For information on the Big Conversation, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on 4 December 2003, Official Report, column 113W.

  Sir David king
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implications of the findings of the Chief Scientist on climate change published in the journal Science in January. [160418]

  The Prime Minister
  The article in Science was based on analysis which the Chief Scientific Adviser first set out in his Zuckerman Lecture in October 2002. His conclusion was that the evidence for man-made climate change was convincing and that this cannot be ignored. The Government share that view

  This analysis underpinned the rationale behind the Energy White Paper, (CM5761) which sets out a programme to put the UK on a path to reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by some, 60 per cent. by 2050.
  1658W
  It also underpins the UK's support for the United Nations Framework Convention on climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol which are a vital first step to avoiding dangerous climate change. The UK has also been at the forefront of efforts to secure global action on climate change.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister with reference to the memorandum from Mr. Ivan Rogers to Sir David King, relating to public pronouncements on climate change, which wider policy aims would be adversely affected were Sir David King to grant interview requests from the media.[160599]

  The Prime Minister
  David King is on the record many times outlining the importance of climate change to the media, including on his recent visit to the United States where he took part in a press conference and chaired a workshop that the media attended.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) representations were received from and (b) discussions took place with the US authorities on Sir David King's public statements on climate change between their publication and the issuing of the memorandum to Sir David King by Mr. Ivan Rogers, on media requests for an interview. [160600]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government regularly have discussions with the US Government, at many levels, on a wide range of international issues including on climate change. As with previous Administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public details of discussions with foreign Governments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Charities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on legislative provisions on the monitoring and policing of companies registered as charities in Northern Ireland; and if he will propose amendments to Northern Ireland legislation to bring it into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this regard. [158560]

  Mr. Spellar
  Only charities based in England and Wales are registered. The provisions for the monitoring and policing of charities which are also limited companies are the same as for those which are not.

  In Northern Ireland:

  the Inland Revenue deal with charitable status for tax purposes;

  the PSNI can investigate any criminal offence alleged by or in connection with a charity;

  the PSNI license street and house-to-house collections; and

  the Department for Social Development can look at any dispute not involving criminal activity.

  In Northern Ireland, most complaints about collections or criminal activity fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Department for Social Development will consider non-criminal complaints but, like the Charity Commission for England and Wales, cannot interfere in a charity's affairs where the trustees have acted properly (for example, where there is a dispute between trustees as to which of a number of equally legitimate policies should be pursued) or

  1659W
  consider cases which concern disagreements between trustees or between trustees and members which can and should be settled by the trustees themselves (for example, over the details of the employment of particular staff or selection of beneficiaries).

  The Government are currently considering proposed changes to the charities legislation in England and Wales and elsewhere with a view to deciding whether changes to the existing Northern Ireland charity legislation would be desirable. Any proposed changes will, of course, be the subject of public consultation as well as consultation with interested bodies.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to introduce a charity commissioner for Northern Ireland; [158888]

  (2) what plans he has to bring the law governing charities in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. [158889]

  Mr. Spellar
  In Northern Ireland the systems for dealing with charities are different from those in England and Wales:the Inland Revenue deal with charitable status for tax purposes;
  the PSNI can investigate any criminal offence alleged by or in connection with a charity;
  the PSNI license street and house-to-house collections; and
  the Department for Social Development can look at any dispute not involving criminal activity.

  In Northern Ireland, most complaints about collections or criminal activity fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Department for Social Development will consider non-criminal complaints but, like the Charity Commission for England and Wales, cannot interfere in a charity's affairs where the trustees have acted properly (for example, where there is a dispute between trustees as to which of a number of equally legitimate policies should be pursued) or consider cases which concern disagreements between trustees or between trustees and members which can and should be settled by the trustees themselves (for example, over the details of the employment of particular staff or selection of beneficiaries).

  The Government are currently considering proposed changes to the charities legislation in England and Wales and elsewhere with a view to deciding whether changes to the existing Northern Ireland charity legislation, including the option of establishing a Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, would be desirable. Any proposed changes will, of course, be the subject of public consultation as well as consultation with interested bodies.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the pay dispute in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. [159558]

  Mr. Pearson
  Extensive negotiations over several months did not result in an agreed pay deal for the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration this year. Management Side presented an offer worth 3.67 per cent. on 5 November. As this could not be agreed, and Trade Union Side declined to negotiate within the 3.67 per cent. envelope, we took the decision 1660W
  to proceed to pay the award and communicated this to staff and Trade Union Side on 27 November. I have made clear to Trade Union Side that the 3.67 per cent. deal is the maximum that can be paid. We are however exploring other reasonable means of resolving the dispute. Meetings with Trade Union Side took place on Thursday 19 February and Monday 8 March, and a further meeting is being arranged.

  Members of the NI Civil Service working in the Northern Ireland Office are subject to separate pay negotiations involving three Unions: NIPS A, PCS and the PDA. A formal offer of 3 per cent. was made to the Unions but was rejected. NIO intend to proceed to pay the award at the end of March.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what annual pay rises have been awarded to(a) the Northern Ireland civil service and (b) senior civil servants in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [159559]

  Mr.Pearson
  The annual pay rises awarded to(a)the Northern Ireland civil service and (b)senior civil servants in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 are follows:

  Percentage

  Civil servants below the SCS

  Senior civil servants

  2003

  3.67

  5.37

  2002

  5.5

  4.38

  2001

  4.85

  4.4

  2000

  4.5

  4.4

  1999

  3.97

  4.3

  1998

  3.2

  5.5

  1997

  3.2

  4.5

  Cormorants
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to control cormorants and their predation on fish-stock. [160595]

  Angela Smith
  In Northern Ireland all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Cormorants are also protected under the EC Birds Directive (1979). If there is a specific local problem with cormorants seriously damaging fish stocks, my Department will consider applications for a licence to control the birds at the point of damage.

  Any such a licence will require the licensee to report on activities authorised by it to the Department.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences to cull cormorants have been issued in each of the last 10 years; and how many cormorants haw been culled in each of the last 10 years. [160596]

  Angela Smith
  The figures requested are set out as follows. The licences are issued for the purpose of protecting fisheries, and the number culled is based on reports received from the licensees as a condition of their licences.
  1661W

  Number of licences issued

  Number of cormorants reported culled

  1995

  19

  82

  1996

  20

  107

  1997

  21

  87

  1998

  21

  99

  1999

  23

  76

  2000

  16

  77

  2001

  20

  70

  2002

  31

  93

  2003

  13

  56

  20041

  2

  10

  1Up to 1 March 2004

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the number of cormorants in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [160597]

  Angela Smith
  The following figures are winter peak counts for cormorants in Northern Ireland. The total is made up from both breeding birds and winter visitors.

  Number

  1994–95

  1,475

  1995–96

  2,058

  1996–97

  1,785

  1997–98

  2,194

  1998–99

  3,229

  1999–2000

  2,761

  2000–01

  2,477

  The data have not yet been validated for 2001 onwards.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate(a) the number and (b) the percentage of salmon smolts returning seawards on the River Bush that were taken by cormorants in each of the last 10 years. [160598]

  Angela Smith
  No estimates of the levels of salmon smolt predation by cormorants have been made on the River Bush in the last 10 years. Previous studies carried out during the 1980s indicated that predation levels could be in excess of 50 per cent. of the wild smolt runs at that time.

  Education Jobs Evaluation
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether non-reaching staff in the voluntary grammar and integrated education sector will be included in the job evaluation scheme being funded and carried out by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. [159590]

  Jane Kennedy
  Job evaluations in the voluntary grammar school and grant-maintained school sectors are a matter for individual schools, as the employing authorities. The Department of Education will be discussing with representatives of these sectors the implications of job evaluations in Education and Library Boards, and any consequent budgetary pressures will be considered in light of the resources available and the associated circumstances.
  1662W

  Electoral Register
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to locate electors missing from the latest electoral register; and if he will make a statement. [158887]

  Mr. Spellar
  Electoral registration is primarily a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer. However, individuals who are eligible and are not on the register can still have their names added to the register under the system of rolling registration. The Electoral Commission will shortly be embarking on a major publicity drive to encourage this.

  The Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission are working closely together to encourage potential electors to register. It is planned to focus on groups who are traditionally under-represented on the register, such as young people, those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with literacy problems or whose first language is not English.

  The Commission is also funding a call centre to deal with queries on the electoral process including registration. Rolling registration forms are widely available, including electronically from the Electoral office website.

  Means-Tested Benefits
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what benefits to which pensioners are entitled in Northern Ireland are means-tested; what steps he is taking to reduce the number of means-tested benefits in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [159668]

  Mr. Spellar
  Pensioners in Northern Ireland are eligible to claim state pension credit and housing benefit which are income-related or means-tested benefits.

  The Government's policy is to focus help on the poorest pensioners. Income-related benefits are an integral part of a complementary mixture of social security provision alongside contributory and universal benefits. There are no plans to reduce the number of means-tested benefits available to people in Northern Ireland.

  New Deal
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have participated in the Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 + in Northern Ireland in each year since its inception. [159564]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Preparation for Employment programme was introduced in Northern Ireland in April 2001 as the main element of provision within the New Deal 25 +.

  The number of people who have participated in the Preparation for Employment programme and the former Intensive Activity Period, which it replaced, are as follows.
  1663W

  Number

  November 1998 to March 1999

  130

  1999–2000

  6,690

  2000–01

  3,441

  2001–02

  2,633

  2002–03

  3,176

  April 2003 to December 2003

  1,408

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost per participant is of the Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 +. [159565]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost per participant on the Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 + ranges from £2,910 to £4,372, depending on the duration of participation i.e. 20 or 26 weeks and outcomes achieved.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sanctions are applied to those who refuse to participate in the Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 Plus. [1595661]

  Mr. Spellar
  The New Deal is founded on the principle of rights and responsibilities. The Preparation for Employment Programme element of New Deal 25 Plus is mandatory for those aged 25 to 49.

  The sanction for a first failure to comply with the requirements of the Preparation for Employment Programme is the loss of jobseeker's allowance for two weeks. The sanction for a second failure to comply which occurs within 12 months of the imposition of the first sanction is the loss of jobseeker's allowance for four weeks. The sanction for a third or subsequent failure to comply which occurs within 12 months of the imposition of the previous sanction is the loss of jobseeker's allowance for 26 weeks.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend participation in the Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 + to those aged over 49 years. [159567]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Preparation for Employment programme element of New Deal 25 + is currently available to all unemployed jobseekers aged 25 or over when they have been in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for 18 months, or for 18 out of the last 21 months. Those aged 50 or over, who meet the JSA eligibility criteria, are able to participate in the programme on a voluntary basis. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will shortly commence a two year pilot, in selected areas of GB, requiring mandatory participation in the Preparation for Employment programme for those eligible JSA claimants aged 50 or over. The Department for Employment and Learning will examine the recommendations arising from the evaluation report of the pilot, when it is available, with a view to implementing them in Northern Ireland.

  Non-UK Residents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of people resident in Northern Ireland who hold nationality from countries other than the UK. [156555]
  1664W
  Mr. Pearson
  The closest approximation to the requested data derives from the Labour Force Survey in Northern Ireland, which collects information on nationality and country of birth. The most recent results indicate that between September and November 2003 there were an estimated 48,000 persons resident in Northern Ireland who were born outside the UK and held nationality from countries other than the UK. In addition, people born in Northern Ireland generally have the right to hold both British and Irish citizenship.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the detention centres and prisons (a) how many places there were, (b) how many prisoners are occupying them and (c) how many prisoners share cells. [159958]

  Jane Kennedy
  As of 4 March 2004, the number of places available and the number of prisoners occupying them is as shown in the following table. The number of prisoners who share cells is difficult to establish as that figure changes on a daily basis and therefore the figures shown represent the approximate number of cells currently capable of being shared.

  Maghaberry

  Magilligan

  Hydebank Wood

  Number of cells available

  753

  352

  212

  Number of prisoners occupying cells

  716

  348

  196

  Approximate number of cells currently capable of being shared

  129

  12

  10

  1In Hydebank Wood, no cells are capable of being shared although dormitories can accommodate a number of inmates.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have been reported in the past two months, broken down by constituency; and how many there were in the same period in 2003. [158636]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows.

  Security situation statistics for Northern Ireland by District Command Unit number of casualties as a result of Paramilitary Style Assaults

  DCU

  January 2004

  February 2004

  January 2003

  February 2003

  North Belfast

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Belfast

  2

  1

  —

  —

  East Belfast

  —

  1

  1

  —

  West Belfast

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newtownabbey

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Carrickfergus

  2

  —

  1

  —

  North Down

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lisburn

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Antrim

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Ards

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lame

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Fermanagh

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1665W
  Security situation statistics for Northern Ireland by District Command Unit number of casualties as result of Paramilitary Style Assaults

  DCU

  January 2004

  February 2004

  January 2003

  February 2003

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Foyle

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Banbridge

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Downpatrick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total for Northern Ireland

  15

  8

  9

  8

  Note:

  2004 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Ulster Scots
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what criteria he uses to measure demand for the Ulster Scots language to be a subject option on the education curriculum; [159538]

  (2) what he considers to be an appropriate level of demand to merit the inclusion of the Ulster Scots language in the curriculum; [159562]

  (3) if the system used by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland for measuring demand for Ulster Scots is scientifically based and quality assured; [159540]

  (4) what steps the Department of Education has taken to seek the views of the public on the issue of demand for Ulster Scots language; [159541]

  (5) what criteria he uses to measure demand for the Ulster Scots language to be a subject option on the education curriculum; whether the system used to measure demand is (a) scientifically based and (b) quality assured; what margin of error there is in the measurements of demand; what steps he has taken to seek the views of the public on such demand; and if he will publish the results of (i) surveys and (ii) measurements of demand for the Ulster Scots language in Northern Ireland; [159560]

  (6) what equality impact assessment he has carried out on his policy on the inclusion of the (a) Irish and (b) Ulster Scots languages in the school curriculum. [159563]

  Jane Kennedy
  To merit consideration of the inclusion of the Ulster Scots language in the curriculum would require a demand from a significant number of schools. As part of a recent widespread public consultation on the proposals for a revised statutory curriculum all consultees had the opportunity to comment on the content of the proposed curriculum and the potential equality impact of the detailed proposals. No such demand was evident during the consultation.

  Unionist Paramilitary Groups
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent meetings with Unionist parties which discussed methods of curbing the activities of Unionist paramilitary groups. [158778]
  1666W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In our discussions with all political parties, including those involved in the review of the operation of the Belfast Agreement, we have emphasised the need for an end to paramilitary activity, as set out in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration. We believe all parties must use any influence they have in order to bring this about.

  Benefits Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful appeals were made against decisions on (i) disability and (ii) sickness benefits in each year since 1997 in Greater London. [158460]

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

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 11 March 2004:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of successful and unsuccessful appeals against decisions on disability and sickness benefits since 1997 in Greater London.
  The information is not available for Greater London. However the available information is outlined in the table. The Appeals Service regional sites based at Nottingham, Sutton, and Birmingham deal with parts of Greater London.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Successful and Unsuccessful appeals against decisions made on disability and sickness benefits by year ( 1998–(2003 )—Figures from regional sites at Nottingham, Sutton and Birmingham

  Cleared at Hearing

  Cleared in favour of appellant

  Cleared against appellant

  Otther decisions

  Decision upheld

  2003

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  8,025

  3,550

  —

  105

  4,370

  Disability

  17,520

  8,495

  5

  375

  8,645

  Sutton

  Sickness

  2,760

  1,680

  —

  5

  1,070

  Disability

  5,360

  3,570

  5

  15

  1,775

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  4,960

  1,935

  —

  15

  3,010

  Disability

  10,275

  4,720

  40

  75

  5,440

  2002

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  5,730

  2,230

  —

  70

  3,430

  Disability

  16,300

  8,060

  15

  290

  7,935

  Sutton

  Sickness

  4,465

  2,335

  —

  15

  2,115

  Disability

  7,390

  4,790

  5

  25

  2,575

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  3,775

  1,510

  —

  15

  2,250

  Disability

  9,835

  4,690

  35

  65

  5,045

  2001

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  4,380

  1,490

  —

  50

  2,840

  Disability

  17.545

  8,375

  15

  240

  8,915

  Sutton

  Sickness

  4,195

  2,200

  —

  25

  1,965

  Disability

  9,665

  6,260

  5

  55

  3,340

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  2,970

  1,120

  5

  15

  1,830

  Disability

  10,055

  4,415

  25

  75

  5,535

  1667W
  Successful and Unsuccessful appeals against decisions made on disability and sickness benefits by year (1998–2003 ) —Figures from regional sites at Nottingham, Sutton and Birmingham

  Cleared at Hearing

  Cleared in favour of appellant

  Cleared against appellant

  Other decisions

  Decision upheld

  2000

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  6,325

  2,185

  15

  65

  4.065

  Disability

  11,910

  5,820

  40

  165

  5,885

  Sutton

  Sickness

  5,565

  2,860

  —

  40

  2,660

  Disability

  6,295

  3,965

  5

  70

  2,255

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  3,190

  1,135

  5

  15

  2,030

  Disability

  7,430

  3,300

  45

  50

  4,035

  1999

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  530

  200

  10

  15

  300

  Disability

  10,245

  4,920

  90

  180

  5,055

  Sutton

  Sickness

  320

  155

  5

  10

  150

  Disability

  6,305

  3,635

  25

  85

  2,560

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  235

  60

  20

  5

  150

  Disability

  7,040

  3,055

  75

  75

  3,840

  1998

  Nottingham

  Sickness

  395

  180

  5

  10

  205

  Disability

  7,610

  3,995

  70

  95

  3,445

  Sutton

  Sickness

  260

  120

  10

  —

  125

  Disability

  4,015

  2,110

  30

  65

  1,810

  Birmingham

  Sickness

  260

  65

  20

  5

  165

  Disability

  4,575

  1,915

  90

  50

  2,520

  Appeals figures notes:

  Sickness Benefits means—Severe Disablement Allowance;
  Personal Capability Assessment (non IB); Incapacity Benefit Disability Benefits means—Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit; Disability Working Allowance; Disability Living Allowance: Disabled Persons Tax Credit; Attendance Allowance Figures for 1997 have not been included, as they are not available for the full year and as result would be inconsistent with other years.

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

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

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five except for the National

  Live Load, which is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  — denotes data equal to nil or negligible.

  Incapacity Benefit data is not available before 2000 due to a change in methodology. The live load figures for Sickness Benefits and Disability Benefits as at August 2003 were 2,715,800 and 4,228,100 respectively. These figures cannot be broken down to those for Appeals Service regional office areas to give the number of appeals cleared as a percentage of the live load.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures his Department is taking to prepare( a) businesses and(b) service providers for the implementation of the parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which come into effect later this year. [160692]

  Maria Eagle
  We are making significant changes to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) on 1 October 2004 to improve access to employment and to goods and services for all disabled people in this country. Employers with fewer than 15 staff will be covered by 1668W
  the employment duties for the first time. Service providers will also be under new duties to make reasonable adjustments to physical barriers which prevent disabled people accessing their services.

  We are taking action on three fronts to prepare employers and service providers for these changes:
  undertaking targeted campaigns using a range of press, broadcast and web-bwed media to raise awareness of the new duties;
  directly mailing around a million individual small businesses to explain their responsibilities under the DDA and the business benefits of making adjustments for disabled people; and
  running another Access All Areas award to encourage the spread of best practice among service providers.

  This activity complements the Disability Rights Commission's Open 4 All campaign, which is targeted at small service providers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglary
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) charged, (b) prosecuted and (c) found guilty of burglary in Greater London in each year since 1997; how many of these were under (i) 16, (ii) 18 and (iii) 21 years; and how many of those found guilty were given(a) custodial and(b) non-custodial sentences, broken down by age group. [159219]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table and relates to offenders proceeded against at the magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for burglary of all types in Greater London, 1997 to 2002.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and those found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences of burglary1 by age and outcome Greater London2 1997 to 2002

  Number of persons

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons found guilty at all courts

  Persons sentenced

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Given non-custodial sentences

  1997

  All ages of whom:

  5,547

  3,551

  3,609

  1,815

  1,794

  Aged 10–15

  493

  288

  289

  51

  238

  Aged 16–17

  830

  539

  551

  159

  392

  Aged 18–20

  1,143

  769

  781

  363

  418

  1998

  All ages of whom:

  5,534

  3,408

  3,611

  1,880

  1,731

  Aged 10–15

  507

  296

  299

  35

  264

  Aged 16–17

  763

  487

  487

  154

  333

  Aged 18–20

  1,037

  646

  699

  353

  346

  1999

  All ages of whom:

  5,309

  3,313

  3,358

  1,739

  1,619

  Aged 10–15

  479

  276

  275

  30

  245

  Aged 16–17

  670

  424

  424

  138

  286

  Aged 18–20

  998

  646

  640

  324

  316

  1669W

  persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and those found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences of burglary 1by age and outcome

  Greater London21997 to 2002

  Number of persons

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons found guilty at all courts

  Persons sentenced

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Given non- custodial sentences

  2000

  All ages of whom:

  5,355

  3,290

  3,367

  1,966

  1,401

  Aged 10–15

  403

  216

  214

  34

  180

  Aged 16–17

  687

  406

  408

  127

  281

  Aged 18–20

  908

  595

  615

  335

  280

  2001

  All ages of whom:

  5,374

  3,148

  3,189

  1,768

  1,421

  Aged 10–15

  454

  224

  224

  35

  189

  Aged 16–17

  689

  378

  376

  105

  271

  Aged 18–20

  814

  452

  436

  246

  190

  2002

  All ages of whom:

  5,782

  3,364

  3,261

  1,790

  1,471

  Aged 10–15

  448

  238

  238

  21

  217

  Aged 16–17

  664

  352

  352

  112

  240

  Aged 18–20

  802

  432

  423

  232

  191

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Metropolitan and City of London police force areas.

  Correspondence
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letters of 31 July 2003 and 24 November 2003 from the hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald about Mrs. Rosa Wiles. [157997]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our records show that I wrote to the right hon. Lady on 4 August 2003 in response to a previous letter of 23 July 2003. The right hon. Lady's office confirmed this reply dealt with the points raised in the right hon. Lady's letter of 31 July 2003 and that a further reply was not required. Although there was no record of the right hon. Lady's letter of 24 November 2003 having been received by the Home Office your office sent a copy and I wrote to the right hon. Lady on 11 March.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when ho intends to reply to the letter to him dated 28 January from the right on. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Hussain. [158696]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 11 March.

  Mr. Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 15 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Nicholls; [1599871]

  (2) when his Department will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 15 January with regard to Mr. A. Nicholls. [160489]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Minister of State wrote to my right hon. Friend on 11 March.

  Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department intends to establish a specialised authority to combat corruption in line with Article 36 of the UN Convention Against Corruption. [158356]

  Caroline Flint
  The UK is already in compliance with article 36 of the UN Convention against Corruption which stipulates that each State Party shall ensure the existence of a body or bodies or persons specialised in combating corruption through law enforcement. There are persons specialised in combating corruption in a number of law enforcement authorities which have responsibility for investigating or prosecuting corruption offences, such as the CPS and the Metropolitan Police.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many curfew orders have been made in Chorley in each of the last five years. [157114]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is contained in the table and relates to offenders sentenced to a curfew order for all offences in the Chorley Petty Sessional Area (PSA) and at the Crown court when committed from the Chorley PSA, in the years 1998 to 2002.

  Persons1 sentenced to a curfew order2 for all offences in the Chorley PSA, 1999 to 2002

  Sentenced to a curfew order

  1999

  —

  2000

  5

  2001

  8

  2002

  11

  1These data are on the principal offence.

  2 Curfew orders were introduced nationally in December 1999

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  .Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) home and (b) child curfew orders have been made in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in each of the last five years. [159218]

  Paul Goggins
  It is not possible, from the statistics collected centrally, to identify persons released from custody on Home Detention Curfew orders by area.

  The available information is contained in the table and relates to juveniles aged 10–17 sentenced to a curfew order for all offences in the Greater London area, each borough in outer London and each magistrates court in inner London (it is not possible from the statistics collected centrally to identify boroughs in inner London). The figures include curfew orders imposed at the Crown Court when committed for trial or sentence from the courts/boroughs shown.
  1671W

  Number1 of juveniles aged 10–17 sentenced to a curfew order for all offences in Greater London2 and each London borough—1998 to 20021

  Sentenced to a curfew order

  Magistrates court/borough

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Inner London magistrates courts2

  Bow Street

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  —

  —

  1

  6

  24

  Guildhall Justice Rooms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich/Woolwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highbury Corner

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horseferry Road

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Marylebone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  —

  3

  30

  56

  Thames

  —

  —

  11

  33

  36

  West London

  —

  —

  5

  16

  46

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  4

  11

  Barnet

  1

  —

  3

  2

  5

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Brent

  9

  5

  —

  3

  2

  Bromley

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  12

  Ealing

  1

  1

  —

  1

  6

  Enfield

  1

  3

  8

  5

  9

  Harringey

  —

  —

  1

  5

  13

  Harrow

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Hillingdon

  —

  3

  2

  9

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  4

  2

  10

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  4

  13

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  9

  6

  Total

  13

  13

  42

  142

  292

  These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Information held centrally does not allow a breakdown of cases by borough in the inner London area.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many home curfew orders have been made in(a) Ribble Valley and Fulwood and(b) Lancashire in each of the last five years. [156501]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table and relates to persons sentenced to a curfew order for all offences at all courts in the Lancashire police force area, 1998 to 2002. It is not possible to separately identify the areas of Ribble Valley and Fulwood in the statistics collected centrally.

  Number of persons1 sentenced to a curfew order for all offences at all courts in the Lancashire police force area2, 1998 to 2002

  Sentenced to a curfew order

  1999

  1

  2000

  58

  2001

  61

  2002

  195

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  Curfew orders were introduced nationally in December 1999

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Litter Abatement Orders (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions 1672W
  local authorities in Merseyside have issued a litter abatement order to landowners in each of the last five years. [159598]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Principle Litter Authorities can serve litter abatement notices" on the occupier of land or, if unoccupied, on the owner of the land. "Litter abatement orders" can be served by a magistrates' court should any person be aggrieved by the defacement of litter or refuse on relevant land and highways make a complaint.

  The information collected by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indicates that Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St. Helens or Wirral local authorities have not issued any litter abatement notices to landowners during the last five years.

  Looked-After Children
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many looked-after children aged 10 or over were, cautioned or convicted for an offence in each year since 1994; and what the figures were for all children. [158068]

  Paul Goggins
  Figures on looked after children aged 10 or over who were convicted or subject to a final warning or reprimand have been collected annually since 2000 for those children who have been continuously looked after for at least 12 months. These figures, provided by the Department for Education and Skills, cover England only, and are shown in the following table:

  Offending by children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, years ending 30 September 2000 to 2002—England

  Number1 of children

  Number of looked after children aged 10 or older at 30 September

  of which:Number convicted or subject to a final warning or reprimand during the year

  Number

  2000

  25,700

  2,800

  2001

  27,000

  2,800

  2002

  28,200

  2,700

  Percentage

  2000

  —

  10.8

  2001

  —

  10.4

  2002

  —

  9.7

  1Numbers shown are rounded to the nearest 100.

  National figures for 2003 are due to be published in April.

  Similar information for Wales is not available

  The following table shows the number of all children found guilty or cautioned (given reprimands or final warnings from June 2000) in England and Wales:
  1673W
  Children aged 10–17 cautioned and found guilty at all courts for all offences1, England and Wiles 1994–2002

  Children cautioned

  Children found guilty

  Total

  Proportion of total children in age group (percentage)

  1994

  124,654

  62,062

  186,716

  3.8

  1995

  120,561

  67,864

  188,425

  3.7

  1996

  113,065

  74,675

  187,740

  3.6

  1997

  104,520

  79,151

  183,671

  3.5

  1998

  109,725

  86,506

  196,231

  3.7

  1999

  103,978

  90,280

  194,258

  3.7

  2000

  97,541

  91,423

  188.964

  3.5

  2001

  98,042

  95,530

  193,572

  3.6

  2002

  86,589

  94,546

  181,135

  3.3

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  Statistics for 2003 for England and Wales will be published in the autumn.

  No Fixed Abode
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the monetary grant made available for prisoners on release from custodial sentence offering no fixed abode as an address acts as an incentive to give no fixed abode as their address; and whether paedophiles giving no fixed abode on release avoid immediate listing on the Register of Sex Offenders. [157995]

  Paul Goggins
  A higher rate of discharge grant is paid to prisoners on release only if there is a need to seek, obtain and pay for accommodation. It is only paid to prisoners with no accommodation arranged in advance if this arises through no fault of the prisoner.

  The Prison Service undertook a large-scale survey in March and April 2003 of sentenced prisoners nearing release. 29 per cent. said they did not have accommodation arranged on release, compared to 33 per cent. in a similar survey undertaken in November and December 2001.

  Registered sex offenders are subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. They are required to provide the police with their home address within three days of their release from prison. Where an offender does not have a home address (which is his sole or main residence in the UK), he is required to provide the police with an address of premises in the UK which he regularly visits.

  Oakington Immigration Centre
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of policing arising from(a) the activity at, and(b) escapes from the immigration centre at Oakington, Cambridgeshire. [157353]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Constable has informed me that the costs of policing activity incurred by the force over the period 1 January 2002 to 1 March 2004 was:(a) £950 for responding to 83 calls to assist at the Oakington immigration centre.
  (b) £3,250 to deal with 31 incidents involving escapees from the centre.

  Operation Artemis
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the likely cost to the police of Operation Artemis. [160086]

  Caroline Flint
  There was no cost to the police from Operation Artemis. Operation Artemis was a French-led European Union operation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to support the United Nations Mission present in the country and to provide a secure environment under which the interim administration could function.

  It was deployed for a short period from June 2003 until 15 September 2003 and was a military mission with no civilian police involvement.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each(a) London borough and (b) Metropolitan police division in each year since 1992, in terms of (i) budgeted establishment and (ii) officers in post. [158839]

  Ms Blears
  The deployment of officers to territorial divisions is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens). The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner in tabular form. Table 1 sets out the position in the MRS between 1992 and 1998. Table 2 continues with figures for a revised structure in 1999 and 2000. Table 3 sets out the position following the boundary changes on 1 April 2000. These tables have been placed in the Library.

  The structure of Metropolitan Police territorial divisions and Borough Operational Command Units over the period 1992 to 2003 has changed. Figures are not therefore strictly comparable year on year as a result of boundary and organisational changes in the Metropolitan Police Service (MRS). In particular organisational changes were made following boundary changes on 1 April 2000 with the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey forces. The current territorial areas, introduced in 2000, are not therefore compatible with the previous force structure.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all prisons issue prisoners with a plastic sack marked HM Prison Service to contain their belongings on discharge; and what assessment he has made of alternatives to this practice. [156033]

  Paul Goggins
  Plastic sacks stamped with the Prison Service logo are used to store prisoners' property while they are in custody. The Prison Service has made it clear that their use for prisoners' property on discharge is not acceptable. Since October 2002 the Prison Service has made available to prisons plain nylon barrel bags for use for prisoners' property on discharge. These have been well received by prisoners and staff.
  1675W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the average weekly hours of purposeful activity in(a) privately run prisons and (b) state run prisons; and if he will make a statement.[156829]

  Paul Goggins
  During this financial year, to the end of January prisoners undertook an average of 23 hours of purposeful activity per week in public sector prisons and 26.3 hours in contracted out prisons.Note:
  These figures are provisional and have been taken from establishment purposeful activity returns for the financial year 2003 to present.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are housed in modular temporary units, broken down by prisons. [159278]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The number of prisoners accommodated in Modular Temporary Units (MTUs) is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 10 February 2004, Official Report, column 1431 for the capacity of MTUs across the prison estate, broken down by establishment.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites are being assessed as potential new sites for prisons. [159279]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Prison Service is actively seeking potential sites suitable for the development of prison establishments. The details of any individual sites cannot be disclosed for commercial reasons.

  Women Prisoners
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to implement the results of the research commissioned from Prisoners' Families on enabling women prisoners to keep in touch with their families. [159311]

  Company insolvencies in the UK 1997 to 2003

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England and Wales

  12,610

  13,203

  14,280

  14,317

  14,972

  16,305

  14,184

  Scotland

  477

  566

  572

  583

  602

  788

  631

  Northern Ireland

  113

  99

  103

  136

  100

  102

  143

  UK total

  13,200

  13,868

  14,955

  15,036

  15,674

  17,195

  14,958

  Biomass Electricity Project, Winkleigh
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the requests for payment from(a) her Department and (1)) the South West Regional Development Agency in respect of the proposed Biomass Electricity Generation project at Winkleigh, Devon. [157145]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The Department received an application for grant assistance of £11.50 million for this project under the Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme in October 2002. The project was given a grant offer of £11.50 million in February 2003. No payments have yet been made, under this grant.
  1676W
  Paul Goggins
  The work carried out by Action for Prisoners' Families will continue to inform the development of family policy and practice at Cookham Wood and other women's prisons.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Office collects on the on-line submission of complaints to trading standards offices. [158900]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading do not collect statistics about the on-line submission of complaints to trading standards Departments. However, ConsumerComplaints.org.uk is a site developed with DTI support, which enables consumers to complain on-line. The complaint is automatically directed to the appropriate Trading Standards Department. Individual trading standards Departments use computer systems that are able to generate reports on how complaints are received. This would include a report on the number of complaints received on-line, compared to other methods.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies went bankrupt in(a) Huddersfield and ( b) the UK in each year since 1997. [1600421

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Company Insolvency data for Huddersfield are not separately identifiable. Compulsory insolvencies are only broken down by Official Receivers Office. Huddersfield county court comes under the jurisdiction of the Official Receivers Office at Leeds, which also has responsibility for Bradford, Dewsbury, Halifax, Harrogate, Keighley, Leeds, Otley, Pontefract, Skipton, Wakefield and Todmorden. Company Insolvency Figures for the UK are provided in the following table:

  In parallel, the South West of England Regional Development Agency has received an application for support totalling £623,900 in respect of this project. Project funding has been authorised and to date £384,391 has been paid (mainly for land acquisition) leaving £239,509 to be paid as other elements of the project are completed.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers who transferred from AEA Technology to British Nuclear Fuels on 2 December 2003 lost pension benefits as a
  1677W
  result; for what reasons they are required to pay increased contribution rates for pensions in their new jobs; and if she will make a statement. [159886]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 March 2004]: The staff that transferred on 1 December 2003 have until the end of May to decide which pension option they would like to take up out of those presented to them as part of the flexible transfer process.

  As a minimum, transferring staff retained the value of their existing AEA Technology ("AEAT") pension fund. This existing pension fund had diminished during employment with AEAT but on transfer the funds were augmented via a mechanism involving AEAT, BNFL and employee's contributions. The Government Actuary's Department considered that the value of pension benefits arising from the augmented funds to represent a fair and equitable transfer of benefits under the stated Government guidelines on transfer of pension benefits within the public sector.

  Transferring staff contribution rates are the same as those that they would have been required to make under their previous employment with A EAT if the transfer had never occurred.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with BNFL about their overseas contracts. [160017]

  Mr. Timms
  BNFL operates within a Governance Framework agreed by the Department as shareholder. Within this framework, BNFL is required to seek departmental agreement to specific contracts subject to certain criteria. On behalf of the Secretary of State, officials have regular discussions with BNFL regarding their overseas contracts in this context.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Christchurch will receive a substantive response to his letter of 18 December 2003 about the employment of non-UK labour in the construction industry and the Posting of Workers Directive. [157590]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch, these are very important issues upon which the Government are seeking to obtain the full facts. 1 will write to him when I have further information to provide.

  Employment Rights Advice Booklets
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the expected annual cost savings to her Department are of its decision to cease production of hard copy prints of most of its employment rights advice booklets. [159683]

  Mr. Sutcliiffe
  We anticipate savings in the region of £380,000 per annum.
  1678W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of I March 2004,Official Report, column 630W, to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on employment rights leaflets, which leading customers of her Department's information service were consulted in relation to the decision to cease production of hard copy prints of most of the service's employment rights advice booklets. [159685]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Ceasing production of hard copy documents was one of the recommendations of a review on how our information on employment rights could be better focused on users needs. A practitioner group was set up as the means of consultation. Listed are the groups invited to be part of that group:

  CBI

  Trade Unions Congress

  Small Business Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  NACAB

  British Retail Consortium

  Parents at Work

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  MaternityAlliance

  Amicus

  EEF

  ACCA

  West Midlands Employment and Low Pay Unit

  Construction Confederation

  British Hospitality Association

  Canary Wharf Group PLC

  Leo Abse and Cowen

  LG Electronics

  ACAS

  Disability Rights Commission CIPD

  British Chambers of Commerce

  Federation of Small Business

  An Employment Law Consultant

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 630W, to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), how many end users were surveyed during her Department's recent review of its information service; and how these end users were selected.[159686]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The review was conducted on the basis of consultation with users groups. A survey was not undertaken.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many paper copies of each of her Department's employment rights booklets were ordered by customers in the most recent annual period for which information is available. [159687]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I refer the hon. Member to the following list.
  1679W

  Employment Rights Publication

  Annual issues up to 5 September 2003

  Industrial action ballots and notice to employers. PL962 (Rev 1)

  1,202

  Written statement of employment particulars. PL700 (Rev 5)

  12,587

  Trade Union political funds: a guide for trade unions, their members and others. PL868 (Rev 3)

  752

  Industrial action and the law: a guide for employees, trade union members and others. PL869 (Rev 4)

  2,302

  Industrial action and the law: a guide for employers, their customers and suppliers and others. PL870 (Rev 4)

  1,135

  Family emergency? your right to time off. PL506

  9,224

  Argyfwng teuluol? eich hawl I gael amser I ffwrdd

  121

  Benefit repayment: a guide for employers required to repay state benefit previously claimed by an employee who who won an employment tribunal award.PL720(Rev 4)

  1,771

  Trade union executive elections: a guide for trade unions, their members and others. PL866 (Rev 3)

  516

  Time off for public duties. PL702 (Rev 4)

  3,230

  Unjustifiable discipline by a trade union: a guide for trade unions, their members and others. PL865 (Rev2)

  1.002

  Access to workers during recognition and derecognition ballots. PL500

  555

  Guarantee payments. PL724 (Rev 2)

  4,030

  Union membership: rights of members and non-members. PL871 (Rev 7)

  2,724

  Hawliau mamolaeth: arweiniad I gyflogwyr a gweithwyr. PL958 (Diw 7)

  158

  Suspension from work on medical or maternity grounds under health and safety regulations. PL705 (Rev4)

  1,402

  Trade union funds and accounting records: a guide for trade unions, their members and others. PL867 (Rev 3)

  732

  Family emergency? Your right to time off (audiotape). PL506

  74

  Time off for dependants: a guide for employers and employees (audiotape.

  60

  Contracts of employment: changes, breach of contract and deductions from wages. PL810 (Rev 6)

  18,420

  Sunday shop and betting work: employees' rights. PL960 (Rev 1)

  1,567

  Contractau cyflogaeth: newidiadau, torri contract a thynn'u ol o gyflog. PL810 (Diw 6)

  0

  Disclosures in the public interest: protections for workers who 'blow the whistle'. PL502 (Rev 2)

  3,444

  Rights to notice and reasons for dismissal. PL707 (Rev 13)

  10,256

  Adoptive parents: rights to leave and pay when a child is placed for adoption in the UK (PL518)

  2,848

  Working fathers: rights to paternity leave and pay. A guide for employers and employees. PL517

  20,935

  Transfers of undertakings: a guide to the regulations. PL699 (Rev 6).

  10,886

  Dismissal: fair and unfair. A guide for employers. PL714 (Rev 10)

  15,551

  Hawliau unigol gweithwyr: arweiniad i gyflogwyr a gweithwyr. PL716 (Diw 9)

  159

  Parental leave: a guide for employers and employees. PL509

  12

  Parental leave: a short guide. PL510

  235

  Unfairly dismissed? PL712 (Rev 17)

  8,621

  Pay statements: what they must itemise. PL704 (Rev 5)

  4,640

  Maternity rights: a guide for employers and employees. PL958 (Rev 7)

  3,310

  Employment agencies: know your rights. PLS11

  1,518

  Industrial action and the law: citizen's right to prevent disruption. PL943 (Rev 1)

  1,331

  Rights to notice and reasons for dismissal (audiotape version). PL707 (Rev 13)

  138

  PL833 (REV 6) Redundancy Consultation and Notification

  10,810

  Limits on payments and awards. PL827 (Rev 8)

  6.148

  Maternity leave changes: a basic summary. PL507 (Rev 3)

  21,833

  Adoptive parents rights to leave and pay: a basic summary. PL515 (Rev 1)

  14,154

  Paternity leave and pay: a basic summary. PL514 (Rev 1).

  23,814

  Flexible working the right to request: a brief summary. PL516 (Rev 1)

  24,298

  Continuous employment and a week's pay: rules for calculation. PL711 (Rev 8)

  7,431

  Redundancy entitlement statutory rights: a guide for employees. PL808 (Rev 6)

  28,733

  Individual rights of employees: a guide for employers and employees. PL7J6 (Rev 10)

  7,477

  Maternity rights: a guide for employers and employees. Babies due on or after 6 April 2003. PL958 (Rev 9)

  15,273

  Picketing. PL928 (Rev 1)

  1,090

  The payment of union subscriptions through the check-off: a guide for employers, trade unions and their members, taking account of legislation up to and including the Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998. PL944 (Rev 1)

  594

  Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998: a guide to its provisions

  345

  Time off for dependants: a guide for employers and employees

  8,441

  Offsetting pensions against redundancy payments: a guide for employers. RPL1

  293

  Example form of a written statement of employment particulars. PL700A (Rev 1)

  5,065

  A short guide to the working time regulations

  16,096

  Your guide to the working time regulations: workers and employers. July 2003

  7,537

  Working Time Regulations Rheoliadau Amser

  0

  Your rights if your employer is insolvent: a guide for employers, employees and others. PL 718 (Rev 7)

  45,215

  National minimum wage: a short guide for young workers. (Somali)

  18

  The minimum wage and 'therapeutic work'.

  0

  A detailed guide to the national minimum wage (October 2001 edition). PL501

  6,361

  Isafswm cyflog cenedlaethol: canllaw byr I gyflogeion. (A short guide to the national minimum wage)

  145

  Isafswm cyflog cenedlaethol: canllaw byr I gyflogwyr. (A short guide to the national minimum wage)

  96

  National minimum wage: a short guide for employees

  14,303

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Bengali)

  254

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Chinese)

  190

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Greek)

  207

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Gujarati)

  270

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Hindi)

  248

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Punjabi)

  259

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Somali)

  162

  1680W 1681W

  Employment Rights Publication

  Annual issues up to 5 September 2003

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Turkish)

  205

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Urdu)

  218

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Vietnamese version)

  219

  National minimum wage: a short guide for employers

  12,467

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Bengali)

  173

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Chinese)

  133

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Greek)

  120

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Gujarati)

  170

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Hindi)

  173

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Punjabi)

  174

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Somali)

  121

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Turkish)

  120

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Urdu)

  130

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Vietnamese)

  173

  National minimum wage: A short guide for young workers. PL 519

  190

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employees (Arabic)

  163

  National minimum wage: A short guide for employers (Arabic)

  123

  The minimum wage and therapeutic work. National minimum wage information note. PL508 (Rev 1)

  564

  The minimum wage and therapeutic work (Large print)

  0

  The minimum wage and therapeutic work (Braille)

  11

  The minimum wage and therapeutic work (Audio cassette)

  33

  Notes:

  1. Publications in italics will remain in hard copy format.

  Source:

  Extract from DT1 Publications Full Title Usage Report 5 September 2003.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) most regular users of her Department's distribution service and (b) the total number of employment rights booklets ordered by each such user in the most recent annual period for which information is available. [159688]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following is a list of the organisations ordering the largest number of publications for the year ending 29 February 2004. Figures are for all booklets ordered by the organisation and not by subject matter.

  Annual figures on employment rights booklets ordered by organisations are not readily available and would not be cost effective to produce.

  Top 100 organisations ordering the highest number of publications from the DTI distribution centre

  Address number

  Organisation

  Total order quantity1

  558138

  Bright Star Fireworks UK Ltd.

  500,000

  414998

  Amey

  135,000

  326772

  Redundancy Payments Service

  111,515

  563898

  TNT Fireworks UK Ltd.

  100,000

  443440

  Lewisham Fire Station

  85,650

  471697

  Clearview Imaging Services Ltd.

  69,125

  473215

  The Portergate

  66,971

  480222

  Trading Standards

  59,695

  8813

  Edinburgh RPO

  58,948

  206669

  Cosmic Fireworks

  51,000

  439799

  Quality Mark Scheme Helpdesk

  50.876

  1315868

  The Insolvency Service

  48,003

  181100

  Strathclyde Fire brigade HQ

  45,010

  582195

  Department of Trade and Industry

  40,980

  607992

  SGB Youngman

  40,000

  518183

  IWM 2003 Exhibition and Conference

  34,172

  562459

  Invest UK and Itu telecom World

  33,193

  295514

  Renault Printing Co Ltd.

  30,000

  562496

  HM Customs Excise

  30,000

  483912

  Employment Tribunals Service

  25,020

  9106

  ROSPA Info Centre

  22,751

  343898

  Anton Group

  20,000

  139891

  Department of Trade and Industry

  20,000

  1 31 January 2003 to 1 February 2004

  1682W

  Energy Services Working Group
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which members of the energy efficiency industry she has appointed to her Energy Services Working Group. [160097]

  Mr. Timms
  The Energy Services Working Group has now completed its work and submitted a final report to Ministers on 23 January. John Chesshire of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes was a member of the Group. Other members, apart from Government officials, were Nick Eyre of the Energy Saving Trust and representatives of all the major energy suppliers. Minutes of the meetings of the Group, together with papers presented to it and the interim and final reports are available on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/environment/energy_efficiency/eswg/shtml

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact she expects the EU emissions trading scheme to have on electricity prices. [158850]

  Mr. Timms
  The impact of the EU emissions trading scheme will depend on the price of carbon in the market and the extent to which this is passed through by generators. The Department has based its estimates on a carbon price in a range from €5–25/tonne of CO2. In the first phase of the scheme at least, from 2005 to 2007, the Department believes that the carbon price is more likely to be towards the bottom of the range. The electricity price increase corresponding to a carbon price of €5/tonne is estimated to be 3 per cent. for domestic customers and 6 per cent. for industrial customers.

  The Department commissioned ILEX Consulting to undertake work on the implications of the emissions trading scheme on the power sector. Their report can be found at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/ilex_report.pdf
  1683W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's interpretation of the EU emissions trading scheme on UK competitiveness. [158851]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has considered carefully the implications of the EU emissions trading scheme for UK competitiveness in decisions on the overall cap. The expected impacts on energy costs and their effects on trade and the regions and countries of the UK have been published in the following document: www.dti.gov.uk/ energy/sepn/euetsimplications.pdf

  We will keep this under review as national allocation plans of other member states become clearer.

  Household Fuel Expenditure
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average proportion of household expenditure spent on household fuel was in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990, (e) 2000 and (f) 2003. [160096]

  Mr. Timms
  The average proportion of household expenditure spent on fuel in(a) 1995, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990, (e) 2000 and (f) 2003 is set out in the following table.

  Household expenditure on fuel(Percentage)

  1975

  5.5

  1980

  5.6

  1985

  6.2

  1990

  4.5

  2000–01

  3.1

  2002–03

  2.9

  Source:

  ONS-Family Expenditure Survey, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 2000–01.

  Expenditure and Food Survey from 2001–02.

  Internet Access
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers she estimates(a) are unable to use and (b) do not have direct access to the internet. [159699]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI's International Benchmarking Study (DBS) measures the use of ICT by business and is produced annually. The IBS 2003 found that:(a) 77 per cent. of ICT using organisations are completely or mostly content with their in-house ICT skills.
  (b) 10 per cent. of businesses do not have internet access.

  IBS results are weighted to reflect employee distribution. A copy of the 2003 study (URN 03/147) is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Miners' Pension Funds
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she or one of her Ministers will meet ex-miners from the Lichfield constituency in London to discuss current arrangements for miners' pension funds in the next four months. [160043]
  1684W
  Mr. Timms
  Issues relating to the current arrangements for the miners' pension funds are matters for the Schemes' Trustees.

  Nanotechnology
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on nanotechnology; and if she will make a statement. [159740]

  Ms Hewitt
  The global market for nanotechnology is forecast to exceed ․1,000 billion within the next decade and it is vital that the UK is a strong player in this market. My noble Friend the Minister for Science announced our investment of £90 million in our Micro and Nanotechnology Manufacturing Initiative in July 2003 to help industry harness the commercial opportunities offered by nanotechnology. £50 million will be spent on collaborative R&D projects and £40 million on a new network of micro and nanotechnology facilities. This will help business build or the UK's excellent track record in small-scale science and win a share of this developing market. This activity will build on the substantial and wide ranging investment we are already making through the Research Councils. We expect to invest a further £100 million in our science base for nanotechnology based research over the next few years.

  In addition in December 2003 I launched the "Innovation Report: Competing in the global economy: the innovation challenge, December 2003". This report describes a range of new DTI products to support technological innovation which are already being applied to support UK interests in nanotechnology.

  It is the policy of this Government to be open about our approach to new technologies, to acknowledge uncertainties and to ensure that the public are engaged in the decision making process. To address any potential concerns the Government commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to carry out an independent study to make sure we are able to benefit from the advances that nanotechnology promises with the right regulatory safeguards and protections in place. The study will also be used to inform policy on what safeguards might be required over and above existing legislation and guidance.

  Nirex
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on long-term radioactive waste management of(a) the continued ownership of Nirex by the nuclear industry, (b) the ownership of Nirex by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and (c) a Nirex independent of the nuclear industry. [159666]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have established the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to advise it by the end of 2005 on the long-term management of the UK's higher activity wastes. Consideration of the arrangements for managing these wastes before receiving that advice would be premature.
  1685W
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings her Department has held with(a) BNFL and (b) British Energy to discuss the budget for Nirex. [160010]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is in regular contact with BNFL and British Energy on a range of issues, including their shareholdings in Nirex.

  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any income accrued by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority from(a) the commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and (b) Magnox power generation will be returned to the (i) decommissioning and (ii) clean-up of nuclear sites. [160009]

  Mr. Timms
  Yes. All such income will be received by Government and credited to the Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Account that will record the sums available to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Commercial income credited to the Account will be separately identified.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on plans to establish a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [160286]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals to establish the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority were set out in the 2002 White Paper, 'Managing the Nuclear Legacy:.A strategy for action', and are provided for in the Energy Bill, due to begin Report stage in the other place on 18 March.

  The Bill will be introduced in this House as soon as the legislative timetable permits. We hope the Bill will receive Royal Assent by July, and our goal remains to have an operational NDA in place by April next year.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had regarding the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [160288]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government continue to engage in their proposals to establish the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) with a broad range of stakeholders, including industry, the regulators, local and regional government organisations, trades unions. Non-Governmental Organisations, suppliers and members of the public. Legislation to establish the NDA is under discussion in the other place.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will accept new contracts for the commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel once it assumes control of Thorp; [159586]

  (2) what long-term future she envisages for the commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in theUK. [159587]

  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.

  Post Office
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of proposals for post office closures have been halted as a result of public consultation in the(a) West Midlands and (b) UK. [159895]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closure proposals following public consultation are an operational matter for Post Office and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the(a) consultation and (b) decision-making process involved in the Post Office Network Reinvention programme. [160592]

  Mr. Timms
  In the light of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament, and following discussions with Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch, I announced changes to the consultation arrangements for urban reinvention post office closure proposals in my written statement of 5 February. Following public consultation, decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she can introduce to stop Tesco closing post offices as a result of the takeover of one-stop convenience stores, with particular reference to the one-stop convenience store in Chalkwell Road, Sittingbourne. [159793]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]: None. Any decision by Tesco to remove a post office from one of its T&S convenience stores is a commercial matter for the company. Tesco has however committed to giving six months notice of its intention to do so to Post Office Ltd., allowing it the opportunity to find alternative partners to continue to offer post office services in close proximity to the existing location, and to working with all parties to seek a smooth changeover process for customers in the area.

  I understand that Tesco has recently given notice of its intention to discontinue post office services from its Chalkwell Road, Sittingbourne store and that Post Office Ltd. is now actively engaged in seeking an alternative location in the vicinity.

  Postwatch
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total amount of money allocated to Postwatch is in 2002–03. [159602]

  Mr. Timms
  The total amount of money allocated is £8.19 million.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the duties are of Postwatch; and to whom it is responsible. [159603]

  Mr. Timms
  The Consumer Council for Postal Services also known as Postwatch was established to represent the user interests in postal services. Its functions are laid down in the Postal Services Act 2000; and it is responsible to the Secretary of State.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many deaths were caused by products classified by her Department as unsafe in each of the last 10 years. [159978]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many products were banned from sale on safety grounds in each of the last 10 years; [159979]

  (2) how many of the products banned from sale on safety grounds were recalled by the manufacturer in each of the last 10 years. [159980]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In 1996 the Department made emergency regulations under section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to ban the supply of certain fireworks to the general public. This ban was carried forward in permanent regulations-The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997—which banned the sale of a range of fireworks.

  In 2003 the Department issued prohibition Notices under the 1987 Act against six suppliers of Yo Balls because the posed a risk of strangulation to children.

  In neither case were the affected products recalled by their manufacturers. However, the publicity surrounding the bans will have alerted consumers to the dangers presented by these products.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received from(a) consumers organisations and(b) industry on the EU Directive on General Product Safety; [159981]

  (2) for what reason the Government has not yet implemented the EU Directive on General Product Safety; and if she will make a statement. [159982]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department invited views from consumer organisations, industry and the enforcement community on a number of policy issues concerning transposition of the revised General Product Safety Directive in an initial public consultation during the period from November 2001 to March 2002. A copy of the consultation document and a summary of the responses is available on the Department's website at www. dti.gov.uk/ccp/archive/pdf/gpsdcon.pdf and www.dti. gov.uk/ccp/archive/pdf/gpsdsumrn.pdf respectively.

  The consultation identified differing views on key issues in complex policy areas including how to handle mandatory product recall, on which we have held a number of stakeholder meetings. We want to ensure that the system we employ for recalling products will have the confidence of all parties and be effective in providing better protection for consumers from dangerous products.

  Rover Task Force
  Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of the Rover Task Force Modernisation and Diversification programme has been to the Small Business Service in each of the last five years. [156682]
  Ms Hewitt
  The Rover Task Force was established early in 2000, led by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers). The Task Force considered how both the region's automotive supply chain could be supported, and how the region's manufacturing base could be helped to modernise and diversify.

  A package of funding for business support and regeneration of £129 million was agreed. £31 million of that figure was administered by the SBS as part of the Modernisation and diversification programme. The funding package of the Rover Task Group is invested in the automotive supply chain. No funding is provided direct to MG Rover itself.

  To date a total of 1,600 businesses have been assisted by the Taskforce and 3,000 jobs have been safeguarded or created.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [158248]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of temporary staff engaged by DTI fluctuates through the year, but on average we have approximately 450 temporary staff per annum, which represents 9 per cent. of our current workforce. The cost of employing these agency staff over the last three financial years was 2001–02 £4,865K, 2002–03 £6,654K and 2003 –04 £5,223K.

  Tesco
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will recommend to the Office of Fair Trading that it judges the Tesco Adminstore merger on the basis of Tesco's share of the overall grocery market; [160460]

  (2)if she will direct the Office of Fair Trading to refer Tesco's proposed acquisition of Adminstore to the Competition Commission on the grounds of public interest considerations of the socio-economic consequences of further consolidation of the grocery market; [160461]

  (3)if she will recommend that the Office of Fair Trading refer Tesco's proposed acquisition of Adminstore to the Competition Commission. [160462]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The independent competition authorities (the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission) are responsible under the Enterprise Act 2002 for decision making in merger cases against a specific competition-focused test. The Office of Fair Trading announced on 5 March that it was not referring to the Competition Commission the anticipated acquisition by Tesco Plc of 45 grocery stores from Adminstore Ltd. It would not have been appropriate for Ministers to try to influence the Office of Fair Trading in carrying out its independent function by seeking to direct it in any aspect of its consideration of this case.
  1689W
  The Enterprise Act does not allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene on existing or new public interest grounds in cases where the OFT has already announced its decision on reference to the Competition Commission.

HEALTH

  Acute Mental Illness Beds
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute mental illness beds were available for(a) the elderly, (b) children and (c) other age groups in Lancashire Mental Health Trust in each of the last three years: and how many were in secure units. [157674]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Lancashire Care National Health Service Trust was formed on 1 April 2002. Data are not available for this trust prior to that date. The available data, for the year 2002–03, are shown in the table.

  Number

  Mental illness: children

  Short stay

  —

  Long stay

  —

  Mental illness: elderly

  Short stay

  227

  Long stay

  170

  Mental illness: other ages

  Secure unit

  70

  Short stay

  393

  Long stay

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health returns.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2004,Official Report, column 328W, on ambulances, whether the periodic refresher training refers to (a) specialist driving training and (b) other forms of training relevant to the job of ambulance technician. [158492]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Individual national health service trusts are responsible for ensuring that staff receive any training necessary to maintain driving proficiency standards. In addition maintaining staffs proficiency in all other aspects of their work is also the responsibility of every trust.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2004,Official Report, column 328W, on ambulances, if he will place in the Library copies of the proficiency standards and national syllabus. [158521]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A copy of the driver training manual has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2004. Official Report, column 329W, on ambulances, whether there is a mandatory requirement for specialist driver training at an accredited driver training school. [158618]
  1690W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The training of their staff is a matter for each individual national health service ambulance trust. We would expect them to take account of national recommendations and requirements. Driver instructors are trained and qualified to a United Kingdom standard approved by the Institute of Healthcare Development.

  Asthmatics (Aspirin)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to highlight the risk to asthmatics from taking aspirin. [160072]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All licensed aspirin products available over the counter currently have label warnings and/or patient information leaflets advising patients with previous asthma (especially after taking aspirin) not to take the product or to consult their doctor before use.

  Labels and patient information leaflets advise patients with known allergy to aspirin not to take aspirin containing products.

  Infant Formula
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to tighten the implementation of the World Health Organisation code in the United Kingdom to prohibit aggressive Infant Formula marketing strategies. [157999]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, advertising of infant formulas directly to the general public is already prohibited by the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. Enforcement of these regulations is carried out by local authorities.

  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money Essex Social Services Department had to pay in fines under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 from when it came into operation to 29 February. [160275]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Essex Social Services Department arranged local investment agreements with the national health service in line with levels of delay for September 2003 and will only pay charges once they exceed this level of investment.

  Dementia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of providing free domestic and residential nursing and personal care for people suffering from(a) Alzheimer's Disease and (b) other forms of dementia. [160111]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Since April 2003, anyone in a care home with Alzheimer's or another form of dementia who requires care from a registered nurse will have received either direct national health service nursing care from the community nursing service or NHS funded nursing care.

  The estimated cost of providing free personal care for people with Alzheimer's (approximately 30 per cent., of care home residents) would be somewhere in the region of

  1691W
  £500 million. The estimated cost of providing free personal care for people with dementia, including Alzheimer's (around 60 per cent. of care home residents), would be somewhere in the region of £l billion.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding NHS dentists who only accept NHS registrations of children if their parents register privately; and if he will make a statement. [154435]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not collected on the number of dentists accepting only certain categories of patients. However, very few dental practices have only children registered as national health service patients.

  Dentists working in the general dental service are self-employed independent contractors providing dental services. Under current arrangements dentists can practice wherever they like, as there are no restrictions. They are free to accept as many or as few NHS patients as they wish and can alter their NHS commitment without reference to the primary care trust (PCT). They can quite legally accept only certain categories of patients (for example, children).

  Under the provisions in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, PCTs will assume responsibility for dental services in this area. With these new responsibilities will go the financial resources currently held centrally, which by 2005–06 are expected to total nearly £1.5 billion. The new arrangements will give the NHS greater control locally enabling it to match services to local need. They will underpin a modernised, high-quality primary dental service provided through new contracts between PCTs and dental practices and properly integrated with the rest of the NHS.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage more applicants for dentistry degrees. [157697]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dentistry is already a popular choice for A-level students, with nearly two applications received for every place available in dental schools. In 2002, the NHS Careers service was extended to provide information to the public on careers in dentistry and, earlier this year, we published a new NHS Careers brochure, "Dental Care in the NHS", which has been distributed to schools, further education colleges, youth employment advisers and other agencies working with young people. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to prepare health service providers for the implementation of the parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which come into effect later this year. [160693]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National health service organisations are responsible for their own compliance with the new (and existing) provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Department of Health is, however, working in partnership with the Disability 1692W
  Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the NHS in assessing and improving progress on disability access. These measures include, for example, ensuring that core practical guidance is readily available to the NHS and contributing to the development of health sector-specific guidance being produced by the Disability Rights Commission.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) public and (b) professional consultation has been undertaken on which vitamins and supplements are used regularly in the UK in connection with preparing for the EU's Food Supplements Directive. [158569]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  During negotiations on Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements and when drafting the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, the Food Standards Agency consulted publicly with a wide range of stakeholders. The results of those consultations are summarised in the Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying the Regulations, which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department has contributed to the discussions at EU level on vitamins and supplements being placed on the EU's positive list. [158570]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements includes in its Annexes 'positive lists' defining the vitamins and minerals that may be included in food supplements as well as the range of forms (chemical sources) of vitamins and minerals which may be used in such products. Substances on the positive lists have been assessed for safety and bio-availability by the former Scientific Committee for Food and more substances may be added to the lists following submission of dossiers of information supporting their use.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) secured a valuable meeting between representatives of United Kingdom food supplements manufacturers and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 14 October 2003 to discuss dossier requirements, and has disseminated EFSA's advice to interested parties. Furthermore, the FSA has expressed its willingness to provide further advice to industry on dossier production if required.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible link between illegal drug use and the development of psychosis later in life; and if he will make a statement. [152364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Recent research of note in this area has explored whether there is any causative link between early cannabis use and later development of psychosis, but such a link has not been conclusively proven. However, the recent epidemiological research on the issue of earlier use of cannabis and risk of later development of schizophrenia, 'schizophrenic symptoms' and 'schizophreniform disorder' has shown a stronger association than was previously evident from
  1693W
  published studies. The British Medical Journal editorial accompanying the publication of key research papers in November 2002 concluded that:
  "whether the use of cannabis triggers the onset of schizophrenia or depression in otherwise vulnerable people or whether it actually causes these conditions in non-predisposed people is not yet resolved."

  While a number of illegal drugs, particularly amphetamines and cocaine (and to a lesser degree cannabis), are well-recognised in causing short-lived psychotic symptoms and signs there is no conclusive proof of causation of psychosis in later life. It is difficult to exclude confounding factors in carrying out such long-term research on, where such drug use would also be only one of a number of risk factors. It is also difficult to differentiate the role of such drugs in possibly precipitating psychosis in a pre-disposed individual from causation in someone not otherwise pre-disposed.

  The Department has commissioned the National Addiction Centre to review the evidence regarding the harmful effects of drugs of abuse and this is published as a Department of Health document, Dangerousness of drugs (2003). This describes a wide range harmful effects of illegal drugs. A copy is available in the Library.

  It is widely recommended by clinicians that anyone at risk of psychosis should avoid any drugs that can cause acute psychotic symptoms.

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

  Low Fat Diets
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on low fat diets free from animal products. [156810]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not commissioned or evaluated research on low fat diets free from animal products. The Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) has been supported by Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and the Europe Against Cancer Programme of the Commission of the European Community. Findings from EPIC-Oxford data have shown that diets free from animal products are associated with lower levels of obesity than diets which include meat. The Medical Research Council spent £17.1 million in 2001 –02 on nutrition research.

  Mental Health
  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, how many of the 700 carer support workers are (a) new staff and (b) existing staff with expanded or adapted roles; and if he will make a statement. [154987]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The commitment to recruit 700 carer support workers by 2004 to increase the breaks available for carers, and to strengthen carer support 1694W
  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. 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.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of nebulisers for NHS patients on prescription. [159722]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Nebulisers are not available on national health service prescription. It is long-standing policy that such items should be loaned to patients from specialist NHS services.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to continue the use of lay assessors in the monitoring of quality of nursing and care homes. [160219]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This will be a matter for the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), a new non-departmental public body, which will be operational from 1 April 2004. The CSCI will be reviewing how it works with lay assessors in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157747]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 1 January 2003 and 27 February 2004, 8,058 ordinary written and 1,458 named day parliamentary questions were tabled to the Department of Health.

  Using the information readily available the average time taken to answer an ordinary written parliamentary question was 15.5 calendar days; and approximately 30 per cent. of named day parliamentary questions received an answer by the specified date.

  The Department strives to answer right hon. and hon. Members' questions in a timely and helpful fashion and is currently seeking to improve performance.

  Patient Forums
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) assessment he has made and (b) representations he has received on the impact of benefits rules on the participation of disabled people in patient forums. [158508]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have not received any representations about the impact of the benefit rules on the participation of disabled people in patients forums and no assessment of the impact has been made.
  1695W

  Processed Meals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the level of consumption of processed meals; and if he will make a statement. [157594]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not commissioned research into the level of consumption of processed meals. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey programme is a joint initiative between the Department and the Food Standards Agency. The survey covers consumption of different food types by individuals, including processed products such as breakfast cereals and baked beans.

  The Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS) is commissioned jointly by the Office for National Statistics and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Results from EFS presented in the report, Family Food in 2001 –02, show that consumption of meat-based ready meals, including takeaways consumed in the household, increased by 15 per cent. in comparison to 2000 –01, which represents a 70 per cent. increase compared to 1996 –97. The report is available on the Defra website at http:// statistics.defra.gov. uk/esg/.

  Psychiatric Wards (Delayed Discharges)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend arrangements for charging social services departments for delayed discharges from psychiatric wards. [160047]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We intend to extend the system of reimbursement for delayed discharges to all hospital patients in a phased way, based on a consideration of the benefits for each group of patients. However, further parliamentary debate would be required to extend the scope to include mental health patients.

  Restructuring and Change Programme
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1699W, on the Restructuring and Change programme, how many of the 1.400 staff will (a) be made redundant, (b) retire and (c) be lost due to natural wastage. [158129]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: The number of staff who will be made redundant is not yet known. It will be determined by the levels of natural wastage, the take-up of any voluntary early severance/ retirement scheme and the extent to which it is possible to re-deploy staff in the civil service.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answers of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1699W, and 23 February 2004, Official Report, column 297W, on the restructuring and change programme, how many of the 1,400 staff will be redeployed or transferred to departmental arm's length bodies or agencies. [158205]
  1696W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We estimate that 415 posts will transfer to the departmental arm's length bodies.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets his Department has set for recruitment of social workers. [159741]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department's national planning guideline is to recruit an additional 50,000 whole time equivalent people into the social care workforce, which includes 5,000 social workers by 2005–06.

  As an incentive to train as a social worker, a bursary is available to all students who are not supported by their employer. The introduction of a degree in social work will also help to make this a more attractive career choice.

  Step Change
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the review of Step Change will occur; and how long the review will take; [155393]

  (2) whether the review of Step Change will be made public; and who will consider its findings. [155395]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A ministerial committee has been set up to co-ordinate policy on imports of animals, plants, fish and their products, which will include a review of the Step Change. The timing of the review, and how it is publicised, are matters for the committee to decide.

  Subutex
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of Subutex in drugs treatment. [153982]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: Subutex is licensed for use in the treatment of opiate dependency. which is included in the clinical guidelines on the management of drug misuse and dependence issued by the Department in 1999. The Department has also made it possible for doctors to prescribe Subutex for instalment dispensing, to ensure there is no disincentive for its use as compared to methadone. While there are recognised advantages, there are also disadvantages to its use. There is a clear risk of Subutex being abused by injection. Methadone liquid appears more suitable for severely dependent opiate addicts. It is for clinicians to determine the appropriate use of Subutex for patients.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159617]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons on Monday 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Council of the Isles
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Council of the Isles last met; and when it will next meet. [159478]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Council of the Isles is known as the British-Irish Council. The Council last met on 28 November 2003 at a Summit at St. Fagans in Cardiff. The Council next meet in July for ministerial level meetings to discuss the Environment and Social Inclusion sectoral work strands. The next Summit is planned for autumn 2004 in Guernsey.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total expenditure on communications for his 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. [158207]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), which includes its agencies—the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office (PGO)— employs 60 staff in communications work. This figure comprises 24 staff of the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) and 36 others.

  Amount (£)

  Department for constitutional affairs HQ

  (a) GICS

  918,187

  (b) Other staff

  (i) Press officers1

  35,232

  (ii) Special advisers

  2—

  (iii) Others

  351,979

  Court service

  (a) GICS

  0

  (b) Other staff

  (i) Press officers

  0

  (ii) Special advisers

  0

  (iii) Others

  603,185

  Public Guardianship Office

  (a) GICS

  0

  (b) Other staff

  (i) Press officers1

  63,150

  (ii) Special advisers

  0

  (iii) Others

  80,525

  1 Non GICS.

  2 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.

  Notes:

  1. All figures include forecast expenditure for February and March 2003–04.

  2. 'Others' includes staff working on publications. publicity, internal communications, websites and administration.

  Election Turnouts
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the(a) lowest and (b) highest turnout in a local authority election was in the last five years. [156445]

  Phil Hope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Turnout at local authority elections is not recorded centrally and the specific figures requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However a source of information that may be useful to the hon. Member is the Local Elections Handbook which is published annually by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth which contains turnout figures for local authority elections.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is regarding the role that former Taliban members should play in the future government of Afghanistan; and what his policy is regarding proposals for an amnesty for those Taliban members deemed no longer to constitute a terrorist threat. [159505]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 10 March 2004]: The UK believes that national reconciliation is an important element in the process of rebuilding Afghanistan. It must be an Afghan-led process and one which is transparent. We would oppose the rehabilitation of the Taliban's senior leadership. Taliban who were involved in war crimes, terrorism, or engaged in violent opposition to the Coalition or the Bonn Process, should be brought to justice. The treatment of other former Taliban who no longer constitute a threat is a matter for the Afghan authorities.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Government have made of the progress needed on security for elections to proceed in Afghanistan on 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [159888]

  Mr. Straw
  Security will be one of the key ingredients in facilitating successful and credible elections, including the electoral registration process currently underway. It is for the Afghan Government to lead on ensuring the elections are held in a secure environment. But they will require international support and assistance. Security is already being provided for the voter registration process. The Afghan Transitional Administration are also working with the United Nations, the International Security Assistance Force (led by NATO), and the US-led Coalition to put the necessary security structures in place for the elections themselves. No date has yet been announced for elections to be held.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Department is taking to support the UN plan to hold elections in Afghanistan this summer. [160221]
  1699W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has committed £9 million to supporting the UN preparations for elections. Of this £9 million, £3 million has already been dispersed. The UK is also encouraging other donors to contribute to supporting preparations for the elections through funding, and through providing resources to the International Security Assistance Force to enable it to support the Afghan government in providing security for the elections.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the UK is giving to British businesses considering investing in Afghanistan; and what discussions he has had regarding the underwriting of risk for such businesses. [160229]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government, through UK Trade and Investment and the British embassy in Kabul provides direct assistance and advice on local business conditions including security advice to businesses wishing to invest in Afghanistan.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) is currently unable to offer political risk insurance to UK companies investing in Afghanistan under its Overseas Investment Insurance scheme. ECGD judge that the political and economic situation in Afghanistan is too unstable to allow them to provide such cover. ECGD is however monitoring developments in Afghanistan and expects to conduct a market review in the latter part of 2004, following the proposed elections late this year.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many additional(a) soldiers and (b) officials the Government are planning to send to Afghanistan to ensure stability in the build up to and during the proposed elections in that country. [160236]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the responsibility of the Afghan Transitional Administration to provide security for the forthcoming elections. The UK is supporting the election preparations through funding of £10.4 million for the UN electoral preparations plan and through the role of the UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mazar-e Sharif. The Mazar-e Sharif PRT has 90 British soldiers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 7 February 2004 that the UK would support NATO efforts to play a wider role in Afghanistan by increasing support to PRTs (a copy of which is available at www.securityconference.de>conferences>2004>speeches>Hoon,Geoffrey). The number of British soldiers likely to be involved has not yet been finalised. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is also considering a role in support of the elections. The UK currently contributes 350 soldiers to ISAF but no decision has been made on possible future contributions.

  The UK is also supporting the EU Commission's intention to send a team of election observers to Afghanistan, and is currently funding an expert to participate in the ongoing EU exploratory mission on election observation, with a particular focus on women's participation in the elections.
  1700W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 15 May Bishkek Conference on stability in Afghanistan; and what discussions he has had with other governments regarding the conference. [159887]

  Mr. Straw
  We welcome the proposal to hold a conference in Bishkek, involving Afghanistan and other countries in the region. Closer co-operation on trade, development and efforts to tackle illegal activities such as narcotics production and trafficking will enhance stability in the region. The conference will complement the regional commitment to the Good Neighbourly Relations Declaration signed in December 2002, and the related Declaration on Trade, Transit and Investment and Counter-Narcotics signed in September 2003.

  We regularly discuss a wide range of issues concerning Afghanistan, including regional co-operation, with other governments and international organisations.

  Burundi
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to support the Arusha Accord, with particular reference to the stipulation within the Accord for elections to take place before the end of October. [160081]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK strongly supports the Arusha accord and has provided political and financial support to Burundi since the Accord was signed in 2000. In financial year 2003–04, the UK has made £11.6 million available for Burundi. We provided £3.7 million to supply equipment to the Mozambican contingent of the African Mission in Burundi.

  We recognise that there are many issues which need addressing before elections can be held satisfactorily and continue to encourage the government of Burundi to work to resolve them.

  Butler Committee
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals have expressed an interest in submitting evidence to the Butler Committee on intelligence; and how many independent submissions have been received to date. [159942]

  Mr. Rammell
  This is a matter for the Butler Review Committee.

  Chad
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Chad over the level of forced migration into Chad from the Sudan. [160185]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our embassy in Khartoum has discussed the conflict in Darfur with the Chadian embassy in Khartoum. We are also in close contact with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva and their field teams in eastern. Chad. The Department for International Development is one of the largest donors 10 UNHCR operations in Chad for
  1701W
  Sudanese refugees, having provided £1 million in October 2003 in response to the initial US$16 million appeal.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the EU Commissioner for external relations regarding the Colombian Government's democratic security policies and Cohmbia's compliance with UN human rights recommendations; and if he will make a statement on areas of disagreement between the UK Government and the Commissioner. [159606]

  Mr. Rammell
  We followed closely the recent visit to Colombia of the EU Commissioner for External Relations which took place in January. We have no differences in view with the Commissioner about Colombia. The EU's latest position on Colombia—with which the UK is fully aligned—was set out in Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 26 January, following the Commissioner's visit.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government will take in response to non-compliance of the Colombian Government with UN human rights recommendations. [159646]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British Government keep in close touch with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on Colombia and we take careful note of the matters raised in relevant UN reports on the situation in Colombia. The recommendations of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights remain a key issue for follow up to the London Declaration of July 2003. The UK and its EU partners have made clear to the Colombian Government the importance of progress on these areas. We await the next Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on Colombia which is due to be published shortly. Its conclusions will assist the UK, the EU and the rest of the international community to focus on priority areas where further progress is needed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to M. Sam. [159983]

  Mr. Mulliin
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my answers of 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1107W, and 6 January 2004, Official Report, columns 240–41W. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to my right hon Friend's letter on 16 December 2003.

  Environmentally Sustainable Procurement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways environmentally sustainable procurement strategies within the Department have driven innovation in the design and supply of products. [159103]
  1702W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has a Sustainable Procurement policy which promotes the purchase of recycled products (such as paper and toner cartridges); sustainably grown timber for construction and office furniture; and fair trade goods (such as coffee, tea and chocolate) for sale in the FCO restaurants and shop. We ensure that FCO contracts include environmental requirements. We are for example currently considering with potential suppliers if our existing computer printers, photocopiers and fax equipment can be replaced with more energy-efficient multifunctional devices. We also buy "green electricity" which supports the development of renewable energy sources.

  European Union
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on reform of the EU's institutions to make enlargement work. [160254]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have regular discussions with our European Colleagues on developments in the European Union, including on institutional issues. The Irish Presidency will report back to the European Council on 25–26 March 2004 on its assessment of the prospects for progress in the Intergovernmental Conference, on the basis of its consultations with member states.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being considered in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference to reform the working of the EU to make it more(a) effective and (b) accountable. [160265]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to Cm5934, the Government's White Paper on their approach to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). Chapter IV ("The Convention Outcome and Detailed Issues of the IGC", especially paragraph 42) sets out details of a number of measures under consideration in the IGC designed to make the EU more effective and accountable. Copies of the paper are available in the Library of the House.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the sustainability of the economy of the Falkland Islands. [159873]

  Mr. Rammell
  Through careful management of its fishery industry, the Falkland Island Government generates over £20 million per annum in licence fees. Other sectors such as agricultural production also remain important. The Falklands economy has grown rapidly since 1982 and the Falkland Island Government continues to work to ensure that it remains diverse and sustainable for the future. This includes the continued development of sectors such as tourism and mineral resources. With the exception of defence costs, the Falkland Islands receive no grant in aid from Her Majesty's Government.
  1703W

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money his Department has spent on the tercentenary celebrations in Gibraltar. [160694]

  Mr. MacShane
  At this early stage in Gibraltar's tercentenary year, Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on tercentenary events has been limited to the cost of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff time devoted to the issue.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he has agreed with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will play in the tercentenary celebrations. [160695]

  Mr. MacShane
  This is a matter for the Gibraltar Government.

  International Criminal Court
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the International Criminal Court. [159936]

  Mr. Rammell
  The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute, which entered into force on 1 July 2002. Work began shortly afterwards to prepare for the appointment of officials to the court's three main organs; the chambers (comprising 18 judges), the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.

  The judges were subsequently elected in February 2003, the Prosecutor (Luis Moreno Ocampo, Argentina) was elected in April 2003 and the Registrar (Bruno Cathala, France) was elected in June 2003. The court opened for business with the swearing in of the prosecutor on 16 June 2003 followed by the swearing in of a Deputy Prosecutor (Serge Brammertz, Belgium) on 3 November 2003.

  The prosecutor has yet to start his first formal investigation. He has been conducting preliminary examinations into the situations in Ituri (Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo) and northern Uganda. In December 2003. the Ugandan Government referred the situation in northern Uganda to the ICC. The prosecutor then announced in January 2004 that he would consider that situation further in order to determine whether to proceed with a formal investigation.

  The UK is fully committed to supporting the ICC and is engaged in dialogue with the court at official level to consider ways of providing effective practical support.

  Iran
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Iranian Government regarding the closure of the Yas-e-no and Sharq newspapers. [160080]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have not discussed the closure of these two newspapers in particular. But we have on many occasions made clear our concern at restrictions on free expression in Iran. The Iranian Government's1704W
  failure over recent months to agree dates in early March for the regular meeting of the EU/Iran human rights dialogue has deprived the EU of a channel through which concerns on matters such as this would normally be raised. We regret that Yas-e no remains closed; Sharq reopened on 28 February.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom regards Israel as being in the possession of a deployable nuclear arsenal. [159975]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have regularly made clear that Israel should resolve international speculation about its nuclear programme by acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state and by signing a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, thus opening up its facilities to international inspection.

  Kenny Richey
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Administration about the case of Kenny Richey. [160165]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are in touch with Mr. Richey's lawyers both in the USA and the UK, as well as with Ohio State officials. We continue to monitor his case closely to determine what representations might be made on his behalf, and the appropriate time to make them, and will do all we properly can to try to prevent Mr. Richey's execution.

  Maldives
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrests of members of the Maldivian Democratic Party on 13 February by the Maldivian authorities; and on the extent to which human rights are protected in the Maldives. [159859]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware that the Maldivian authorities arrested An unconfirmed number of people in the capital Male on 13 February in advance of a demonstration planned for 14 February by those sympathetic to the Maldivian Democratic Party. We look to the Government of the Maldives to charge those arrested promptly, in accordance with local law, or to release them. We have concerns about the protection of human rights in the Maldives, including the right of freedom of expression. We will continue to raise these concerns with the Government of the Maldives.

  Middle East
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Palestinian Authority's policy towards security arid terrorism. [159669]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Palestinian Authority can do more to control Palestinian terrorist groups and improve security for both Israelis and Palestinians. We are in close touch with them about how to achieve this.
  1705W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made regarding the Al-Aqsa Brigade and Fatah and responsibility for terrorist attacks. [159945]

  Mr. Ramnnell
  We have no reason to doubt the Al-Aqsa Brigades' claims of responsibility for a number of terror attacks. While they proclaim their loyalty to Fatah, we do not judge that these attacks are sanctioned or approved by the Fatah leadership.

  Morocco
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Morocco concerning Ali Salem Tamek. [160187]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials and Ministers regularly call upon the parties to the Western Sahara dispute to take action on human rights issues.

  We have in the past brought our concerns about the case of Ali Salem Tamek to the attention of the Moroccan authorities. Ali Salem Tamek was released from custody in January 2004. We continue to monitor the situation closely, and will take action with the appropriate authorities where necessary.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) security situation in Western Sahara and (b) impact of Moroccan migration into the territory. [160188]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN-monitored ceasefire in Western Sahara has held for over a decade and the security situation remains stable.

  Demographic changes in Western Sahara have been a factor in all the proposals on the future of the territory. We continue to urge all parties to engage flexibly with the UN Secretary-General and his personal representative, James Baker III.

  Nuclear Materials
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding the United Kingdom has provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear materials tracking programme in each year since 2001. [159947]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has contributed a total of £750,000 to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Security Fund. This has been contributed at a flat rate of £250,000 per annum in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

  Polisario Front
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary, of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent release of Moroccan prisoners of war by the Polisario Front; and if he will make a statement on the Sahrawis that have yet to be accounted for. [160186]

  Mr. Rammell
  We welcome the recent release of 100 Moroccan prisoners of war by the Polisario front and urge the Polisario to release the 513 remaining prisoners in their custody without delay.
  1706W
  We have encouraged all parties to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross to account for those missing in the conflict.

  Russia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal consultation has been undertaken by his Department on the Sakhalin II phase 2 oil and gas project. [158272]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), under the supervision of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment leads on the formal aspects of the consultation process, including on environmental issues. However, due to the role that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fulfils in supporting export promotion, we have also been closely involved in discussion of this project with the ECGD, DEFRA, UK Trade and Investment and the DTI, as well as Shell.

  Tibet
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to the UK. [160261]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intends to meet the Dalai Lama during the latter's visit to the UK.

  United Nations
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 2 of the General Assembly resolution 58/48; and if he will make a statement. [159418]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have not so far written to inform the UN Secretary-General of the extensive measures which the UK has put in place to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and related technologies. The Government have, however, included much relevant information in their reports to the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, available on the UN website at www.un.org.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on reform of the UN. [160269]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement on UN reform on 11 September 2003,Official Report, columns 139–47WH, and the "United Kingdom in the United Nations" Command Paper (Cmnd 5898) published in September 2003, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are firmly committed to reform of the United Nations. As an active UN member, the UK conducts regular exchanges with the UN and other member states on reform. We are working to create a more efficient United Nations better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world and deliver the objectives established in the Millennium Declaration.

  1707W
  We support the work of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel which is looking into threats to peace and security and the UN response to them.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications

  Slovakia

  Turkey

  Croatia

  Received

  Resolved

  Received

  Resolved

  Received

  Resolved

  1997

  401

  369

  65,056

  60,528

  841

  851

  1998

  6,082

  5,548

  67,868

  64,865

  342

  336

  1999

  22,838

  19,700

  63,565

  46,596

  2,435

  2,354

  2000

  22,270

  21,436

  68,638

  64,516

  13,490

  13,489

  2001–02

  20,051

  18,226

  54,086

  50,524

  13,988

  13,892

  2002–03

  22,419

  21,742

  63,493

  62,326

  15,304

  15,317

  Since 2001, statistics have been collated by financial year (1 April to 31 March) rather than calendar year.

  The numbers of applications received and resolved do not always tally. Applications that are recorded as being received in one accounting period may be carried forward for resolution in the next. It is therefore possible to resolve more applications during a period than were received for the same period. Figures show that fewer applications tend to be resolved than received. The method of recording the statistics accounts for this: a mother and three children on one passport may count as four applications received, but only one entry clearance resolved. Also, some applications will be counted as received that are subsequently withdrawn and therefore not counted as resolved.

  Visa regimes were imposed on Slovakia on 8 October 1998, on Turkey on 23 June 1989 and on Croatia on 19 November 1999. The visa regime on Slovakia was lifted on 18 December 2003.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action can be taken against UK national companies involved in business with Zimbabwean companies classed as SDNs under United States Executive Order 13288; if he will make a statement on the extension of EU sanctions to include such measures; and when he expects EU sanctions to match those of the US. [159889]

  Mr. Straw
  On 21 February 2004 the EU's restrictive measures were renewed and extended to a larger number of Zimbabwean individuals who are responsible for policies that lead to the suppression of human rights, of the freedom of expression and of good governance. One of the measures is an assets freeze against a new list of 95 individuals. The US has similar measures against only 77 individuals. It would therefore be a backward step for the EU's measures to "match" those of the US in this regard.

  On 3 March, the US announced that it was also freezing the assets of seven companies, controlled by three of Mugabe's closest confidantes—Information Minister Moyo, Speaker Mnangagwa and ex-Army Chief Zvinavashe. The UK and EU have already frozen
  1708W
  to British consulates in (a) Slovakia, (b) Turkey and (c) Croatia were (i ) received and (ii) processed in each year since 1990. [159742]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table shows figures for the number of entry clearance applications received and resolved in Slovakia, Turkey and Croatia since 1997, Figures for the years before 1997 are not readily available.

  the identifiable assets of those individuals. The EU measures target individuals, not companies. The UK and other member states have taken the view that targeting companies risks harming ordinary Zimbabweans who are already suffering under the present regime.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Adjudication Panel
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases have been referred to the Adjudication Panel by the Standards Board for England in each month since its establishment; how many have been determined; how many have yet to be determined; how many of the cases relate wholly to a failure of a member of a parish council to complete the council's Register of Member Interests; if he will list the complaints made in the remaining cases; and what the decision of the Adjudication Panel w as in the determined cases. [160044]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A total of 195 cases have been referred to the Adjudication Panel for England between October 2002 and February this year. Of those 173 have been determined. The remaining 22 cases have yet to be determined. The following table shows the breakdown by month:

  Number of cases

  2002

  October

  1

  November

  19

  December

  25

  Total

  45

  2003

  January

  15

  February

  38

  March

  13

  April

  9

  May

  26

  June

  10

  July

  4

  August

  2

  September

  11

  October

  7

  1709W

  Number of cases

  November

  0

  December

  7

  Total

  142

  2004

  January

  0

  February

  8

  Total

  8

  128 cases related to breaches of the requirement to complete the Register of Interests by Parish Councillors. The following table shows the type of complaint made in the remaining cases and the outcome (in some cases more than one type of complaint is raised).

  Nature of complaint

  Number

  Failure to promote equality—unlawful discrimination

  3

  Failure to treat others with respect

  21

  Compromise impartiality of authority employees

  7

  Disclosure of confidential information

  6

  Bringing office or authority into disrepute

  37

  Using position to confer or secure advantage or disadvantage

  14

  Failure to use resources in accordance with requirements

  7

  Failure to report another member

  1

  Failure to disclose a personal interest

  19

  Prejudicial interest—failure to withdraw

  23

  Total

  138

  In the 173 cases heard to date, the Adjudication Panel found that there had been no breach of the code in six cases, and declined to impose sanctions in a further six. In the other cases Members were disqualified, or suspended as tabled:

  Period of disqualification or suspension

  Number of members

  Member disqualified up to 1 month

  2

  Member disqualified for 1 to 6 months

  4

  Member disqualified for 1 year

  100

  Member disqualified for 18 months

  4

  Member disqualified for 2 years

  13

  Member disqualified for 3 years

  10

  Member disqualified for 5 years

  3

  Member suspended up to 1 month

  12

  Member suspended 1 to 6 months

  10

  Member suspended for 1 year

  3

  Community Plan Areas
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend further community plan areas. [159960]

  Keith Hill
  The London-Stansted-Cambridge Growth Area was extended to include Peterborough on 2 February 2004. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to extend further any of the Sustainable Communities Plan Growth areas.

  On 2 February, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government would be working with the Regional Development Agencies, and other public and private sector partners, on a new long-term growth strategy for the north. This new vision for the north, 'The Northern Way', seeks to develop a real ambition in the north about the long term potential for growth by fully exploring the opportunities for
  1710W
  growth along the economic and transport corridors that connect the three northern regions. The focus is therefore different from the existing housing growth areas or market renewal pathfinders.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the funding each local authority in London(a) has received and (b) will receive from the Homelessness Directorate in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05 to support their local homelessness strategies; and how that funding has been or is to be used in each case. [158549]

  Yvette Cooper
  The allocations to London boroughs over the three years 2002–03 to 2004–05 are tabled as follows.

  Homelessness grants from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are intended to supplement main sources of expenditure on homelessness (for example, local authority general fund expenditure and housing investment) to fund innovative services that tackle and prevent homelessness more effectively. The approaches underpinning this funding were set out in our March 2002 report, "More than a roof".

  Allocations were boosted in 2002–03 and 2003–04 in acknowledgement of the need to pump-prime a number of new schemes to help deliver the Government's target to end the use of bed and breakfast hotels for homeless families with children, except in short-term emergencies, while improvements to Housing Benefit subsidy for other forms of temporary accommodation were put in place.

  All housing authorities are offered a set allocation based on historic levels of homelessness in the borough. An additional grant may also be awarded based on performance in tackling homelessness and an assessment by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government Offices in the Regions of bids submitted by authorities for funds to help them:
  eradicate the use of bed and breakfast hotels as accommodation for homeless families with children, except in short-term emergencies;
  sustain reductions in the number of people sleeping rough to a level as near to zero as possible and at least two-thirds below the level in 1998; and
  tackle and prevent homelessness more effectively.

  Over the three-year period there has been a reduction in direct commissioning by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of services to tackle rough sleeping. Resources have been transferred to local authorities to commission services themselves as part of the development and implementation of local homelessness strategies. This is most apparent in the increasing allocation to Westminster.

  Authorities have considerable discretion over how they use the grant, provided that they deliver the required outcomes. While particular schemes are set out in individual financial agreements and monitoring returns for each authority, we do not maintain a detailed, central schedule of all the services funded in each year. Typical of the range of schemes that may be funded are: mediation; rent deposit/bond schemes; private sector and RSL lettings; advice services; services

  1711W
  for particularly vulnerable groups; tenancy sustainment and outreach services. Services provided in each local authority area, including those receiving Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funding, are likely to feature in most authorities' homelessness strategies if they existed or were planned when the strategies were being written.

  An independent evaluation of the homelessness strategies developed during 2003 in response to the requirements of the Homelessness Act 2002 has been commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and will provide more detailed information on the approaches taken by authorities. A further project will be commissioned shortly to evaluate homelessness prevention schemes, including those funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's homelessness grants.

  £

  Grant paid 2002–

  Offer amounts 2003–041

  Provisional offer 2004–052

  Barking and Dagenham

  38,000

  68,000

  28.000

  Barnet

  420,000

  435,000

  165,000

  Bexley

  120,000

  130,800

  58,000

  Brent

  1,970,000

  1,423,000

  783,000

  Bromley

  242,000

  183,500

  100,000

  Camden

  1,004,000

  1,884,192

  1,800,000

  City of London

  18,000

  656,000

  500,000

  Croydon

  1,597.000

  1,104,000

  600,000

  Ealing

  1,535,000

  1,224,608

  600,000

  Enfield

  588,000

  509,000

  250,000

  Greenwich

  63,000

  113,000

  100,000

  Hackney

  224,000

  646,000

  640,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,816,000

  1,300,500

  1,500,000

  Haringey

  421,000

  473,500

  200,000

  Harrow

  191,000

  181,000

  178,000

  Havering

  0

  27,000

  27,000

  Hillingdon

  920,000

  780,000

  80,000

  Hounslow

  494,000

  459,000

  180,000

  Islington

  306.000

  326,700

  357,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,252,000

  1,565,511

  905,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  151,000

  121,000

  90,000

  Lambeth

  1,083,000

  1,149,456

  2,000,000

  Lewisham

  79,000

  290,000

  250,000

  Merton

  116,000

  75,000

  80,000

  Newham

  1,803,000

  1,257,000

  250,000

  Redbridge

  458,000

  292,000

  105,000

  Richmond

  116,000

  386,576

  295,000

  Southwark

  518,000

  996,508

  1,100,000

  Sutton

  241,000

  193,000

  150,000

  Tower Hamlets

  1,174,000

  876,050

  800,000

  Waltham Forest

  825,000

  383,000

  200,000

  Wandsworth

  629,000

  546.000

  300,000

  Westminster

  2,902,000

  4,434,374

  7,366,000

  1 We will not know actual spend for 2003–04 until fourth quarter expenditure returns are completed and returned by London authorities.

  2Some 2004–05 offers are still to be agreed with London authorities.

  In addition to the above grants, cross boundary funding provided mainly to voluntary and community sector agencies to tackle and prevent homelessness totalled:

  £

  2002–03

  24,371,000

  2003–04

  18,735,000

  2004–05

  19,063,000

  1 Not all allocations for 2004–05 have been confirmed.

  House Building (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 25W, on development sites, if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached by the Joint Advisory Panel at the meeting on 10 March regarding the review of progress made on Hampshire's house building targets. [159998]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the decision of the Joint Advisory Panel to recognise the uncertainty surrounding future housing provision in Hampshire, and to recommend a number of measures to reduce that uncertainty. The Panel has agreed to prepare a draft action plan, which we would like to agree in a month's time. The measures will need to be implemented by local authorities in Hampshire speedily, in order to obviate the need to release the reserve.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) instructions and (b) guidelines are issued by his Department to local authorities on the writing off of (i) Council Tax and (ii) Housing Benefit debt when the debt recovery costs are greater than the debt itself; and if he will make a statement. [160689]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are under a duty to collect all council tax revenues owing to them. "Council Tax Practice Note 9: Recovery and Enforcement", issued jointly by the former Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in 1993, states that authorities should have provisions in their Standing Orders or Financial Regulations to enable amounts to be written off if they are irrecoverable or not economical to pursue.

  The recovery of housing benefit debt is a matter for the Department for Works and Pensions.

  Local Government Finance (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional grant is to be paid to the Isle of Wight Council in 2004–05 following his decision to add £1 million to the grant for 2003–04. [160646]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2003–04, during the final consultation on our proposed formulae changes, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accepted the Isle of Wight's argument that their New Earnings Survey sample size was too small for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to reliably calculate a separate area cost adjustment (ACA) for the island. As a result the Isle of Wight received the same ACA as Hampshire in the 2003–04 settlement. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister used the same methodology to calculate the ACA for the 2004–05 settlement when the Isle of Wight once again received the same ACA as Hampshire.

  The Local Government Finance Settlement was approved by the House of Commons on 5 February 2004.

  Pre-Budget Report Leaflet
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask 1 he Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the timetable for(a) publication

  1713W
  and (b) circulation to hon. Members by the Government Office for the South East of copies of the pre-Budget report leaflet for the south east; and what the (i) cost and (ii) purpose of the exercise were. [160634]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows.

  (a) This document is distributed after t he pre-Budget statement via Government Offices for the Regions

  (b) The objective of the document is to explain the impact of the pre-Budget report on each region.

  (i) The total cost of the publication and distribution of the document was £286.00 for the south-east.

  (ii) Distribution of the document is in line with Government's commitment to promote dialogue with the regions, to strengthen their input into future policy making.

  Regional Assemblies/Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis he decided that the referendums for elected regional assemblies should be conducted by all-postal ballot. [159824]

  Phil Hope:
  Following a series of pilots in local authority elections and thorough evaluation by the Electoral Commission, it is clear that all-postal ballots can significantly increase the levels of participation in elections. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister considered this evidence carefully, before announcing our intention to hold the referendums by all-postal ballot in response to a question from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 22 October 2003.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to whom Government Offices of the Regions would be accountable if regional assemblies are introduced. [160740]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government Offices for the Regions will remain as part of central Government and will continue to be responsible to Government Ministers.

  Existing RPGs and proposed revisions

  Region

  Draft RPG published

  Existing RPG Public examination into RPG

  Issue of final RPG

  Draft RPG/RSS published

  Revision timetable Public examination into RPG/PSS

  Target for issue of final RPG/RSS

  East of England (Formally RPG6 but to become RPG 14) (Revision will extend coverage to whole of the East region)

  August 1998(issued for consultation by GO)

  February 1999

  November 2000

  September 2004

  June/July 2005

  July 2006

  North East (RPGI)

  December 1999

  June/July 2000

  November 2002

  November 2004

  August 2005

  June 2006

  East Midlands (RPG8)

  November 1999

  July 2000

  January 2002

  Spring 20031

  Autemn 20031

  Autumn 20041

  South East (RPG9) (Revision will exclude areas now included in the East and London)

  December 1998

  May 1999

  March 2001

  Summer 2005

  Late 2005

  Autumn 2006

  South East (Waste Review)

  —

  —

  —

  Early 20041

  Autumn 20041

  Summer 20051

  South West (RPG10)

  August 1999

  March/April 2000

  September 2001

  Autumn 20041

  Early 20061

  Early 20071

  west Midlands(RPG11)

  —

  —

  April 1998

  November 2001

  June 2002

  Early 2004

  Yorkshire and the Humber (RPG 12)

  October 1999

  June/July 2000

  October 2001

  End 2004

  Autumn 2005

  Summer 2006

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  —

  —

  June 20031

  February 20041

  Late 20041

  North West (RPG 13)

  June/July 2000

  February 2001

  March 2003

  March 20041

  November 20041

  Late 20051

  Milton Keynes and South Midlands Study(MKSM), will inform RPG for the East of England, the South East and East Midlands.

  —

  —

  —

  July 2003

  March-April 2004

  February 2005

  1Partial review only

  1714W
  However the Government intend to devolve to elected assemblies some of the functions currently discharged through Government Offices. The assembly would be accountable to its electorate for those devolved functions.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister from which funding source the difference between the 2002–03 Government grant of £780 million for the North West Region, £350 million for the North East Region and £570 million for the Yorkshire and the Humber Region and the EU funding of £254 million for the North West, £88 million for the North East and £185 million for Yorkshire and the Humber was provided. [160742]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The difference between the 2002–03 likely total budgets for elected regional assemblies and the European programme funding is the block grant which assemblies will receive from central Government. The budgets for which a future elected regional assembly would be responsible (in the form of the block grant) are currently allocated to the Government Offices and non-departmental public bodies from central Government Departments.

  Regional Spatial Strategies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the current progress of the regional spatial strategies in each region. [159961]

  Keith Hill
  As the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill now stands as amended in the other place, there will be no regional spatial strategies until elected regional assemblies are established. As the Bill was introduced the intention was that regional planning guidance in each region would become the regional spatial strategy following commencement of Part 1 of the Bill. Current progress on the relevant regional planning guidance is tabled as follows.
  1715W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adoption
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been made available to each local authority for the establishment of adoption support services under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in the last 12 months. [156528]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: Funding for local authority adoption support services (including adoption support services) derived from the following sources in the financial year 2003–04:
  The children's social services Formula Spending Share (Children's FSS) of £3038.350 million, which is intended to fund all local authority children's social services, including adoption services.The Quality Protects (QP) main grant, which included approximately £60 million funding over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–4 to secure sustained improvements in adoption services. This funding will be mainstreamed from 2004–05 into the CSS baseline. An extra £70 million of ring-fenced money for Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Services from 2003–04 to 2005–06. £12 million of this was allocated to local authorities in the year 2003–04.
  A breakdown of the allocations by local authority for the Children's FSS, overall QP main grant and Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Services grant is available in Local Authority Social Services Letter (LASSL) (2003)1, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Adult and Community Learning Programmes (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were enrolled on adult and community learning programmes in Greater London in each year since 1995; and how many are enrolled on adult and community learning programmes now. [158409]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of enrolments in Greater London on (i) adult and community learning and adult education courses run through local education authorities; (ii) LearnDirect; and (iii) adult basic skills, are set out separately as follows.

  The number of enrolments on adult education courses run through local education authorities (LEAs) in England at 1 November each year is published annually in the Statistical First Release, "Adult Education Enrolments in England". The publication includes a breakdown of enrolments by region. The following table shows the number of enrolments on courses offered by LEAs in Greater London at 1 November for each year from 1995 to 2002, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures include enrolments on both courses that do and do not lead to a recognised qualification.

  Adult education enrolments on courses run by local education authorities in Greater London at 1 November: 1995 to 20021

  November

  Enrolments (thousand)

  1995

  222.8

  1996

  226.7

  1997

  209.0

  1998

  218.8

  1999

  179.5

  1716W
  Adult education enrolments on courses run by local education authorities in Greater London at 1 November: 1995 to 20021

  November

  Enrolments (thousand)

  2000

  201.4

  2001

  217.3

  2002

  221.0

  1 Includes enrolments by 16 to 18-year-olds

  Source:

  Local education authorities

  The figures in the following table show the numbers of learners on LearnDirect provision in Greater London in each year since 2000/01, the earliest year for which figures are available. Learners who withdrew from their course are excluded.

  Learners on LearnDireet provision in Greater London — 2000/01 to date

  Academic year

  Learners

  2000/01

  15,000

  2001/02

  50,000

  2002/03

  57,000

  2003/04 (to date)

  30,000

  Source:

  LearnDirect

  The final table shows the number of enrolments on adult basic skills courses in Greater London since the launch of the Skills for Life strategy.

  Enrolments (in thousands) on Adult Basic Skills in Greater London —2000/01 to 2002/031,2

  Academic year

  Enrolments (thousand)

  2000/013

  167

  2001/02

  272

  2002/03

  311

  1 Includes enrolments by, 16 to 18-year-olds.

  2 Figures do not include estimates from the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit and the Department for Work and Pensions.

  3 Part year figure covering April to July 2001.

  Source:

  Learning and Skills Council

  Adult Residential Colleges
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to examine the contribution of residential colleges for adult education to the Government's lifelong learning policies; and if he will make a statement. [159525]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are 32 adult residential colleges based in rural locations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These colleges are mainly owned and run by Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and provide, in the main, short courses. They do not receive funding direct from the DfES or the Learning and Skills Council. ft is for local Learning and Skills Councils, in discussion with LEAs, to consider whether, and if so how, residential colleges can contribute to meeting local needs in lifelong learning in the light of our commitments in 21st Century Skills to safeguard budgets for such learning.
  1717W

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) schools and (b) other education facilities which have been identified as containing asbestos; what proportion of (i)schools and (ii) other education facilities have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos; which(A) schools and(B) other education facilities require (1) remedial work and (2) removal of asbestos; what this work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for 2004 and 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159656]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not hold information on which schools and other education facilities contain asbestos, nor on the proportion that has been surveyed for asbestos. As part of the data collected through the appraisal of Asset Management Plans, the Department has information on maintenance requirements at maintained schools, but asbestos work is not separately identified. By May this year, in accordance with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, schools should have identified and recorded the position of any asbestos. We do not provide funding specifically for the survey, treatment or removal of asbestos. Schools and authorities can use the large amounts of formulaic capital which is now allocated to them for investment in their buildings, including health and safety needs such as asbestos treatment. We would expect these needs to be prioritised highly in the local asset management planning process. The total amount of capital available for investment in school buildings in 2004–05 is £4.5 billion and in 2005–06 it rises to £5.1 billion.

  CAFCASS
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints have been(a) made and (b) upheld against reports produced by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service since the inception of the Service. [152348]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: As at 31 March 2003, CAFCASS had received 916 complaints since its inception in April 2001, representing less than 1 per cent. of the total number of cases handled. Of the complaints, 47 per cent. were not upheld and 31 per cent. were resolved or withdrawn. Five per cent. of complaints were upheld, with 9 per cent. partly upheld and 8 per cent. remaining under investigation as at 31 March 2003.

  Figures for the period April 2003–March 2004 are currently being collected from CAFCASS' regions and will be published in their 2003–04 Annual Report; which is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

  If complainants complete CA FCASS's complaints process and still remain dissatisfied, they are able to raise the matter, through a sponsoring MP, with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, In 2002–03, four complaints were referred to the Ombudsman: in three, no evidence was found to support them. The Ombudsman made enquiries about the fourth
  1718W
  complaint, but decided not to progress it any further. CAFCASS only has figures on complaints received by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in 2002–03.

  Child Care Review Officers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many independent review officers responsible for child care cases are employed in each local authority; and how many vacant posts there are in each local authority. [156525]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  The Children Act 1989 Guidance requires that reviews are chaired by someone at a more senior level than the case social worker to bring a degree of oversight and objectivity to the review and care plan. Regulations also require local authorities to appoint an officer to assist in the co–ordination of all aspects of the review.

  To further strengthen this, provision was made in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for legislation to require local authorities to appoint Independent Reviewing Officers. These officers are to be independent of the management of the child's case and independent of the resources allocated to that case. Regulations commencing this provision will come into force in September 2004 following a consultation exercise last year. A large number of local authorities already employ individuals fulfilling a similar function.

  Children in Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) new born babies, (b)infants aged between one and four years and (c)children aged over five years have been taken into care by social services in each of the last 10 years. [152115]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: The number of (a) new born babies, (b) infants aged between one and four years and (c) children aged over five years who were taken into care by local authorities in each of the last 10 years is shown in the table.

  Children who were taken into care during the years ending 31 March 1993 to 2003, by age group—England

  Numbers

  Age on entering care

  Year

  1.2All Children

  Under 1

  1 to 4

  5 and over

  1993

  29,100

  3,000

  6,000

  20,200

  1994

  31,300

  3,200

  6,500

  21,700

  1995

  32,500

  3,400

  6,300

  22,800

  1996

  32,100

  3,300

  6,200

  22,600

  1997

  29,900

  3,300

  5,800

  20,800

  1998

  29,700

  3,200

  5,700

  20,800

  1999

  28,400

  3,500

  5,500

  19,500

  2000

  28,600

  3,700

  5,200

  19,600

  2001

  25,100

  3,700

  4,600

  16,900

  2002

  24,600

  3,900

  4,500

  16,200

  1 Only the first occasion on which a child entered care in the year has been counted.

  2 Figures for children in care in this table exclude agreed series of short term placements.

  Of the 24,600 children who entered care during the year ending 31 March 2002, 68 per cent. were looked after under voluntary agreements (Section 20 of the

  1719W
  Children Act 1989), 17 per cent. were under a care order, and 15 per cent. were looked after under other legal statuses.

  For both the Under 1 and 1–4 age groups, over half the children who entered care during the year ending 31 March 2002 were under voluntary agreements, 25–30 per cent. were under care orders and just under 20 per cent. were under other legal statuses. The pattern is slightly different for the 5 and over age group, with three quarters of the children entering under voluntary agreements, 11 per cent. under care orders, and 14 per cent. under other legal statuses.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged(a) three to six months and (b) six months to one year entered local authority care in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [158762]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The information requested is shown in the following table.

  31 March 2002, aged 3–6 months and 6 months to 1 year, London

  Number

  Age on entering care

  3–6 months

  6 months–1 year

  Inner London

  40

  55

  Camden

  0

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  —

  5

  Hackney

  10

  10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  0

  Islington

  10

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  5

  Lewisham

  —

  0

  Southwark

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  10

  Westminster

  —

  15

  Outer London

  35

  70

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  5

  Barnet

  0

  0

  Bexley

  —

  0

  Brent

  —

  5

  Bromley

  —

  0

  Croydon

  0

  10

  Ealing

  —

  0

  Enfield

  0

  —

  Haringey

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  —

  Havering

  —

  5

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  5

  5

  Kingston Upon Thames

  0

  0

  Merton

  —

  —

  Newham

  5

  15

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond Upon Thames

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures for children looked after in this table exclude agreed series of short term placement.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers between 1 and 5 are suppressed (—).

  3. The figures are based on a one-third sample of children. A zero in the table means there were no children in the sample.

  1720W

  Children's Departments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received concerning the proposed formation of a children's department within local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [157358]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received 4,604 responses to the Green Paper 'Every Child Matters' and have considered them very carefully. Last week we published 'Every Child Matters: Next Steps', which reports on the outcomes of the consultation and sets out the Government's proposals for taking this work forward.

  Children's Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1186W, on the Children's Fund, if he will list each project funded by the Children's Fund to date. [155076]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested on individual projects funded is not collected centrally; this is held only by partnerships. The latest available data shows that a total of 4,665 Children's Fund services were being delivered across England to 321,033 children, young people and carers.

  A list of the 149 Children's Fund partnerships in England follows. Wave 1 partnerships were approved to begin from July 2001, Wave 2 partnerships from April 2002 and Wave 3 partnerships from April 2003. Under the 2002 Spending Review the programme has £150 million per annum, although we have been able to commit an additional £20 million to all partnerships from our 2004/05 budget.

  Partnership

  Wave 1

  Norfolk county council

  Camden LBA

  Greenwich council

  Hackney Education Department

  Haringey council

  Islington council

  Newham

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Blackburn with Darwen borough council

  Blackpool borough council

  Bolton Met. borough council

  Halton (NCH)

  Knowsley MBC

  Lancashire county council

  Liverpool county council

  Manchester city council

  Oldham MBC

  Rochdale MBC

  Salford city council

  Birmingham city council

  Sandwell MBC

  Leicester city council social services

  Lincolnshire Development

  1721W

  Nottingham City Social Services Depar merit.

  Gateshead MBC

  Hartlepool borough council

  Middlesbrough (NCH)

  Newcastle city council

  Stockton on Tees borough council

  Sunderland City

  Kent (FWA)

  Portsmouth city council

  Bristol

  Cornwall (NCH)

  Bradford City MDC

  Doncaster MBC

  Kingston Upon Hull city council

  Leeds city council social services

  Sheffield city council

  Wave 2

  Luton borough council

  Peterborough

  Suffolk county council

  Barking and Dagenham

  Brent social services

  Hammersmith and Fulham social services

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth borough council

  Westminster city council

  Cheshire county council

  Cumbria Community Foundation

  St. Helens (NCH)

  Sefton council

  Tameside MBC

  Trafford MBC

  Wirral metropolitan borough

  Bournemouth (The Childrens Society)

  Devon county council

  Plymouth

  Torbay (The Children's Society)

  Barnsley MBC

  Calderdale council

  Kirklees (NCC)

  North East Lincolnshire council

  North Lincolnshire council

  North Yorkshire

  Rotherham MBC

  Derby city council

  Derbyshire county council

  Northamptonshire county council

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Darlington borough council

  County Durham

  North Tyneside council

  Northumberland (NCH)

  Redcar and Cleveland borough council

  South Tyneside MBC

  Brighton and Hove city council

  East Sussex county council

  1722W

  Isle of Wight council

  Medway council

  Southampton city council

  Coventry city council

  Solihull MBC

  Stoke-on-Trent (Voluntary Action)

  Telford and Wrekin council

  Walsall MBC

  Wolverhampton city council

  Wave 3

  Barnet

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Bexley

  Bracknell Forest

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Cambridgeshire

  City of London

  Croydon

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Ealing

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Harrow

  Havering

  Herefordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston upon Thames

  Leicestershire

  Merton

  Milton Keynes

  North Somerset

  Oxfordshire

  Poole

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Rutland

  Shropshire

  Slough

  Somerset

  Southend-on-Sea

  South Gloucestershire

  Staffordshire

  Stockport

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Swindon

  Thurrock

  1723W

  Wakefield

  Warrington

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  West Berkshire

  Wigan

  Wilshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wokingham

  Worcestershire

  York

  Computer Access
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes are in place to enable mature students on low incomes to acquire computers. [158150]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: At present no centrally funded programmes are in place that enable mature students on low incomes to acquire free or low price computers. The Government have however, established a network of UK online centres. These centres provide open access to ICT and the internet for people in all communities. All mature students in England should be able to find a UK online centre near to their home.

  Many higher education institutions run local schemes to provide financial support or computer loans to their students on a case-by-case basis.

  There are several programmes that provide general financial support to mature students on a basis of need, such as Access Funds. These are explained in the booklet, "Money to Learn", published by the Department for Education and Skills.

  Departmental Policies (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on the constituency of Regent's Park and Kensington North since 1997. [145418]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The constituency Regent's Park and Kensington, North covers part of both Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea local education authorities. Where the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) can or does collect information by constituency, it has been provided.

  Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, my Department is investigating ways in which we disseminate information about the effects of our policies at a local level. We hope to have systems to facilitate this in place later this year.

  Children, young people and families

  The Government have sought to increase the range, number, quality and effectiveness of services for children, young people and families since 1997. Although data are not collected on a constituency basis, information is available on the impact of programmes delivered in the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster.
  1724W
  Children's Social Services

  Children's social services in the constituency are delivered by both Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, both of which are three star social services authorities (as published in the Annual Review of Performance Reports, issued by the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate).

  Early education

  The Government have guaranteed a free, part time, early education available place to all our four-year-olds since 1998 and an increasing number of three-year-olds, if their parents want it. All three-year-olds will be guaranteed a free place by April 2004.

  Both Kensington and Westminster authorities have confirmed that they will be able to meet their statutory obligation to three-year-olds by April 2004. Currently, we understand that around 50 per cent. of Kensington's three and four-year-olds take up an early education place, while in Westminster the participation rates are: 86 per cent. for four-year-olds and 92 per cent. for three-year-olds.

  Child care

  Since 1999, a total of 1,583 new pre-school and out of school child care places have been created within the constituency benefiting 2,689 children.

  Disadvantaged area programmes

  There are four Sure Start local programmes in the constituency providing a range of early learning, health and family services and with 3,230 children in their catchment areas, and one early excellence centre has been established in the constituency offering early education, childcare, health and family support to local children and families. Neighbourhood nurseries are being built in disadvantaged communities throughout the country following an initiative that began in 2001. There are five proposed flagship children centres in both Kensington and Chelsea LEA and Westminster LEA, some of which would be developed from acclaimed local nursery schools.

  Connexions

  Connexions, the Government's front line support service for all young people aged 13–19, is providing advice, guidance and support to young people in Regent's Park and Kensington. North constituency through Central London Connexions partnership. Since its launch in June 2002, following a 12 month pilot, young people aged 13–19 have had access to support and advice on a range of issues to help them participate and achieve in education, employment and training and to reach their full potential as adults.

  Youth Services

  There are two local authority youth services in Regent's Park and Kensington, North-in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea. There is evidence that the Department's policies have made a positive impact on the standards of youth service provision in both areas, in both of which Ofsted inspections identified weaknesses but which, when re-inspected in October 2003, were found to have made good progress.

  Extended schools

  The Department is supporting the rollout of up to 240 full service extended schools by 2006, so that there will be at least one in each LEA area. Quintin Kynaston School in Westminster LEA and Sion Manning RC
  1725W
  School for Girls in Kensington and Chelsea LEA are being developed as full service extended schools from this year.

  Schools
  Recurrent funding>

  The estimated1 increase in per pupil funding in Westminster in real terms from 1997–98 to 2004–05 is £1,160, compared with the national average of £880.

  School performance tables

  Key stage (KS) figures can be found on the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/perfonnancetables.
  Specialist schools

  There are two specialist schools in Kensington and Chelsea LEA and four specialist schools in Westminster LEA:
  Education Action Zones

  There is an Education Action Zone in Westminster, which includes three secondary schools, 22 nursery and primary schools and two special schools.
  Beacon schools

  Within Regent's Park and North Kensington constituency there are a total of sewn Beacon schools.
  Primary Strategy Leadership

  Six primary schools are part of the Primary Strategy Leadership programme in Kensington and Chelsea. Westminster LEA has not identified particular schools to participate in the programme but is using consultant leaders to give leadership support to all schools across the LEA.
  Leadership Incentive Grant

  There are eight secondary schools in Westminster in receipt of LIG and four schools in Kensington and Chelsea in receipt of LIG.
  Behaviour improvement projects

  In Westminster four secondary schools and 17 primary schools are involved in the BIP. In Kensington and Chelsea there are three secondary schools and 12 primary schools.
  Healthy schools

  There are different levels of involvement within the NHSS, level three being the highest—37.5 per cent. of schools in Kensington and Chelsea and 53 per cent. of schools in Westminster are working at this level and are recognised as healthy schools.
  14–19 Education

  The Government's strategy for 14–19 education and training, set out in "14–19: opportunity and excellence", will provide all young people wit h the opportunity to continue their education in different settings, including schools, colleges, and the workplace.

  The impact of the 14–19 agenda on Regent's Park and Kensington, North includes:
  16–19 area inspection ( 14–19 from March 2003)

  16–19 area inspections were introduced in 1999 as a key means of securing improvements in education and training for young people. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea underwent a 16–19 area inspection in summer 2002. A copy of the Ofsted report can be found on their website www.ofsted.gov.uk.
  1726W
  With London Central LSC in the lead, local partners developed an action plan that was accepted by Stephen Twigg, the Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Schools, on 12 January 2003. London Central LSC is responsible for the successful implementation of the plan, which is on-going.
  Vocational Provision

  London Central LSC currently has four work-based learning providers delivering vocational programmes in the constituency of Regents Park and Kensington, North.

  Learners in the borough have access to all of the remaining 31 work-based learning providers in the London Central portfolio. Within easy travelling distance they can gain entry to over 35 additional occupational areas ranging from accountancy, engineering and sport and recreation to construction, hospitality and retail.

  Educational maintenance allowances

  Neither Kensington and Chelsea nor Westminster is covered by Educational Maintenance Allowances (EMA) pilots although some students attending FE institutions in these LEAs may be in receipt of EMA because most of inner London is covered by pilots.

  Higher education

  Participation

  The number of 18 to 20-year-olds entering full-time higher education courses, are as follows:

  Number

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  1997

  655

  613

  1998

  584

  650

  1999

  614

  647

  2000

  654

  672

  2001

  658

  688

  2002

  655

  717

  Adult education

  The Local Labour Force Survey shows that in Regents Park and Kensington, North:
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 4 has risen from 30.5 per cent. in 1999 to 37.1 per cent. in 2001.
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 2 has risen from 62.6 per cent. in 1999 to 69.8 per cent. in 2001.
  The proportion of working people without any qualification has fallen from 18.2 per cent. in 1999 to 13.6 per cent. in 2001.
  The proportion of working age people who received job related training in the last four weeks rose from 10.4 per cent. in 1999 to 13.1 per cent. in 2001.
  1 Includes provisional estimates of grants and allocations still to be confirmed. Real terms at 2002–03 prices.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research Government departments have conducted within the past five years into the effects of domestic violence on children; and what the main conclusions were. [159802]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is considerable research already available conducted by experts in this field of social policy that highlights the effects of domestic violence on children. The main conclusions are that
  1727W
  children who have been exposed to domestic violence demonstrate more aggression, antisocial behaviour and anger, as well as withdrawal, depression, suicidal behaviour, anxiety, fears, phobias, insomnia and low self-esteem, compared to children who have not suffered these experiences.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are(a) in place and (b) planned to increase the consistency among geographical areas of standards of domestic violence services aimed at children. [159803]

  Margaret Hodge
  Local authorities, in partnership with other agencies, both statutory and voluntary, are expected to assess the needs of children in their areas, in accordance with the duties imposed on them by Part III of the Children Act 1989 and then to determine the range of services that will need to be available in order to respond to those needs. This process, inevitably and properly, leads to diversity in the provision of services at local level.

  Dyslexia Conference
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representation his Department plans to have at the Sixth British Dyslexia Association Conference; and if he will make a statement on programmes available to assist dyslexia sufferers. [159944]

  Margaret Hodge
  A DfES representative has served on the steering group for this event and we hope to send an observer on one of the conference days.

  In addition to assisting with planning, the Department has provided grant support to enable a number of promising students to attend the event and a grant for a new conference publication aimed at classroom practitioners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has also provided a goodwill message for this international event, which will be reproduced in conference literature.

  A number of commercially available programmes support children with specific learning difficulties. It is for parents, individual schools and local education authorities to decide whether a given technique has something to offer an individual child in the light of his or her needs.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has carried out, in addition to the three-year assessments, to assess the impact of education maintenance allowances on participating in the Government-supported training; and if he will make a statement. [155439]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Evaluation findings show that the national EMA scheme is expected to increase participation in education at Year 12 by 3.8 per cent. and at Year 13 by 4.1 per cent. Evidence from the pilot EMA areas shows that little of the increase in participation through EMA is from Government Supported Training. Over half of the increase in participation through EMA is from young people who would otherwise not be in any education, employment or training, and most others are
  1728W
  from work without training. There is some evidence from the pilot areas that suggests an increased flow into Government Supported Training at 18.

  Overall EMA supports a range of learning up to level 3. This includes young people doing quality assured NVQs and vocational courses in FE colleges that often incorporate work placements.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of educational maintenance allowances in improving participation rates in post-16 education. [156634]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the pilots, EMA increased participation by 16-year-olds in education by 5.9 per cent. points. Judged against historic trends, this represents a major increase. Our evaluators predict that in the first year of the national scheme, some 35,000 additional young people will participate in further education, and this will rise to over 70,000 per year when EMA is fully in place.

  Emotional Intelligence Initiatives
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what departmental initiatives there are in relation to emotional intelligence; what difficulties have been reported in implementing such initiatives; and how the success of these initiatives is evaluated; [155290]

  (2)what funding his Department provides to (a) schools and (b) local education authorities to develop (i) emotional intelligence and (ii) literacy initiatives; [155292]

  (3)which (a) schools, (b) academics and (c) university education departments his Department has assessed as the best practitioners in the field of emotional intelligence; and what his Department regards as best practice in this field. [155293]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department is concerned to promote children's social and emotional development and their social, emotional and behavioural skills (SEBS), which themselves contribute to children's emotional intelligence and emotional literacy.

  Promoting positive emotional and social development is a crucial part of educating children. The Department is therefore committed to providing guidance and materials for every stage. Curriculum guidance for the Foundation Stage covers the emotional and social development of very young children and we are developing associated training materials. The Personal, Social and Health Education framework supports the emotional and social development of children at Key Stages 1 to 4. To supplement that, the Department is piloting specific Social, Emotional and Behavioural Skills (SEBS) materials for primary schools in 25 local education authorities (LEAs) and developing similar materials for second. try schools.

  The Department is investing £600,000 in SEBS materials for primary schools over two years. The pilot is in the early stages of implementation but initial feedback from schools is very positive. It will be evaluated by the University of London's Institute of Education. The Foundation and secondary materials are still at the initial development stage.
  1729W
  The development of SEBS materials is informed by existing good practice in a number of LEAs including Southampton, Bristol, Portsmouth. Cumbria, Merton, East Riding of Yorkshire, Brighton and Hove and Nottingham City. The Department is also advised by an expert SEBS practitioners group including academics from the universities of Southampton, Oxford and Middlesex, a range of voluntary bodies including the National Children's Bureau, the NSPCC and Antidote, senior school staff and LEA officer.

  EU Accession Citizens
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate the Government have made of how many EU accession country citizens will make use of the education system in the UK at each level. [157348]

  Alan Johnson
  From 1 May children living within the UK who come from the accession countries will have access to education here. In addition, students who attend Further and Higher Education Institutions will have home fee status as long as they have been resident within an acceding country for three years.

  The Government commissioned work from independent academic experts on likely numbers of migrants arriving which is published and available on the Home Office website. We will monitor the situation post enlargement to ensure that the impact on schools, FE and HE is understood. Government departments are working together to ensure that all the available data are brought together to offer a rounded picture of the impact of accession and as well as feeding into this we will be looking to use the results to inform the picture for education.

  For Higher Education we have been collecting data on the nationality of students, including those from accession countries for some years. We estimate a one-off increase in the number of EU students in the UK of perhaps about 8 per cent. as a result of EU enlargement. Our January HEFCE Grant letter took account of the expansion of the EU due to take place in 2004, and so did the Additional Student Numbers (ASN) exercise that HEFCE are currently running for foundation degrees. We have already forecasted for growth in new EU students and will continue to do so in the next Spending Review. It is important to remember that since we do not give maintenance to students from the EU, coming to study in the UK is not a 'cheap option' for them; they still have to find ways to. support their living costs themselves.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which UK agencies are best able to(a) assist with recognising educational backgrounds and skills of migrant workers and (b) help the UK employment sector to take advantage of the enlargement of the EU. [157363]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government welcome EU enlargement and expect that it will have a positive impact on the UK, allowing us to benefit from a wider skills market to fill key labour and skills gaps and boost productivity.
  1730W
  The UK National Reference Point (NRP) for Vocational Qualifications has been set up by UK Government to explain vocational qualifications (VQs) and particularly how UK VQs relate to ones elsewhere in Europe. The UK National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) advises on the comparability of overseas educational qualifications with those from the UK.

  Jobcentre Plus is able to assist employers in the UK and migrant workers from the new member states to fill vacancies and find appropriate work. Jobcentre Plus, through its EURES adviser network is also able to advise employers and jobseekers about comparability of qualifications through the NARIC Global Qualifications database.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of how enlargement of the EU will affect the skills shortage in the United Kingdom. [157362]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government welcome EU enlargement and expect that it will have a positive impact on the UK, allowing us to benefit from a wider skills market to fill key labour and skills gaps and boost productivity. The UK has the strongest labour market for a generation and this puts us in a good position to absorb any additional migrant flows. Free movement of workers within a larger EU will complement the work we are doing to address the skills gaps that exist currently within our own workforce, which are predominantly in the Business Services and construction sectors.

  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, A8-nationals who want to work in the UK will be required to apply to register as a worker once they have found a job. The benefit of this new light-touch worker registration scheme is that it will expand the range of skills and supply of workers available across the UK and allow us to monitor the types of work that accession country nationals are entering in the UK. Through our labour market data we will also be able to tell the impact on the UK labour market as a whole.

  European School, Culham
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the European Parliament resolution on the future financing of the European Schools (2002–2083 (INI)), with regard to the European School at Culham. [160266]

  Alan Johnson
  The future financing of the European School at Culham is the subject of an independent review as a direct result of the European Commission's intention to withdraw support from smaller European Schools. Decisions on the future of Culham will be taken by the European Schools Governing Body on the basis of this review.

  Further Education
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) applicants and (b) entrants to each university in England were from (i) further education colleges, (ii) sixth-form colleges, (iii) school sixth-forms and (iv) independent schools in(a) 2001 and(b) 2002. [143642]
  1731W
  Alan Johnson
  The information is not held centrally. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) collects data on the previous school type of applicants and acceptances to full-time undergraduate courses but does not release this data at institutional level without the prior permission of the institutions.

  However, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) publishes data annually showing the proportion of entrants to each university and HE college who come from state schools or colleges. This is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", the latest edition of which is available from the House Library.

  Gap Year Students
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of A-level students who took a year off study before beginning a university course in each year since 1990. [152003]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information comes from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers deferred entry for 18-year-old, full-time, accepted applicants to first degree and HND study in the UK. Figures are in the table. Students who defer their application to UCAS because they are taking a gap year are therefore excluded.

  UK domiciled 18-year-old applicants, accepted through UCAS with deferred entry

  Year of application

  Total accepted applicants

  Total accepted on deferred basis

  Percentage deferred

  1994/95

  118,890

  9,120

  7.7

  1995/96

  124,908

  10,495

  8.4

  1996/97

  130,768

  11,879

  9.1

  1997/98

  146,756

  13,345

  9.1

  1998/99

  148,301

  14,261

  9.6

  1999/2000

  146,670

  14,975

  10.2

  Percentage of accepted applicants, aged 18, through UCAS

  Year of Entry

  LEA

  11994

  11995

  11996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  15.3

  14.7

  15.3

  15.2

  16.0

  14.5

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  20.2

  18.8

  17.9

  21.3

  18.2

  18.6

  Humberside

  15.1

  16.5

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Prior to 1997, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire were contained within Humberside LEA along with the City of Kingston upon Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire.

  Isle of Wight College
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the quality of provision by the Isle of Wight college since publication of the statement by the Baroness Blackstone contained in the Department of Education and Skills press notices 1999/0212. [160272]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 March 2004]: The Isle of Wight College recovery plan has been effectively implemented and the college now offers good quality courses across a wide provision to serve the needs of the local community. The college was inspected under the Common Inspection Framework in October 2003 and
  1732W

  UK domiciled 18-year-old applicants, accepted through UCAS with deferred entry

  Year of application

  Total accepted applicants

  Total accepted on deferred basis

  Percentage deferred

  2000/01

  147,986

  16,007

  10.8

  2001/02

  156,790

  18,840

  12.0

  2002/03

  161,032

  19,600

  12.2

  Source:

  UCAS

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students in higher education institutions are not studying for degree courses. [152685]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2002–03, 47 per cent. of all HE enrolments to UK HE institutions were for courses other than first degrees. Figures are given in the table.

  Enrolments to UK HE Institutions, 2002–03

  Level

  Number

  Percentage

  Postgraduate

  414,250

  21

  First Degree

  1,075,070

  53

  Other Undergraduate

  530,860

  26

  All

  2,020,180

  100

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 18-year-olds entered full-time higher education in(a) North East Lincolnshire and (b) North Lincolnshire in each year since 1990. [153598]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) applicants accepted to full time first degree and HND courses. Information prior to 1994 entry is not available at local education authority level. Figures are given in the table.

  the inspectors judged that of the nine areas of learning delivered by the college, three were satisfactory, five were good and one outstanding. Leadership and management of the college was also judged to be good. The college has also recently been recognised as a Centre of Vocational Excellence for hospitality and catering.

  Language Teaching
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many staff teaching English in secondary schools(a) for part of their time and (b) full-time do not have a first degree in English; [159820]
  1733W
  (2) how many staff teaching modern foreign languages in secondary schools (a) full-time and (b) for part of their time do not have a first degree in a foreign language; [159821]

  (3) what the vacancy level for teachers of modern foreign languages is. [159822]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on subject teaching is not available in the form requested. Similar information is available in 'Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England, 2003 Edition'. This can be found in the Library or at the following link: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsqatewav/DBA/OL/v000443/inclex.shtml. The level of qualifications teachers hold in the subjects they teach is shown in Table 24. The percentage of periods they provide in those subjects is shown in Table 25.

  In January 2003, the vacancy rate for all languages in secondary schools in England was 1.1 per cent. Modern foreign languages cannot be separately identified.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the United Kingdom had learning difficulties in each year since 1995. [158325]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) collects information on the long-term health conditions and impairments of working age adults. LFS estimates of those who have a current long-term impairment and whose main condition is a severe or specific learning difficulty are shown in the table below for each autumn since 1998. Comparable estimates are not available prior to 1998.

  People of working age1 with a current long-term health condition or impairment2 whose main condition is a learning difficulty3

  Autumn of each year

  Thousand

  Percentage of working age population

  1998

  128

  0.35

  1999

  150

  0.41

  2000

  153

  0.42

  2001

  149

  0.40

  2002

  187

  0.50

  2003

  159

  0.43

  1Working age is defined as men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2People are defined as disabled if they have a long-standing illness significantly limiting their day-to-day activities and/or they have work-limiting disability.

  3Main health condition is a severe or specific learning difficulty.

  Source:

  UK, Labour Force Survey

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the school population is categorised as having(a) severe and (b) moderate learning difficulties; and what proportion is in special schools in each case.[159389]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department of Education and Skills began collecting data on pupils' type of special educational need from January 2004. It is not possible 1734W
  to provide information on the proportion of the school population with severe or moderate learning difficulties until the data have been collated. We expect it to become available in the summer.

  Information about the provision being made for pupils with statements of special educational need is collected from local authorities each year. In January 2003, 37.5 per cent. of pupils with a statement of special educational need were being educated in maintained, non-maintained or independent special schools.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding his Department provides for projects to train people with learning difficulties. [156021]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is no specific funding for such projects. Rather, training and education for people with learning difficulties is funded from the overall budget (£8.1 billion in 2003—04) which my Department allocates to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in order to carry out its education and training remit for young people and adults. Within this overall budget the LSC will spend £105 million this year on specialist residential college placements and considerably more supporting learners with learning difficulties in mainstream provision.

  The Government have strengthened the rights of people with learning difficulties to appropriate post-16 provision through a combination of legislative change and collaborative work with key organisations representing disabled learners. Under Section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the LSC has a specific responsibility to help young people and adults with learning difficulties. Although the LSC does not develop policies relating to specific groups of learners, its broad remit means that it can fund a wide range of provision to ensure these learners have access to suitable provision which meets their needs and, where appropriate, the additional support they require to undertake it.

  The LSC has established a Forum on Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities to ensure that inclusive learning is at the heart of its policies and processes. Membership includes representatives from Government, external representative bodies and learners with learning difficulties. The LSC also participates in local Learning Disability Partnership Boards, with the Department of Health and other partner agencies, to improve local inter-agency working.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what framework is in place to assess the quality of local education authorities in areas other than those covered by Ofsted. [157069]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Ofsted is responsible, under section 38 of the Education Act 1997, for inspecting the main functions of local education authorities (LEAs) as they relate to schools. Provisions in the Children Bill would widen the scope of section 38 to cover any function of an LEA other than those falling within the remit of the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI).
  1735W
  Local authority social care functions are inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI), whose functions are shortly to transfer to the newly established Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). The Children Bill provides for the integrated inspection of children's services in local authority areas, with all relevant inspectorates working under a framework which will cover all local authority services for children, as well as other non-Council services such as health and probation.

  Numeracy/Literacy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the United Kingdom were classified as(a) innumerate and (b) illiterate in each year since 1995. [158326]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Until last year, information on literacy and numeracy skills had not been collected on a regular basis, so annual data are not available. However, the "Skills for Life Survey: A national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills", which was published by the Department for Education and Skills in October last year, tested the literacy, language and numeracy skills of 8,040 people in England. The findings are shown in the following table. Attainment is split into levels that are broadly mapped to the National Curriculum Key Stages in schools: Entry Levels 1, 2 and 3 correspond to Foundation, Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2, Level 1 corresponds to Key Stage 3, and Level 2 to Key Stage 4. We consider those who are at Entry Level 3 or below to have a severe basic skills need.

  As education is a devolved matter, the Department does not have data covering the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Percentage of 16 to 65-year-olds

  Number of 16 to 65-year-olds (million)

  Overall literacy1

  Entry level 1 or below

  3

  1.1

  Entry level 2

  2

  0.6

  Entry level 3

  11

  3.5

  (All Entry level or below)

  (16)

  (5.2)

  Level 1

  40

  12.6

  Level 2 or above

  44

  14.1

  100

  31.9

  Overall numeracy2

  Entry level 1 or below

  5

  1.7

  Entry level 2

  16

  5.1

  Entry level 3

  25

  8.1

  (All Entry level or below)

  (47)

  (15.0)

  Level 1

  28

  8.8

  Level 2 or above

  25

  8.1

  100

  31.9

  1 Base: all respondents with literacy level (7,874)

  2 Base: all respondents with numeracy level (8,040)

  Source for population figures:

  Census 01

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the United 1736W
  Kingdom had (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills below Level 1, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) race and (iii) socio-economic group in each year since 1995. [158328]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Until last year, there was no large-scale collection of information on literacy and numeracy skills, so annual data are not available. However, the "Skills for Life Survey: A national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills", which was published by the Department for Education and Skills in October last year, tested the literacy, language and numeracy skills of 8,040 people in England.

  Attainment in literacy and numeracy, recorded by gender, social class and ethnic background, is summarised in the tables.

  As education is a devolved matter, the Department does not have access to data for the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Literacy and Numeracy skills below Level 1 by Gender

  Literacy by Gender

  Base: all respondents with literacy level (7874)

  Men aged 16–65 (%)

  Women aged 16–65 (%)

  Below Level 1

  16

  16

  Level 1 and above

  84

  84

  Numeracy by Gender

  Base: all respondents with numeracy level (8040)

  Men aged 16–65 (%)

  Women aged 16–65 (%)

  Below Level 1

  41

  59

  Level 1 and above

  53

  47

  Literacy and Numeracy skills below Level 1 by Social Class

  Literacy by household social class

  Base: All respondents with literacy scores

  Base

  Below Level 1 (%)

  Level 1 and above (%)

  I

  429

  6

  94

  II

  2,656

  8

  92

  IIIa

  1,328

  12

  88

  IIIb

  1,739

  21

  79

  IV

  1,051

  31

  69

  V

  301

  37

  63

  Total

  7,874

  16

  84

  Numeracy by household social class

  Base: All respondents with numeracy scores

  Base

  Below Level 1(%)

  Level 1 and above (%)

  I

  433

  23

  77

  II

  2,664

  33

  67

  IIIa

  1,361

  48

  52

  IIIb

  1,785

  56

  44

  IV

  1,100

  65

  35

  V

  317

  77

  23

  Total

  8,040

  47

  53

  1737W

  Literacy and Numeracy skills below Level 1 by ethnic group

  Literacy level by ethnic group

  Base: All respondents with literacy level

  All (n = 7874)

  White British (n=7015)

  Asian (Indian) (n=123)

  Asian (Pakistani) (n=69)1

  Black (Caribbean) (n=80)1

  Black (African) (n=77)1

  Below Level 1

  16

  14

  37

  47

  40

  38

  Level 1 or above

  84

  86

  63

  53

  60

  62

  1Note small base

  Numeracy level by ethnic group

  Base: All respondents with numeracy level

  All (n=8040)

  White British (n=7160)

  Asian (Indian) (n=130)

  Asian (Pakistani) (n=70)1

  Black (Caribbean) (n=86)1

  Black (African) (n = 78)1

  Below Level 1

  47

  45

  61

  71

  81

  78

  Level 1 or above

  53

  55

  39

  29

  19

  22

  1 Note small base

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what local education authority programmes encourage pupils to remain in education beyond the age of 16; and what steps his Department is taking to support these programmes. [154945]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We work with local education authorities (LEAs), the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Connexions, and schools and colleges to encourage young people to remain in education or training after the age of 16. We are tackling the causes of low participation by providing a more flexible, coherent and better quality 14–19 curriculum; advice and guidance; and financial support.

  We are working with 56 LEAs to pilot the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme. Evidence from the evaluation has led to our decision to extend the scheme across England from September 2004.

  We have put in place a national Connexions service to provide advice, guidance and support to help young people make an effective transition to post-16 learning and to adult life. This is supported by Connexions Direct—an internet and telephone based confidential advice service available 18 hours a day and 365 days a year. The Connexions service has a specific target to reduce the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training by 10 per cent. by November 2004.

  We are investing, jointly with the LSC, £46 million over the period 2002–03 to 2004–05 in a programme of 39 14–19 pathfinders. Pathfinder partnerships, which include LEAs, are testing local delivery of 14–19 education and training in a range of settings, introducing more curriculum flexibility and choice so that students' programmes can be better tailored to their needs and aptitudes.

  We recognise that a key factor in the decision by young people to remain in education after 16 is the quality of their experience at school and the standards they achieve. That is why our strategy for transforming education in secondary schools, particularly the national Key Stage 3 Strategy, supports teachers in
  1738W
  tailoring teaching and learning to meet the needs of pupils and to personalise their learning experience. The results of national curriculum tests at KS3 last year showed standards at their highest ever in each subject and at every level. Standards at KS4 again improved on previous record levels with greatest improvements in schools in the most challenging circumstances. The 'Increased Flexibility for 14–16 Year Olds' programme aims to increase attainment and encourage young people to progress into education or training. Over 90,000 pupils are currently involved and we are providing over £50 million of support in the current year to almost 300 partnerships between schools and colleges.

  We are also working, through the Sure Start initiative, with LEAs and providers to continue to expand child care, early learning and health and family support from which teenage and older parents can benefit.

  And we recognise that educational participation is supported and enhanced by modern, accessible youth work providing personal and social development. In "Resourcing Excellent Youth Services", we set youth services a clear vision of what we expect them to provide for the young people in their area. To help youth services achieve this vision, we gave local authorities a 5.9 per cent. investment increase in the EPS youth and community sub-block; and have also provided grant funding worth around £80 million over the period 2002–06 explicitly to support modernisation.

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the number of pre-schools in England; and if he will make a statement. [156698]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department estimates that there were 10,100 pre-school or playgroups in England in January 2003. Provisional data for January 2004 will be published in May 2004.
  1739W

  Pupils Attainments
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the changes in pupils' attainment in the early years of secondary schools over the past two years. [159819]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Key Stage 3 (KS3) National Tests are the main measure of pupils' attainment in the early years of secondary education. The 2003 tests, recorded the best ever pupil attainment at KS3, with improvements in every subject and at every level. Over the past two years the percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above has increased by four percentage points to currently stand at 69 per cent. in English; increased by five percentage points to reach 71 per cent. in mathematics and increased by two percentage points to stand at 68 per cent. in science. The percentage of pupils achieving Level 6 or above over the same period has increased by three percentage points in English to reach 35 per cent., six percentage points in mathematics to reach 49 per cent., and six percentage points in science to reach 40 per cent..

  These achievements endorse the positive impact on pupils' attainment of the Key Stage 3 National Strategy which we introduced to raise the attainment of all 11 to 14-year-olds. Our priority now is to build on these gains to achieve even higher standards this year by further embedding the strategy, maintaining a focus on tackling under performance, and supporting teachers to personalise teaching and learning to meet the needs of individual pupils.

  Recreational Adult Education
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications of the decision to prioritise some groups of adult learners in recreational adult education. [146316]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There has been no decision to prioritise some groups of learners in recreational adult education. We gave a commitment in the Skills Strategy White Paper to safeguard the availability of lifelong learning courses by agreeing with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) an overall indicative budget for non qualification provision provided through local education authorities (LEAs), family and neighbourhood learning. This we have done. The figure for 2004–05 is £207.4 million compared with £206 million in 2003–04. This follows a period when the Government significantly increased the budget for this type of learning from £145 million in 2000–01, and £183 million in 2002–03. In November 2002, 662,000 adults were on predominantly non vocational and non qualification courses run through LEAs.

  School Absenteeism (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many half-days have been lost owing to unauthorised absence of pupils in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1997 (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a proportion of the total number of half-days. [158454]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  1740W

  Unauthorised absence in maintained Primary and Secondary schools in Greater London 1997/98 to 2002/03

  Academic year 1997/98

  Local education authority

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  976

  1.92

  Camden

  78,679

  1.46

  Greenwich

  172,048

  2.00

  Hackney

  101,078

  1.58

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  65,994

  1.90

  Islington

  105,073

  1.70

  Kensington and Chelsea

  41,502

  1.74

  Lambeth

  88,978

  1.34

  Lewisham

  150,844

  1.83

  Southwark

  169,937

  2.03

  Tower Hamlets

  184,708

  2.19

  Wandsworth

  66,109

  0.99

  Westminster, City of

  91,418

  2.08

  Barking and Dagenham

  105,543

  1.52

  Barnet

  77,882

  0.65

  Bexley

  38,296

  0.42

  Brent

  62,081

  0.75

  Bromley

  54,438

  0.47

  Croydon

  67,594

  0.56

  Ealing

  84,732

  0.86

  Enfield

  111,415

  0.95

  Haringey

  128,095

  1.64

  Harrow

  43,429

  0.55

  Havering

  37,739

  0.40

  Hillingdon

  97,442

  1.05

  Hounslow

  77,565

  0.92

  Kingston upon Thames

  24,577

  0.51

  Merton

  80,513

  1.39

  Newham

  281,582

  2.51

  Redbridge

  58,420

  0.61

  Richmond upon Thames

  26,734

  0.50

  Sutton

  27,419

  0.39

  Waltham Forest

  122,797

  1.42

  Greater London

  2,925,637

  1.16

  Academic year 1998/99

  Local education authority

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  870

  1.62

  Camden

  80,643

  1.47

  Greenwich

  164,721

  1.84

  Hackney

  117,592

  1.87

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  81,121

  1.88

  Islington

  101,917

  1.70

  Kensington and Chelsea

  44,302

  1.72

  Lambeth

  74,782

  1.11

  Lewisham

  146,376

  1.77

  Southwark

  152,771

  1.85

  Tower Hamlets

  144,803

  1.75

  Wandsworth

  55,429

  0.82

  Westminster, City of

  111,262

  2.52

  Barking and Dagenham

  118,473

  1.64

  Barnet

  82,707

  0.70

  Bexley

  41,590

  0.42

  Brent

  67,803

  0.75

  Bromley

  55,152

  0.47

  Croydon

  85,711

  0.69

  Ealing

  78,697

  0.78

  Enfield

  139,097

  1.17

  Haringey

  132,103

  1.66

  Harrow

  38,434

  0.50

  Havering

  35,452

  0.36

  Hillingdon

  111,820

  1.15

  Hounslow

  85,135

  0.99

  Kingston upon Thames

  26,861

  0.55

  Merton

  81,051

  1.35

  Newham

  279,864

  2.34

  1741W

  Academic year 1998/99

  Local education authority

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  Redbridge

  59,335

  0.59

  Richmond upon Thames

  39,226

  0.71

  Sutton

  29,396

  0.41

  Waltham Forest

  105,736

  1.15

  Greater London

  2,970,232

  1.15

  Academic year 1999/2000

  Local education authority

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  1,024

  1.93

  Camden

  73,343

  1.38

  Greenwich

  140,254

  1.59

  Hackney

  106,715

  1.68

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  64,254

  1.58

  Islington

  87,926

  1.51

  Kensington and Chelsea

  23,882

  1.24

  Lambeth

  67,732

  1.06

  Lewisham

  177,815

  2.06

  Southwark

  143,088

  1.70

  Tower Hamlets

  175,273

  1.97

  Wandsworth

  47,933

  0.71

  Westminster, City of

  82,599

  1.96

  Barking and Dagenham

  112,190

  1.53

  Barnet

  92,733

  0.80

  Bexley

  65,638

  0.67

  Brent

  71,191

  0.78

  Bromley

  55,696

  0.46

  Croydon

  66,086

  0.54

  Ealing

  74,619

  0.74

  Enfield

  158,499

  1.36

  Haringey

  158,098

  2.11

  Harrow

  43,560

  0.55

  Havering

  32,183

  0.33

  Hillingdon

  115,132

  1.13

  Hounslow

  80,178

  0.93

  Kingston upon Thames

  29,328

  0.61

  Merton

  59,500

  1.01

  Newham

  251,543

  2.14

  Redbridge

  70,426

  0.71

  Richmond upon Thames

  51,160

  0.93

  Sutton

  28,208

  0.38

  Waltham Forest

  89,053

  0.99

  Greater London

  2,898,859

  1.12

  Notes:
  Figures relate to maintained primary and secondary schools but exclude maintained special schools and CTCs.
  Figures cover pupils that were absent between September and May for each year

  Unauthorised absence in maintained Primary and Secondary schools in Greater London 1997/98 to 2002/03

  Academic year 2000/01

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  470

  0.85

  Camden

  77,860

  1.48

  Greenwich

  151,560

  1.74

  Hackney

  137,829

  2.10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  59,493

  1.40

  Islington

  81,544

  1.40

  Kensington and Chelsea

  40,208

  1.56

  Lambeth

  78,000

  1.19

  Lewisham

  201,480

  2.44

  Southwark

  147,966

  1.72

  1742W

  Unauthorised absence in maintained Primary and Secondary schools in Greater London 1997/98 to 2002/03

  Academic year 2000/01

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  Tower Hamlets

  176,825

  1.97

  Wandsworth

  41,310

  0.62

  Westminster, City of

  70,169

  1.59

  Barking and Dagenham

  119,229

  1.61

  Barnet

  107,497

  0.90

  Bexley

  67,686

  0.67

  Brent

  62,876

  0.69

  Bromley

  82,593

  0.69

  Croydon

  83,410

  0.65

  Ealing

  58,368

  0.58

  Enfield

  176,126

  1.45

  Haringey

  137,481

  1.78

  Harrow

  38,516

  0.49

  Havering

  39,524

  0.40

  Hillingdon

  91,964

  0.93

  Hounslow

  91,588

  1.08

  Kingston upon Thames

  22,032

  0.44

  Merton

  49,034

  0.87

  Newham

  233,181

  1.93

  Redbridge

  75,684

  0.73

  Richmond upon Thames

  66,817

  1.22

  Sutton

  29,372

  0.40

  Waltham Forest

  115,934

  1.25

  Greater London

  3,013,626

  1.15

  Academic year 2001/02

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  169

  0.32

  Camden

  65,294

  1.25

  Greenwich

  165,470

  1.86

  Hackney

  118,493

  1.81

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  46,981

  1.13

  Islington

  81,441

  1.37

  Kensington and Chelsea

  31,389

  1.26

  Lambeth

  69,059

  1.05

  Lewisham

  152,961

  1.84

  Southwark

  156,481

  1.76

  Tower Hamlets

  163,020

  1.83

  Wandsworth

  57,917

  0.86

  Westminster, City of

  54,865

  1.22

  Barking and Dagenham

  127,790

  1.73

  Barnet

  91,524

  0.78

  Bexley

  76,907

  0.75

  Brent

  53,091

  0.58

  Bromley

  86,441

  0.72

  Croydon

  78,092

  0.61

  Ealing

  55,691

  0.55

  Enfield

  175,576

  1.47

  Haringey

  156,948

  1.93

  Harrow

  34,500

  0.45

  Havering

  38,596

  0.39

  Hillingdon

  104,817

  1.04

  Hounslow

  88,872

  1.04

  Kingston upon Thames

  19,697

  0.39

  Merton

  38,326

  0.69

  Newham

  213,733

  1.78

  Redbridge

  78,596

  0.74

  Richmond upon Thames

  64,402

  1.23

  Sutton

  49,739

  0.65

  Waltham Forest

  92,502

  1.03

  Greater London

  2,889,380

  1.10

  1743W

  Academic year 2002/03

  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence

  % half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  London, City of

  0

  0.00

  Camden

  55,645

  1.14

  Greenwich

  166,073

  1.85

  Hackney

  105,774

  1.62

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  48,180

  1.19

  Islington

  80,662

  1.36

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24,846

  0.97

  Lambeth

  62,317

  0.92

  Lewisham

  136,429

  1.57

  Southwark

  157,226

  1.75

  Tower Hamlets

  138,820

  1.56

  Wandsworth

  52,766

  0.78

  Westminster, City of

  48,561

  1.08

  Barking and Dagenham

  119,169

  1.60

  Barnet

  87,718

  0.74

  Bexley

  54,322

  0.54

  Brent

  56,144

  0.60

  Bromley

  87,561

  0.73

  Croydon

  110,841

  0.87

  Ealing

  48,907

  0.49

  Enfield

  173,070

  1.44

  Haringey

  143,333

  1.75

  Harrow

  25,072

  0.32

  Havering

  37,431

  0.39

  Hillingdon

  111,853

  1.10

  Hounslow

  95,439

  1.11

  Kingston upon Thames

  17,616

  0.35

  Merton

  41,819

  0.77

  Newham

  150.900

  1.29

  Redbridge

  76,663

  0.73

  Richmond upon Thames

  56,648

  1.09

  Sutton

  35,024

  0.46

  Waltham Forest

  81,085

  0.90

  Greater London

  2,687,914

  1.03

  Notes:
  City of London reported no unauthorised absences in 2002/03.
  Figures relate to maintained primary and secondary schools but exclude maintained special schools and CTCs.
  Figures cover pupils that were absent between September and May for each year

  Schools (Accidents)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent in legal costs by(a) schools and (b) local education authorities in relation to (i) school trip accidents and (ii) accidents within schools in 2003. [160070]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department does not collect this information from local education authorities or schools.

  Sector Skills Development Agency/University for Industry
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the(a) Sector Skills Development Agency and (b) the University for Industry is registered to (i) the ISO 9000:2000 standard requirement and (ii) Investors In People standards. [159748]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Sector Skills Development Agency is not registered to the ISO 9000:2000 standard requirement As a relatively new organisation the Sector Skills Development agency is working towards and is totally committed to achieving Investors in People recognition during the operating year 2004–05.
  1744W
  The University for Industry is not registered to the ISO 9000:2000 standard requirement but is currently considering its value and expect shortly to make a decision about its adoption. The University for Industry was recognised as an Investor in People on 29 October 2003.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the change in the rate of incidence of emotional and behavioural difficulties as a special educational need among primary school children over the last 10 years. [157176]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the past no figures have been collected for special educational need by type of difficulty. However, from January this year we have started to collect information about type of need for pupils with statements of SEN and for those at School Action Plus as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). One of the categories used is 'Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulty' (BESD).

  From this summer, information will be available on the number of children in primary schools with BESD. These figures will act as the baseline against which we will be able to compare future trends.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are in place to assess progress made in improving the attainment of children with a statement of special educational needs. [157823]

  Margaret Hodge
  Each child with a statement of special educational needs (SEN) is expected to have short-term educational and development targets set for them during the course of the year. In addition to routine monitoring of the child's progress by their teacher, these targets form part of their individual education plan which should be reviewed by the school at least twice a year and fully considered by the Local Education Authority at the annual review of the child's statement before new targets are set.

  "Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Government's Strategy for SEN", launched on 11 February, will strengthen the focus on pupil progress and achievement. Key measures include:
  trialling and guidance on how schools can make effective use of routine tests, tasks and other forms of assessment to inform target-setting and reporting on pupil progress;
  helping schools to make effective use of information contained within the Pupil Achievement Tracker and Ofsted Performance and Assessment Reports so that they can compare their performance for different groups of pupils, including those with SEN, with other schools;
  extending the Pupil Level Annual School Census to include pupil details by type of SEN, allowing comparison with others and better identification of pupils who may need targeted support;
  promoting the use of P-Scales by all schools with pupils working at the very lowest level of the National Curriculum, by providing guidance on moderation to support consistent assessment and collecting P Scale results as part of the national data collection exercise from 2005;
  looking further at how the achievements of all children, including those working below the level of the national tests can best be reflected in national performance tables.

  1745W
  The SEN Strategy includes a number of measures which underpin this work including: equipping teachers and other professionals with the skills and confidence they need to enable children with SEN to reach their potential; encouraging children and young people to be actively involved in decisions about their learning; and promoting and supporting the commitment of inclusive schools.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the future role of moderate learning difficulty special schools will be; and if he will make a statement. [159383]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's special educational needs strategy Removing Barriers to Achievement makes it clear that we believe that special schools have an important role to play within the overall spectrum of provision for children with special educational needs—educating some children directly and sharing their expertise with mainstream schools to support greater inclusion.

  There will always be changes to local provision to reflect local needs and circumstances. This is a matter for local decision. Local education authorities are required to review their provision and future needs for children with special educational needs when drafting their School Organisation Plan.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils at special schools was successfully reintegrated within the mainstream school system in 2003. [160071]

  Margaret Hodge
  In January 2003, local authorities reported that 1020 pupils had transferred from special schools to mainstream schools. That is 1.1 per cent. of the special school population. In addition, about 2000 pupils are dual registered and spend part of their time in a mainstream school. Others are on the roll of a special school but have regular mainstream experience.

  The Government's SEN Strategy, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", encourages greater collaboration between special and mainstream schools in order to promote inclusion. This will include greater movement between special schools and mainstream schools by both pupils and staff. We will also encourage more special schools to participate in federation, cluster and twinning arrangements and, through the Building Schools for the Future programme, hope to bring more schools closer physically, including through co-location.

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost to public funds was of students dropping out of higher and further education courses in the latest year for which figures are available. [156309]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) teaching funding method provides funding for students who complete their course of study. Students who do not complete their course are not fundable. Figures for the public costs of student support for higher education students who do not complete their courses are not available.
  1746W
  Further education funding for institutions is based on learners' attendance on termly census dates. If students finish their studies before the planned end of their course no further funding is provided. Thus if a student attends for one term of a one year course, the college gets 30 per cent. of the funding for the whole course. The Learning and Skills Council estimates that around £319 million is spent on teaching students who attend only part of their course. This does not include any Learner Support Funds received by these learners as this information is not available centrally.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the percentage drop-out rate for students from higher education institutions whose home residence is in the(a) 100 poorest wards in England and Wales and (b) 100 richest wards in England and Wales was in the last academic year. [156311]

  Alan Johnson
  Non-completion rates are not calculated at ward level.

  The figures produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in the publication 'Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK' give non-completion rates for UK domiciles as a whole at each UK HE institution. A copy of the publication is held in the House Library.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport website will carry information on how the Higher Education Bill will change student finance arrangements. [160068]

  Alan Johnson
  The DIES Student Support website will contain information on any changes to the Higher Education funding regime only after the passage of the Bill and when the detail of the future arrangements have been decided. Until then, information on the possible impact of the Higher Education Bill on student finance arrangements is available on the Department's www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway website which is dedicated to keeping the public informed on developments around Higher Education reform. A link between the two sites ensures that people can access both information on the current funding regime and proposals for the future.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates have begun to repay income contingent loans in each of the past three financial years. [159850]

  Alan Johnson
  Repayments of income-contingent loans are collected through the tax system, apart from a few exceptions. Repayments are notified to the Student Loans Company (SLC) after the end of the tax year, after which time has to be allowed for reconciliation with SLC records. Therefore complete data on the number of borrowers with income-contingent loans where repayments have begun to have been made are not yet available.

  Borrowers enter repayment status, i.e. are due to make repayments on their loans, in the April after graduating or otherwise leaving their course. No repayments are

  1747W
  deducted from income-contingent borrowers whose income falls below £10,000 per year. Borrowers with income contingent loans can also make voluntary repayments, either in the form of pre-payments before they enter repayment status, or ad-hoc repayments to accelerate their repayments after entering repayment status. These repayments are made directly by the borrower to the SLC. The table shows the number of UK income-contingent loan borrowers who have entered repayment status by tax year. It also shows the number who have made voluntary repayments by tax year, and of those the number who have entered repayment status in that year.

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Entered repayment status

  36,000

  66,000

  202,000

  Borrowers who made voluntary repayments

  5,000

  12,000

  24,000

  of which, borrowers in the first year of entering repayment status

  1,000

  1,000

  8,000

  Source:
  Student Loans Company

  Students (South Derbyshire)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many students there were in the most recent academic year for which statistics are available whose home prior to commencing their higher education course was in the South Derbyshire constituency; [157399]

  (2) what proportion of students leaving school or college at 18 whose home was in the South Derbyshire constituency commenced a higher education course in the most recent academic year for which statistics are available. [157400]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures at constituency level are not held centrally.

  The available information covers students accepted for entry to full time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) by local education authority (LEA). The figures show that in autumn 2002, 3,508 students of all ages from South Derbyshire LEA obtained a place in HE. In the same year, 22.5 per cent. of all 18-year-olds from South Derbyshire LEA obtained a place.
  1748W

  Unruly Behaviour
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps he is taking to address the problem of unruly behaviour by pupils in(a) primary schools and (b) high schools; [156492]

  (2) what plans he has to change guidance to teachers with respect to restraining unruly and violent pupils. [156496]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are investing nearly £470 million over this and the next two years in measures to improve behaviour and attendance in schools. These include training for school staff in managing pupil behaviour and reducing and preventing violence. We have also made it clear that head teachers can permanently exclude pupils responsible for violence, and that we would support such action. In January 2003 new Regulations governing exclusions came into force and the DfES issued new Guidance on Exclusion from Schools and Pupil Referral Units, which introduced several changes. Independent Appeal Panels are not able to reinstate a pupil solely on the basis of technical defects in prior procedure. They are also now required to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all the other members of the school community.

  New legislation in t he Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will enable local education authorities and schools to enter into parenting contracts with parents whose children are excluded from school, helping parents who are willing to engage to improve their children's behaviour. Where children are excluded for serious misbehaviour and parents are unwilling to engage, local education authorities may apply for court-imposed Parenting Orders, compelling the parents to attend parenting classes. We have issued "A legal toolkit for schools", which identifies legal remedies available when school staff experience problems with violent parents. Some of these are also available when dealing with violent pupils.

  It is not possible to provide details of separate primary and secondary funding as a major element. The Behaviour Improvement Programme, funds partnerships of schools that include primary and secondary schools, and funding decisions are made locally.

  We have no plans to change current guidance on restraining unruly or violent pupils. Our current guidance is contained in Section 550A, Circular 10/98, which came into force on 1 September 1998.

  We also have guidance in this area for special schools. These are contained in LEA/0264/2003 September 2003 (guidance for LEAs and special schools on drawing up physical intervention policies and risk assessment).

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  I am pleased to announce that for 2004–05 light dues rates will be reduced from 40p to 39p per ton and that the tonnage cap will be reduced from 40,000 tons to 35,000 tons.

  The Government remain committed to a cost recovery system yet rates have been reduced significantly in the last 11 years. They were last reduced in 2002. Much of the credit for being able to sustain these charges must go to the General Lighthouse Authorities—Trinity House Lighthouse Service, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights—that continue to maintain high standards while keeping costs down.

  The final report of the Economic Study of the Impact of Light Dues is nearing completion. The consultants, MDS Transmodal and DTZ Pieda have undertaken a wide-ranging review of statistical and economic evidence and interviewed a number of interests. The completion of the report has been put back to take account of suggestions and information received from industry representatives. We expect the report to be published in the next few weeks. An announcement concerning the Government's reaction to the report and proposed next steps will be made after we have fully considered the report and heard the views of stakeholders.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Fees
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  On 11 November 2003,Official Report, column 11 WS, the Government announced that, from 1 April 2004, the fee for a colour television licence would rise to £121 and the black and white licence fee to £40.50.1 will today lay before the House the regulations necessary to bring these new fees into force.

  The new regulations also:
  Incorporate the 50 per cent. licence fee concession for blind persons originally introduced by the Secretary of State's determination under section 2(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, dated 31 March 2000.
  Incorporate provision for free television licences for persons aged 75 and over, originally introduced by the Secretary of State's direction to the BBC under section 1(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, dated 30 October 2000.
  Define "television receiver" for the purposes of the requirement to have a TV licence under Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003.
  106WS
  Define "television dealer" and "television set" for the purposes of Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (which imposes upon television dealers an obligation to notify the BBC. as the authority responsible for TV licensing, of the sale or hire of a television set).
  Amend the definition of "accommodation for residential care" for England, Wales and Scotland to reflect changes in the care homes legislation; clarify the definition of certain expressions relating to this concession and provide that a group of dwellings may be within the definition of "a group of specially provided dwellings" even if one of the dwellings is occupied by a caretaker.
  Clarify the operation of the easy payment schemes.
  Amend the definition of "hotel", for the purposes of television licence fees for hotels, to impose a maximum stay for guests of 28 days in any consecutive period.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Licence
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering RWE Dea UK SNS Limited an Oil and Gas Production licence on Seaward Block 43/20c in the Southern North Sea.

  The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offer

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Price Limits (Periodic Review)
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I have today issued my Principal Guidance to the Director-General of Water Services (Ofwat) on policies affecting the 2004 Periodic Review of water price limits in England. The review will produce price limits, set by Ofwat, for the years 2005–10.

  This guidance is the second public contribution to the 2004 Periodic Review. My Initial Guidance was published in January 2003.

  This Principal Guidance sets out my main decisions and views on a wide range of relevant policies and legal requirements which bear on price limits. It takes account of the information and advice so far to hand, including the proposals and costings put forward by companies in their draft business plans in August 2003, views on these cost estimates from Ofwat, further policy advice from Ofwat and from the other regulators, and the views of customers and other interested parties.

  The main areas for decision by Government now are the drinking water and environment programmes. Previous Periodic Reviews have raised the standards of our drinking water and of water in the environment. It is our policy to continue these improvements, while taking account of the effects on customers' bills.

  Companies' programmes must deliver existing commitments including our EU obligations and other statutory obligations. These will produce very significant benefits to the environment and for customers. I have also selected for inclusion in companies' final business plans and Ofwat's draft price

  107WS
  limits, some further programmes that go beyond what is strictly required under EU commitments, and which appear to offer good value for money.

  Two existing long-term programmes to improve customers' drinking water will be completed during the 2005–10 period. One is a programme of improvements to remove contaminants at water treatment works to ensure that they can continue to provide wholesome drinking water supplies. The other is a 20-year programme to replace or reline old, corroding water mains. Work will continue to lower yet further the level of lead in drinking water.

  The programme of environmental improvements to our inland and coastal waters recognises the need to build on the achievements already made and start work towards the demanding future objectives set by the EU Water Framework Directive. But it also stands in its own right and addresses a range of issues including the need to improve further the condition of water and wetland sites of special scientific interest, bring more waters up to the standards required for fresh water fish and improve bathing waters.

  The whole programme must be carried out at the minimum cost to customers. The process of challenge and refining has already substantially reduced the potential programmes. This process has yet some way to go and I would expect costs to be driven down further. My Department will continue to work with the Drinking Water Inspectorate, English Nature and the Environment Agency on how they should translate the guidance into regulatory requirements. I expect those regulators to work with companies to identify how legal commitments and the other policy outcomes specified in this guidance can be delivered by pragmatic cost-effective solutions.

  It is then for Ofwat to challenge the costs that companies need to deliver the requirements of the regulators and the policies in this guidance. I am confident that Ofwat will scrutinise and challenge with equal attention all aspects of companies' costs underlying their business plans, including the costs that companies assign to delivering the commitments and policies set out in this guidance.

  I am also clear that achievement of future water quality standards will require significant action by a much wider range of actors than the water industry, including land managers as well as others who are responsible for diffuse water pollution. As part of this process, we will be shortly publishing an action plan outlining a full range of options for addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture.

  The policies contained in this guidance are strongly informed by the interests of customers. I am concerned about the effect of water bills, especially on those least able to pay. I will be reviewing the way in which lower income households are helped with their water and sewerage charges.

  My Department will work with the regulators to refine the cost benefit analysis and will also prepare and publish a regulatory impact assessment of the improvement policies in this guidance that go beyond existing commitments and the costs to customers that they imply. These processes will inform the final guidance.
  108WS
  In the light of companies' final business plans, the draft price limits published by Ofwat and their implications for customers' bills, as well as any further advice from the regulators and the regulatory impact assessment, I shall issue my final guidance in Autumn 2004.

HEALTH

  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Thirty-third Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) which is published today. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairman and members of the Review Body for their hard work.

  This year's report deals primarily with general dental practitioners, doctors and dentists in training, non-consultant career grade doctors, medical and dental consultants who have chosen not to take up new contracts, and ophthalmic medical practitioners. For consultants taking up new contracts, general medical practitioners and the salaried primary dental care services, 2004–05 will be the second year of three-year pay deals agreed as part of NHS pay reforms.

  The Review Body has recommended with effect from April 2004 general increases in remuneration of 2.7 per cent. for doctors and dentists in training and non-consultant career grade doctors, 2.5 per cent. for consultants who remain on the old contract and an increase of 2.9 per cent. in gross fees for general dental practitioners. The Review Body has also recommended adjustments to some features of the pay scales for associate specialists, staff grade practitioners and specialist registrars and additional funding to support a structured change management programme for dentists and their staff.

  The Review Body's pay recommendations are being accepted in full and without staging.

  Paroxetine
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  Following continuing interest in both Houses about the issues surrounding the safety of Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), including Seroxat (paroxetine), this statement informs the House of further conclusions of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) based on the work of the Expert Working Group on SSRIs.

  In reviewing clinical trial data on the dosage of paroxetine and prescribing data suggesting that as many as 17,000 patients were started on doses above 20mg in the last year, the Committee concluded that a reminder to prescribers was necessary in the following terms; that

  (i) the starting dose of paroxetine in the treatment of depression should be 20mg, as per the current Summary of Products Characteristics (SPC);

  109WS

  (ii) there was no evidence from clinical trials of increased efficacy in the treatment of depressive illness above 20mg;

  (iii) the adverse events that occur soon after starting therapy may be difficult to distinguish from the underlying condition. There is evidence that increasing the dose in this situation may be detrimental;

  (iv)rapid upward titration may increase the risk of serious adverse events;

  (v) those currently on a higher dose and responding well to treatment should remain on the same dose and be reviewed at their next regular treatment review;

  (vi) patients should not stop treatment suddenly. Any cessation of treatment should proceed by a gradual downward titration.

  Detailed communications to patients and prescribers are taking place today. These will include a summary of clinical trial data on which the conclusions of the CSM and its Expert Group are based. This has been placed in the Library, and is available on the MHRA web-site.

  The Expert Working Group will continue its work to conclude their full review of the safety and efficacy of SSRIs and will examine what implications, if any, these latest findings have for the use of other SSRIs.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Professional Conduct Committee
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  In July 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted a number of professional organisations on a draft Statutory Instrument providing for the enlargement of the membership of the above Committee and amending the rules concerning its quorum. The responses to that consultation have now been analysed, and an amended Statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament yesterday.

  The amendments to the draft Statutory Instrument are only minor and the effect remains that the pool of PCC members will be enlarged by seven additional persons. The Statutory Instrument will come into effect on 1 April 2004.

  A number of consultees made other points concerning the Board, and one organisation requested a setting up of a Parliamentary Committee to investigate certain matters about the Board and its work. I have considered all of the representations received and have met the Chairman and other members of the Board to discuss. I have full confidence in the Board and the way it operates under the powers given in the Architects Act 1997 and have concluded that there is no need to set up such an inquiry.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Special Advisers
Lord Sheldon Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, they will establish appropriate boundaries between special advisers and civil servants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the code of conduct for special advisers sets out the duties and responsibilities of special advisers. It also requires special advisers to uphold the political impartiality of civil servants. In their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government proposed an amendment to the code of conduct for special advisers to provide a further clarification of the relationships between special advisers and permanent civil servants.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, I acknowledge his useful contribution to last Friday's debate. But is he aware that in evidence to the Public Administration Committee there was concern that civil servants had been close to being instructed by special advisers? In its ninth report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life called for a Civil Service Act which would include clear statements of what special advisers cannot do and that they must not undermine the political impartiality of civil servants. I think this needs more than just a code. Will the draft Civil Service Bill cover these points?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that only last Friday we had a useful and valuable debate on the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and that this was one of the issues that was raised extensively during that debate. We are committed to consulting on a draft Bill. No doubt the issue raised by the noble Lord today—he has raised it many times before—will be one of the issues that will be dealt with and consulted on when the draft Bill is published.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, because he took part in the debate to which he has just referred, the Minister will be aware that the First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, expressed the hope that that debate would,
"lead to a Joint Committee of both Houses being established to take forward consideration of the most appropriate legislation to reinforce the core values of the Civil Service".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 904.]
1326
Can the Minister say whether that proposal will be given urgent consideration by the Government and will have a fair wind, with their support?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's question has been raised on a few occasions before in your Lordships' House. He knows that it is one of the issues which is to be considered as part of the process of consultation. The noble Lord made a helpful suggestion only last Friday with regard to the way in which the two Private Members' Bills and the forthcoming draft government Bill could usefully be consulted on. That is something that we are actively considering.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will recall the notorious Order in Council of 7 May 1997 which placed two specific special advisers above civil servants in law. It did a great deal of damage to the Government and was deeply deplored. Subsequently an undertaking was given to rescind it. Can the Minister remind me whether that law has now been rescinded?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know that I consider it to be notorious. My understanding of the position is that it is no different from that which pertained under earlier administrations. There are only three Civil Service posts that have executive powers, only two of which are currently filled. The noble Lord will be aware of the outcome of the Phillis review, the fruit of which was that the replacement for Alastair Campbell no longer has executive powers in the way in which they were exercised before.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, do the Government accept all the recommendations made in connection with the role of special advisers in the final report of the independent review of government communications published in January?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my recollection is that we certainly accepted most, if not all, of the recommendations, of the first published Phillis review. We are actively considering the recommendations made in the subsequent follow-up report published by Phillis

Police: Special Services
11.5 a.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to introduce legislation to amend Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 on the provision of special services or to issue a code of practice or guidance on the application of that legislation by police authorities and chief officers of police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are currently examining whether there are any suitable future

1327
legislative opportunities that would enable some amendment to Section 25. Guidance in Home Office circular 34/2000 deals specifically with charging for policing football matches. In response to concerns of the police and football authorities, a joint Home Office and DCMS departmental working group has been examining all the issues.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that ancient fairs—some as old as 800 years—are at risk of being driven out of business by savage charging imposed by police authorities? In one case of which I am aware, the charge was £180,000.
While it is understandable for the police to charge for special services on private premises, does my noble friend agree that policing is a public service and that it is unacceptable to charge in respect of ancient funfairs in public places and on high streets, while night clubs and bars proliferate in city centres, causing massive policing problems, with no charges at all? Policing should be free at the point of delivery. After all, the public have only two choices—take it or leave it.
Does my noble friend further agree that the disparity in charging practices by the police amounts to postcode policing of the worst possible kind, which can only further damage the reputation of the police in the eyes of the public?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says in relation to charging. I do not think I can agree with all the comments that he has made because, of course, what constitutes a special police service must be determined by taking account of all the circumstances of each individual case. It must also be requested by the event organiser and agreed by the chief constable, who will take into account the level of resources required and the deployment available.
I am aware that concern was expressed in relation to one fair as a result of a charge made by the local authority. The local authority asked for policing services, agreed the rate and then passed that sum on to the public. But that happened in one individual case. It is right that the group is looking at this issue. We hope that it will have a fruitful deliberation and fully take into account all that has been said.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Home Office guidance on charging for the policing of football matches, to which she has just referred, could serve as an appropriate model for the charging for the policing of fairgrounds? Is she aware that in Chapter 13 of those notes of guidance it states:
"It is recognised that local circumstances cannot be ignored … In addition, the financial plight of some clubs is a significant consideration and asking for full economic recovery"—
of the cost of policing—
"could lead to problems with recovering the debt and severe financial problems for the club"?
1328
Does not the Minister agree that the same sort of consideration should be given to some of our ancient charter fairs that some would believe are more part of our culture than football clubs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a powerful argument. As the noble Baroness will know, there has been a great deal of debate as to whether and to what extent this should be extended. The law at the moment sets out the criteria which should be applied when a decision is made as to whether special measures should be taken in terms of policing. But it is right that the whole amount is not recovered at the moment and these matters are very much under debate.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am proud to be an honorary member of the Showman's Guild. Does my noble friend agree that it would be a great pity if we lost some of these fairs which have added to the gaiety and enjoyment of many people, particularly youngsters? And yet they are threatened; not only one authority but four authorities are now looking at this issue. Does not my noble friend further agree that it should not be done in such an arbitrary manner, which puts at risk the efforts of those who work so hard to provide us with this enjoyment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend says about the enjoyment of fairs and the ability to participate in them. The difficulty is that some of these very enjoyable occasions are now meted with some not so enjoyable fracas thereafter. People have to assess how such events will be policed, who will pay for the policing and how they are to be managed. I appreciate that such concerns are being considered. Indeed, the Government are undertaking a number of reviews in relation to how we deal with pubs and clubs as well.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the figures produced by the Merseyside Police Authority, showing that Liverpool and Everton football clubs contributed well short of the cost of policing those clubs, are representative of clubs up and down the country? I have in mind the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the poorer clubs. Will this disparity in costs be addressed in the review of the Police Act 1996?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether the situation of the Everton and Liverpool football clubs is replicated across the country. Some of the conference clubs would be a little anxious about any statement I made in that regard. However, the group that was set up by the Home Office and DCMS, together with the football and policing authorities, is looking at these issues. I cannot foresee what it will come up with, but I know these issues are at the forefront of its mind.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, how is it that a very poor authority such as the House of Lords is charged

1329
something like £8 million for police? Is that under review as well, and could it be eliminated from our costs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not think that is something on which I could possibly comment. However, the day that our House gets a crowd of 60,000, I, for one, will celebrate.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, will my noble friend give some indication of when the committee to which she referred will complete its deliberations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to say when the departmental working group will complete its deliberations; it is a matter for its members. However, if I receive further information, I will obviously be happy to communicate it to my noble friend.

Railway Franchises
11.12 a.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What weight is given to past performance when new railway franchises are being awarded.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that bids for franchises are evaluated on an objective and fair basis, and that the market is open to new entrants. It therefore concentrates on evaluating bidders' proposals for delivering the SRA's specification, train service performance and service quality on a value-for-money basis rather than simply awarding franchises to operators who have done well in the past.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, in so far as it goes. When railway franchises were first let, there was no track record. Many were let to companies which have failed, cost the taxpayer large sums of money and come back for more and more. Now that there is a track record, will the Minister please indicate to the House that at least the track record of a company, in delivering services, will be a significant feature in the award of franchises? Otherwise, much of the decision-making is made behind closed doors by the SRA against some very unclear criteria. One has a suspicion that the Treasury wants the lowest-cost franchise rather than the best value.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that last suspicion should be laid to rest—best value is the criterion. I reinforce the point that I made in my original Answer: the process seeks to be as objective and fair as possible. In evaluating a company's responses to the questions properly addressed to it regarding the franchise, of course the added valuation of what the company is promising may be affected by its performance in the past. However, the important
1330
point is that all those applying for a franchise should be evaluated on clear and specific criteria, objective to all.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, as his Government wish to encourage long-term investment by the train operating companies in the railway network, they are limiting the franchises to seven years? That is far too short a period for a company to have long-term objectives. The Government could certainly extend the period of the franchise, subject to strict performance criteria.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of the many representations that have been received on the general issue of how we manage the railways—there have been quite a few in the context of the railway review which is currently taking place—the particular point about the seven-year franchise does not come out with great sharpness. A balance has to be struck between the point the noble Viscount rightly makes about how long we should have a franchise in order to promote effective and efficient investment against the obvious point that it is necessary for the travelling public to have guarantees that service will be up to standard over that period of time or there will be the possibility of change.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, on the West Coast Main Line, which is under the Virgin franchise, will the Minister tell us in what year the track will be upgraded so that trains can be run at full speed from London to Glasgow?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the answer is: very soon.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, everyone is well aware that the delays on work to the West Coast Main Line have put timetables back over the past few years. But we are now at the latter stages of the completion of the West Coast Main Line modernisation. We look forward to the point which the noble Lord emphasised when the new rolling stock, which is of very high standard and high performance, will be running at maximum capacity.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is disappointment in the eastern region that First Great Eastern has not been awarded the franchise for a second time after a very good track record? It is not perfect—there is no perfect railway company—but it is very good. What are the reasons for that, given that the company has a good track record?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated, the issue was not whether the previous performance was satisfactory; the issue was which of

1331
the bidders looked to be able to guarantee the best performance in the future against the criteria. Another company was chosen because its bid was superior.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is great concern on the east coast, bearing in mind that the franchise is up for renewal soon? It is generally perceived that GNER has been giving a good service and people are very worried that they will get something inferior in its place.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, they should not be. Loyalty to existing companies is much to be welcomed, although I would not say it is universal across the railway system. However, the only reason that that franchise would not be won by the existing franchisee is if a superior bid was in place to the benefit of all the travelling public.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend seems very complacent about the West Coast Main Line. When will it be completed, and when will Virgin introduce completely new trains on that stretch, because what it is using at the moment is absolutely disgraceful?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if I verge towards the positive and the optimistic, it is only because I am all too aware of the trials and tribulations of all passengers who have been using the north-west line over the past decade. I am struggling to avoid this metaphor, but I see light at the end of the tunnel. However, I am not able to give the exact length of that tunnel at the moment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, would the Government like Network Rail to take charge of the operations of more stations, as is reported in today's newspaper?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have received many representations about the quality of station provision, so we are examining that matter. We know that a number of our most significant stations are not up to standard. As the noble Lord will recognise, we are currently involved in a major review of the whole system, which will report in June or July, and that factor will be taken into account.

Overseas Student Visas
11.20 a.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any decisions have been made in relation to charges for visa renewal for overseas students.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are exploring ways in which we might refine the charging system to ensure that it delivers a fair and efficient service for all our customers. Any proposals including differential charging will be included in the formal
1332
consultation later this year. At this stage, however, we cannot guarantee a reduction in the level of fee charged for particular application types, including students.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords. the Minister will recall that, on 4 November, he answered a Question from my noble friend Lord Wallace in which it became clear that there was considerable unease on all sides of the House about the suddenness of the increased charge for student visas from zero to between £150 and £250. Is he aware of that unease? Does he also recall that, because it became clear that little consultation had taken place, he gave a specific commitment that his department would consult the UK Council for Overseas Student Affairs, the British Council, UK universities and further and higher education colleges? Has any consultation been undertaken and, if not, why not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness's recollection of the Question is the same as mine. There will be consultation on the setting of future fee levels and services as I made plain. We are fully committed to that. It was a feature of the introduction of the fees that consultation had not been as full as we would have liked, but that was in line with the way in which the legislation was set out. We made plain our intention back in 1999. However, I am happy to confirm that there will be continued dialogue and consultation with UKCOSA and the universities.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, when this Question was last raised does my noble friend recall that I asked whether consideration could be given to allow students to take out a visa for the whole length of their course if it were not possible for a differential fee to be paid? My noble friend promised to have a look at that proposal at the time; I wonder whether there have been any developments along those lines.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have looked again at the response that I gave to the noble Baroness on the first occasion on which we discussed this matter at Question Time. It is one of those issues on which there will be consultation, I am sure. There is a problem with differential charging, because to introduce it would require a sophisticated accounting system and the volumes of applications add to that complexity. The feasibility of differential charging, I am advised, will be included in the scope of phase two of the charging project, which will also take account of the fee review itself.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Cambridge Overseas Trust and Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, which are responsible for partially funding more than 800 students from overseas in Cambridge. Is the Minister aware of the urgency of this particular question? In many universities, the majority of students carrying out research for higher degrees are from overseas—in the University of Cambridge, of those studying for higher degrees, approximately two-thirds of those registered are from

1333
overseas. The cost of this renewal of visas, especially the retrospective nature of this renewal, must act as a deterrent to many students, especially—I stress this—those from developing countries. This a very serious matter that ought to be given a high degree of urgency.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we take the matter that the noble Lord raises very seriously. We are not aware that it acts as a disincentive to foreign students studying in the United Kingdom, although I appreciate the level of concern that has understandably been expressed because of the introduction of the fees last year. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue in this way and I urge those Members of your Lordships' House who are concerned about this matter to ensure that proper representations are made so that we are as aware as we should be of the impact of any future changes. We should remember, however, that those who apply for a visa now get an extremely good service. We have introduced extremely useful initiatives to speed up the service and ensure that visas are processed quickly.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, what fresh instructions have been given to visa officers about being more flexible about the length of the visas that they issue, especially after studies have been completed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that there is greater flexibility so that for very short-term returns immigration officers have some latitude—not a great deal—so that students can return to collect belongings and attend degree ceremonies and so forth.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, following on from that question, has the Minister made a specific assessment of the impact of charges for visa renewal on overseas students making multiple visa applications in order to complete their studies in the UK?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have that information today. I am happy to interrogate the information that we do have and try to provide the noble Viscount with a response that matches his concerns.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, does the Minister have figures for the total number of overseas students in this country—which is now a large number? Does he agree that it is extremely important to provide a good service and to encourage students from overseas to come to this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree. As the noble Lord will know, the Prime Minister launched an initiative in June 1999 directed at increasing student numbers from overseas to the United Kingdom. That initiative has been extremely successful. I understand that, in higher education, there were 109,940 in 1996–97. By 2001–02, there were 142,350. In further education during that time, numbers rose from 25,102 to 47,995. We are moving towards the 2005 targets with a high degree of success. Part of the thinking behind
1334
increasing numbers was to ensure that we had an effective visa system in place able rapidly to respond to applications. We now have that.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that students on a three-year course with one-year visas will have to undertake the burden of the cost of renewal? A survey of overseas undergraduates at the LSE last December revealed what appears to be a completely random pattern, with students being given one, two, or three-year visas. Students from the same country were granted visas of different lengths even though the length of their courses of study were exactly the same. The Minister said in your Lordships' House last November that:
"The length that the visa lasts is very much related to the length of course the student is undertaking".—[Official Report, 4/11/03; col. 683.]
Given that, will he explain how that could happen? Clearly, the situation is not as he described it last November.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says and I recognise my words from last November—I have reread the Question with care. Other factors may be involved in the applications about which neither the noble Baroness nor myself is aware. The study completed by the LSE is valuable and I urge that its findings and considerations are made available to the review that is continuing. It should form part of the consultation. If issues flow from the study, they are of concern and interest.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister said that a review was being undertaken, yet, as far as I know, Universities UK has not been consulted on the issue at all. Can he assure us that there really is in his department the urgency behind the issue that has been expressed around the House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by what the noble Baroness has to say with regard to Universities UK, as my understanding that it is part of the consultation process, as is UKCOSA, which is obviously another important body in that regard. I shall check again to ensure that that is the case, but I would certainly hope that it is.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2004
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I regret that since last year there has been no reduction in the threat to the United Kingdom from Al'Qaeda and its associated networks; nor, on the information available, is there any indication that the threat is

1335
likely to reduce substantially in the immediate future. The bombing of the British Consulate in Istanbul on 20 November provided a particularly brutal reminder of the very real threat posed by Al'Qaeda and its associated groups to the United Kingdom and our interests overseas. It also demonstrated graphically the level of sophistication of their operations and the damage that a suicide bomber can inflict.
The outrage demonstrates forcefully that none of those atrocities could have been carried out without the support and assistance of a network of individuals who, while they do not themselves carry out the particular terrorist acts, consciously provide the material and financial support necessary for others to carry them out. Strong intelligence has been received demonstrating the high priority placed by Al'Qaeda and linked Islamic extremist groups to mounting terrorist attacks, including in the United Kingdom. Plans include the use of chemical and biological materials.
Put quite simply, we are aware of the disruption that that causes to thousands of innocent people, but we cannot afford to take the risk. It is clear, from the mass of intelligence and other information that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and our counter-terrorist allies have seen, that Al'Qaeda and its associated networks retain both the will and ability to carry out further large-scale atrocities. As result of its strong support for United States and other allied action against international terrorism, the United Kingdom and British nationals are, regrettably, potential targets.
To sum up, the action that we have taken reflects the existence of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, within the meaning of Article 15 of ECHR. That emergency continues. We view the powers in Part 4 as an essential tool in the United Kingdom's counter-terrorist armoury. Detention powers that we took under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in response to that threat, closed a very specific loophole. There are present in the United Kingdom foreign nationals, and a small number of British citizens, who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism of a sort that resulted in the events of 11 September 2001; being members of organisations or groups so concerned; or having links with member of such organisations and groups—and who are a threat to our national security.
Whenever possible, we will prosecute an individual. Failing that, when it is possible to remove a foreign national suspected terrorist from the United Kingdom, we will make every effort to do so. We will also continue to explore with other governments how they might help us safely to return individuals. Officials in the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are actively pursuing how that might best be achieved. But we must acknowledge that removal, at least in the short term, is precluded for some terrorists because of the ECHR Article 3 prohibition on removal to face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
There is a very difficult balance that we have to achieve between our international commitments and our duty to safeguard the security and population of this country. We have reviewed closely and regularly the need for detention powers and ECHR Article 5(1) derogation, and the feasibility of other possible options. We have done so particularly closely in the light of the Newton committee's comments, but have concluded that we have no responsible alternative but to maintain the powers to detain, and the ECHR derogation.
We have also reviewed closely the application of detention powers to foreign and non-United Kingdom nationals. We believe that they are entirely justified as the threat still comes predominantly, though not exclusively, from foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom whom we are not able to remove, and therefore not able to detain pending removal, and when the preferred course of prosecution is not possible because the evidence needed for successful prosecution is unavailable. It would be deeply damaging if the United Kingdom was seen to be unable to take action and as providing a safe haven, weakening the international fight against terrorism. Unlike United Kingdom nationals, who have the right to be in the United Kingdom, foreigners are ordinarily subject to removal—which remains the intention when possible for ATCS Act detainees—if they represent a threat to national security.
I am aware that there have been suggestions that the threat from British nationals is increasing. We heard that in the debate last week. That is something that we are addressing in our review of the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism powers. But we should not forget that, in the mean time, Part 4 allows us to take action against a significant proportion of those who seek to endanger national security and public safety. Those powers significantly assist our security and intelligence services in doing their job. The Court of Appeal upheld our position on the need for these powers in its judgment in October 2002. The court agreed that the powers are not discriminatory and that they comply with the ECHR. The matter is to go before the House of Lords Judicial Committee later this year.
I now turn to the working of current Part 4 detention powers. I shall deal, first, with the exercise of detention powers; secondly, with the legal processes under the ATCS Act; and thirdly, with the second report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the working of Sections 21 to 23 of the Act. The Government have used the powers sparingly and proportionately. They are used only as a last resort, when no other action is possible. To date, 17 foreign nationals have been certified under Sections 21 to 23 of Act—eight in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, one in October 2002, one in November 2002 and two in January 2003, one in August and one in October last year. Of those, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 15 remain in detention, one of whom is held under powers other than immigration.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary's decision to certify those people as suspected international terrorists is based on detailed and compelling intelligence

1337
and other material. All those detained have had access to legal advice of their choice throughout the detention period. There is no limit on the number of legal visits that detainees may receive, and special arrangements are in place to help to arrange visits, often at short notice.
The material on which the decisions to certify those people is based has been, and will continue to he, reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as provided for under the ATCS Act. SIAC is a superior court of record equivalent to the High Court. Those detained have immediate right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against certification. All have exercised that right.
The ATCS Act provides for SIAC regularly to review certificates, for the first time six months after final determination by SIAC, giving power to quash them. Detainees also have the right to apply for bail to the commission at any time, and several have done so. I must stress that that is not internment; it is detention pending deportation, and it is open to detainees to leave the United Kingdom at any time. Two have done so.
Appeals of the individual detainees started in May 2003. To date, 13 determinations have been handed down by SIAC. SIAC has upheld my right honourable friend's decisions in 12 of the 13 cases. The one case where SIAC did not accept my right honourable friend's decision was one of two cases handed down on Monday this week. We are obviously disappointed by that decision—my right honourable friend has certified only in appropriate cases—and I can therefore confirm that we are seeking permission for leave to appeal in this case. However, the legislation does not stand and fall on one case, nor does it mean that the legislation is ineffective. Just as in a criminal trial, if someone is acquitted for murder, that does not mean that the offence of murder is ineffective or that the relevant legislation is flawed.
We debated the Newton committee's report last Thursday. It was a stimulating debate, which, although raising a number of issues relating to other parts of the Act, focused heavily on Part 4. I am sure that we all found it extremely helpful to consider those issues in depth. We are here today to decide whether the Part 4 powers should be renewed for one more year. As I have indicated elsewhere in my speech, it is the Government's very strong contention that it should. However, nothing that I say now detracts from the Statement that we made last week about the need to look very creatively at the situation in the future.
The committee led by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, carried out a very thought-provoking review of the Act as a whole and suggested some alternatives to the Part 4 powers for the future. We also have the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Act, which in many ways reflects the findings of the Newton committee. Finally, we have before us the second annual report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, reviewing the operation of Part 4 to inform our consideration. I believe that the publication of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's options paper on 25 February has contributed significantly to this debate.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was published on 11 February. I would like to place on record the Government's thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his efforts in producing his report. We are very appreciative of the candour that he has displayed in setting out his thoughts. The noble Lord's report will be of great assistance to us today as we debate the renewal of the Part 4 powers. His report lends powerful support to the basic premise of the Act on the need for detention powers to take dangerous suspected international terrorists off our streets.
In particular, we are pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is satisfied that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has certified persons under the ATCS Act only in appropriate cases, and that he exercised his independent judgment in each case, having given due regard to advice from officials. I welcome the main conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: it remains desirable that the derogation issue should be resolved as soon as possible; SIAC has clarified the "links" provision helpfully and restrictively; the Secretary of State has certified persons as international terrorists only in appropriate cases; and the Secretary of State has exercised his independent judgment in each case, giving due regard to advice from officials. SIAC has dealt efficiently and clearly with substantive cases, and we agree with all those findings.
Further consideration should be given to enable SIAC to continue hearing the merits of appeals against certification where there has been detention and the detainee has left the United Kingdom. The training, role and effectiveness of the special advocates as protectors of the rights of detained persons should be given early attention, and consideration should be given to widening the pool from which they are chosen. Further attention should be given to disclosure issues relevant to SIAC hearings and to other matters raised by SIAC in its first generic judgment. Efforts on an individualised basis should be made to secure the deportation of detainees to third countries willing to respect their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Facilities more suitable to the special circumstances of executive detention of persons who have not been charged with any offences having been provided during the past year, it is a matter of regret that none of the detainees has agreed to enter those facilities. Continuing scrutiny should be given to possible alternatives to detention and to the consequences of the sunset provision effective in 2006. Those are, in outline, the noble Lord's findings; we are considering them and the rest of his report in great detail.
The order extends for a further year Sections 21 to 23 of the Act. Those powers will then lapse, unless my right honourable friend the Home Secretary proposes renewal for a further period of up to 12 months, and if that proposal is then approved by both Houses of Parliament. The order was debated in committee by the other place on 26 February, when the Motion was agreed overwhelmingly.
The effect of the order is to continue in force, until 13 March 2005, several powers. The first is the power under Section 21 of the Act for the Secretary of State

1339
to issue a certificate where he reasonably believes that an individual's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security, and where he reasonably suspects that an individual is an international terrorist. The second is the power under Section 22 of the Act for specified immigration decisions to be taken in respect of such an individual despite the fact that, whether temporarily or indefinitely, his removal from the United Kingdom is prevented by a point of law relating to an international agreement or by practical consideration. The third is the power under Section 23 of the Act to detain such an individual under immigration powers in the Immigration Act 1971, even though that person's removal is temporarily or indefinitely prevented by a point of law relating to international agreement or practical consideration—for example, the country of origin refuses to take the person back, or there is no route via which to return them.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Court of Appeal has issued an interim decision in respect of other matters, on which I do not propose to comment today, as they are sub judice.
Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. Tragically, the threat is already beyond doubt. I was pleased that, last Thursday, agreement on that point echoed from all sides of the Chamber and we were united in the acceptance of that threat, as terrible as it is. We are certain that the detention powers have had a deterrent and disruptive effect on terrorists. We firmly believe that the powers have also sent a strong message.
Nothing can guarantee 100 per cent security. Those powers are just one, albeit very important, element of our counter-terrorist strategy. They deal with specific threats from foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism of a sort that led to September 11 who we wish, but are currently unable, to remove or deport from the United Kingdom.
We have a tough and targeted framework of legislative measures, which are among the most robust in the world, in place to deal with the overall threat from terrorism, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the full range of other Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act provisions. We also have the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the linked practical steps to stop terrorists exploiting the system by posing as asylum seekers and to strengthen our border controls.
In tackling the terrorist threat, we rely on our intelligence, security and police services to identify people who pose a risk, arrest them and disrupt their activities. The task is never complete and I would like to commend the work that those services have done over the years to secure the public's safety and national security.
We believe that it is necessary and proportionate to continue the measures that we currently have in place. I know that the House will want to weigh carefully this important measure. In that regard, I should formally
1340
confirm that we consider that the provisions of the Act are compatible with ECHR rights. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to replace Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 with alternative provisions which do not require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am responding to the very clear and persuasive presentation by the Minister. I want to make quite clear what this amendment is not. It is not a fatal or wrecking amendment, nor is it intended to be. At the end of the day, the Government will have the renewal of their powers under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act for a further 12 months. But this amendment is intended to get a much clearer statement from the Government of exactly what will happen during those 12 months and to apprise them of the consequences should they try to sustain their first blanket rejection of the principal conclusion of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who I am very pleased to see in his place today.
Despite a full and excellent debate last week, it is worthwhile briefly summarising where we are today and how we got here. As we all know, the Act was passed in haste in 2001 to deal with the threat of terrorism which, if not new, since we have had to deal with threats of terrorism in this country for some time, seemed in its focus—because of the attempts of the malign leadership of Al'Qaeda to mobilise a network of terror from fundamentalist Islam—and in its extent after the awful atrocity of 9/11 to have escalated dangerously. The noble Baroness will recall that, despite the emergency in the autumn of 2001, that Act was heavily criticised in its passage through Parliament on three grounds. The first was that the process was over-hasty, did not allow for full and detailed scrutiny, and did not correspond to the criterion, set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, of properly considered, principled counter-terrorist legislation that should follow the four principles that had previously been set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who I am also very pleased to see in his place this morning.
I shall remind your Lordships of those four principles because they are relevant to this discussion. First, antiterrorism legislation should approximate the ordinary criminal law as closely as possible. Secondly, additional statutory powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat and then that they should strike the right balance between the security of the public and the rights and liberties of the individual citizen. Thirdly, such additional powers might imply consideration of additional safeguards and, fourthly, such laws should comply with the UK's obligations in

1341
international law. During the course of the debate in the autumn of 2001, all those issues figured largely. It is fair to say that doubts were expressed on all of them. At the same time, the scope and efficacy of the measures proposed were questioned.
Secondly, the Bill was criticised because it seemed to import a number of measures into anti-terrorism legislation that did not belong there and which, if they belonged anywhere, belonged in mainstream legislation. It was felt in the House, and in another place, that this piggybacking looked like opportunism, or perhaps a flurry of simulated activity by the Home Office that was designed to impress, rather than a focused approach to a new threat, which we all agreed existed. Thirdly, great concern was expressed about Part 4 of the Bill on the grounds that indefinite detention without proper trial is alien to British tradition and international law, and it was thought to be unacceptable.
Noble Lords will recall that the legislation got through Parliament, and your Lordships' House in particular, only because of the promise of a review by a committee of Privy Counsellors. I think that it is fair to say that the agreement of both Houses was strictly conditional on that committee being established and its conclusions were eagerly anticipated.
The committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, of which I had the honour to be a member, took a lot of evidence. We met as a committee 22 times and we paid 18 relevant visits in smaller groups. Our conclusions have been very well reported and they were, as the Minister said. well debated last week, so I shall not rehearse them again in detail. In summary, although we accepted unequivocally that the threat is serious—that is common ground between the Government, the committee and, I suspect, most Members of both Houses—continuing and needs a special response and we accepted that some of the new powers are well founded and well used, which is something that we looked at carefully, we were nevertheless very critical of the legislative process that created the Act. We found it honeycombed with extraneous provisions, which, if introduced at all, should be in mainstream legislation, and we found the provisions of Part 4 of the Act simply unacceptable.
This amendment refers, as evidence of the unacceptability of Part 4, to the fact that it requires derogation by the UK from the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some people may say that that is not the only thing wrong with it. That is true and I shall remind your Lordships of some of its other flaws in a moment. Some people may say that derogation is not the most important thing wrong with it. Perhaps, but derogation is not to be dismissed lightly. Attempts have been made to say that other European countries have not had such a strict interpretation placed on their emergency provisions as we have. Other people have said or implied that derogation is a small price to pay for the right measures. But we are the only European country that has had to derogate from the right to liberty. In my view, it is a sad day for this country. It is a stain on our reputation as the home of
1342
individual rights and personal freedom. Moreover, such derogation clearly does not conform to the fourth principle of anti-terrorist legislation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it should comply with the UK's obligations in international law.
Part 4 is deeply flawed in other ways. It has bent procedures designed for immigration and asylum matters into a strange shape. It detains people for an indefinite period. The process, to which the Minister referred, although operated properly in the verdict of my noble friend Lord Carlile, is lengthy and, crucially, it treats the threat from foreigners suspected of terrorism in a totally different way from British nationals suspected of being an equivalent threat.
The Government justify this last flaw in Pan 4—the Minister has just repeated the justification in her speech—by saying that the threat comes predominantly from foreign nationals. I understand that that was their original assessment in 2001, and who knew then? That seemed to be a reasonable assumption at the time. But now the Government know better. Not only have there been highly publicised cases involving British nationals, such as the "shoe bomber", but our committee received and published uncontested evidence from the authorities that approaching half of those suspected of terrorism are British citizens. I suppose that that now includes the Guantanamo returnees. Yet the Government repeated their assertion of a predominantly foreign threat on page 7 of their discussion paper last month. Although I thought that the Minister had nuanced it slightly to "primarily" in the debate last week, I see she is back on "predominantly". I simply do not understand the Government's mathematics. May I ask the Minister yet again to set the record straight? We need the understanding and support of the public if we are to fight terrorism effectively, and I do not believe that misrepresentation and xenophobia help in that.
In summary the committee concluded that the shortcomings of Part 4 in terms of both efficacy and principle were such that it should be replaced as soon as possible. At this point, perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment further on why the Government have chosen to appeal the case in which a Libyan national who had been detained under Part 4 was released yesterday on appeal by Mr Justice Collins. Can she say why the Government, who seemed very pleased with the way in which the SIAC procedure operates, would find it necessary to appeal when the verdict goes against them? I really do not understand that. Perhaps she can explain that to the House.
The committee suggested several approaches which in various combinations might assist the Government in their deliberations. We certainly did not purport to have some sort of magic replacement formula instantly available. There are difficult trade-offs to be made, and there are disadvantages to most ways forward. I think that one has to concede that; anyone who has spent any time thinking about it recognises that. Clearly, finding the right alternative will not be easy. However, as the noble Baroness graciously conceded last week, that is the task of the Government, not of the review committee. Now, the Government have not only our ideas to help them; they have the interesting

1343
suggestion of my noble friend Lord Carlile of a new offence—"preparatory to terrorism"—and they have invited debate and new ideas during a six-month period which has variously been described as being one of discussion or consultation.
Here we come to the nub of the amendment. Do the Government go into this period of discussion and debate with a genuinely open mind? Are they determined to do their level best not to be here at this time next year, standing pat on Part 4 and asking supinely for its renewal, but determined to come forward with a better alternative? For example—the noble Baroness was somewhat coy about this in last week's debate—will they ensure that they complete their review on the total ban on the use of intercept evidence within the same six months in which the consultation proceeds?
I have to say that the first omens are not encouraging of the Government's determination to do better on this score. The Home Secretary, shooting from the hip, did his level best to wing the Newton report before it got off the ground by disparaging it and misrepresenting its main conclusion. The February discussion paper, which might have represented a more mature reaction to these proposals, must be one of the feeblest and thinnest Whitehall documents ever to be described as a discussion paper. It totally fails to answer most of the points made by the committee. It grasped avidly at the few points where our conclusions are supportive of current government policy. It dismisses, in paragraphs, substantial points of criticism developed over pages of careful argument—our conclusions not only on Part 4, but on many other important issues such as the clear recommendations on the need for proper oversight of the disclosure of information provided for in Part 3 of the Act, which the noble Baroness will recall was an issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in the debate last week.
So, is the Government's position on the forthcoming six-month debate as stated by the Home Secretary when he said:
"The Government's mind is open on the long-term way forward. We are not advocating any particular cause"?
Those are fine, very promising words. Or is the position as the Home Secretary said a few paragraphs earlier in the same discussion document:
"The Government believes that these powers—Part 4—continue to be an essential part of our defences against attack"?
Those two phrases occur within about 10 lines of each other. Home Secretary speak with forked tongue.
I believe that the House needs clarity of intention from Ministers today. If the Government were to give a clear signal that they, too, are looking hard for a fairer, more effective and more even-handed way of dealing with suspected terrorists whatever their origin, and that their hope, intention and expectation is to come back with it to Parliament in good time so that today is the last renewal of Part 4, this amendment would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if the Government are merely playing for time in the face of the unanimous recommendation not only of the
1344
Newton committee but of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I believe that they are misreading Parliament badly. This amendment is a necessary and timely warning and a wake-up call, not only on behalf of Liberal Democrats but, I believe, of the whole House, which the Government would be prudent not to ignore. From today, Part 4 is living on borrowed time. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to replace Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 with alternative provisions which do not require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights."—(Lord Holme of Cheltenham.)
Noon
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in debates on orders it would be the usual procedure at this point that the Front Bench spokesmen from this side of the House would put forward their views. I suggest, however, that this is rather an unusual situation and that the House might find it more appropriate if I reserved my remarks until just before the Minister responds, and that instead I might turn to my noble friend Lord Newton, who chaired the committee, to present his remarks at this point.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for her courtesy to me, although I should emphasise that I see as no part of that that I am now speaking formally on behalf of the Opposition as distinct from speaking in my capacity as chairman of what was a very non-partisan committee of Privy Counsellors. I saw my noble friend nodding vigorously. I am glad to see that that is accepted.
It is only a week and 10 minutes, almost to the second, since I last addressed the House on what was very broadly the same subject—though. of course, it was a bit wider last week. Therefore, my remarks today will be correspondingly brief. I am aided further in that by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who was an invaluable member of the committee, has made a number of the points that I might have made had I been minded to rehearse what I said last week. However, in passing I observe that—alongside the other difficulties that I spoke about last week, and that the noble Lord has spoken about—I continue to be puzzled at the apparent presumption that, even with the alleged terrorists who can be dealt with under Part 4—and bearing in mind the litany that the Minister produced last week of terrorist acts elsewhere directed at British property and British citizens—the best answer is to get them somewhere else. I continue to have reservations about that.
My principal purpose now is to make clear to the House that neither I personally nor, I think, the committee collectively would wish to oppose this order. That is not because we resile in any way from the concerns which both I and other members of the committee and, indeed, Members of the House at large set out in last week's debate. Indeed, it appears to me that

1345
those concerns have been underlined and further validated by the various events that have taken place during the week, including the publication of photographs, rather dramatically, of British—UK national—suicide bombers; the return of a number of Britons—UK nationals—from Guantanamo; and the SIAC judgment to which the noble Baroness referred. Nevertheless, those concerns, however valid, do need to be set in the context of two other considerations.
The first, of course, is that none of us doubt that there is a threat; that it is not going to disappear quickly; and that the Government do have a duty to seek to prevent it materialising, even if we do not think that what they have in place strikes an appropriate, effective and sustainable balance between the various considerations involved. The second is that none of us think that finding such a balance is a quick or simple task. It needs careful and thorough consideration, involving careful and thorough consultation, and leading to legislation, if it does, which can be subject to careful and thorough scrutiny. In other words, I, at any rate, would accept that the word "urgently"—which we used in our report to describe the need for a replacement—is not the same as "precipitately".
For reasons we all understand, the legislation that we are discussing was conceived and passed at a speed much greater than, but for the circumstances, anyone, including, I hope, the Government, would have thought desirable. I believe that none of us would wish to create a vacuum which would have to be filled in a similar way, which is what would no doubt happen were the renewal sought today to be refused.
As has been indicated several times, the Government have undertaken to have a further six months of extensive discussion and consultation in terms on which I touched last week and which I do not propose to go through again. As I said then, there appears now to be a much greater acknowledgement of the need to address some of the difficulties we identified than any we detected during the course of the long work of the committee of inquiry. In my judgment the right course now is to let the Government get on with that and to make a further judgment when we know what emerges from it.
Before I sit down, I should obviously say a few words about the Liberal Democrat amendment, not least because it was moved, though not, I think, originally tabled by, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I listened very carefully and, I need hardly say, sympathetically, to what he said in view of the noble Lord's membership of the committee of Privy Counsellors. I think he knows that I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on what I take to be his purpose of emphasising the importance that is attached to these issues by the committee and, indeed, I think, the House. There is no difference between us on that. It needs to be made clear that many of us who will have no great difficulty in supporting renewal today would have—if I may use the understated language that I always prefer—much greater difficulty in a year's time if by then there was neither the
1346
actuality nor the reasonably early prospect of something which better met the concerns that the committee and others have expressed.
That said, I want to refer—the noble Lord, Lord Holme, paved the way for this—to the precise terms of our recommendation. It can be found in various places, but I refer to paragraph 25 on page 11 of our report, which states:
"We strongly recommend that the powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency. New legislation should:

a. deal with all terrorism, whatever its origin or the nationality of its suspected perpetrators; and

b. not require a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights".

That embraces three concerns because there are two wrapped up in paragraph a. One is that it does not deal with terrorism that cannot be shown to be linked to Al'Qaeda. The other is that it does not deal evenhandedly with terrorists of UK and foreign origin. Paragraph b constitutes the third element—the fact that it requires a derogation.
I am not totally happy about an amendment that asks me to march behind a banner which picks out only one of those considerations and appears to make it paramount. Although I stand shoulder to shoulder with what I take to be the principal purpose of the noble Lord and his party, and do not resile from that.. I am afraid that I would not be able to march through the Lobby behind that particular banner even though, because of my sympathy for what I take to be his main purpose, I would not wish to march through the Lobby against him either. In other words, I should abstain.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I spoke on 4 March in the important debate on the report of the Privy Council review committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. Therefore, I must be very brief today. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I, as members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, expressed the unanimous concern of that committee and others about the excessive width of the powers given to Parliament under the Anti-terrorism Act, as did many on all sides of the House, and, of course, as did the Newton committee. Indeed, concern was expressed about the unique derogation—unique among European states—that has been entered by the United Kingdom Government.
The Privy Counsellors' committee, as everyone knows, put forward an alternative approach with detailed options of a very important character. Those were at the time peremptorily rejected by the Home Secretary. When I asked the Minister at col. 829 of Hansard whether, for example, the Government would have an open mind about the important idea of being more inquisitorial and using the French juge d'instruction approach—which was one of the proposals of the Newton committee—the noble Baroness gave an understandably equivocal reply and said,
"I cannot say that that has been rejected".—[Official Report, 4/3/04; col. 829].

1347
But the problem is that it was rejected in the discussion document and so we are left at the moment in an unsatisfactory position because we do not know whether the rejection by the discussion document of all of the main recommendations of the Newton committee really means what it says, or, as my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked, are the Government genuinely open-minded? That seems to me to be a critical question in this debate.
May I say—this is not flattery; it is just the plain truth—that I have great respect for the complete integrity of the Minister and for her personal commitment to the rule of law which transcends partisan politics? If I may say so, she is a precious asset for the Government at a time when their commitment to the rule of law, and public confidence in that commitment, is at a very low ebb. Therefore, when the noble Baroness comes to the Dispatch Box to commend these measures in the way that she does, I, for one, regard that as of very great importance indeed because I know that she would not do so if it were against her conscience or conviction.
I would support my noble friend's amendment if he decided to divide the House. There are, of course, dangers in that course as, if the Government were to win a vote, they would no doubt quite wrongly pray that in aid in litigation before the House of Lords or before the European Court of Human Rights as some kind of measure of the proportionality of what is now to be renewed. It is not a matter of arithmetic or who happens to be here at this particular time in the House. Ultimately, it will be a legal question for the supreme authority of the United Kingdom and, if necessary, for the Strasbourg court to decide whether the powers taken and their exercise are, in the words of the convention,
"strictly required by the exigencies of the situation"—
that is to say, for the protection of public safety, public order and the protection of human life against the scourge and evil of terrorism.
The touchstone in answering that legal and political question is whether the means used are necessary to achieve the Government's and Parliament's entirely legitimate aims of combating that great scourge and evil. I have to say that the Government's refusal to apply these measures to British citizens suspected of terrorism on the ground mentioned in the discussion paper—that the powers are so draconian that they should not be applied to British citizens—gravely weakens any argument of proportionality since the scourge of terrorism is not a scourge of foreign nationals' terrorism. It does not make the slightest difference whether the terrorist, or suspected terrorist, has British citizenship or not.
The other great weakness in the Government's case is the fact that all other European states equally threatened by the scourge of terrorism have not found it necessary to introduce such sweeping powers and then to derogate from the convention. I know that the derogation has caused grave concern among senior
1348
officials in the Council of Europe, who see it as an extremely bad example. However, that is a matter for the courts.
Does the Minister agree that the test of proportionality, as laid down by the Law Lords in recent cases under the Human Rights Act, involves asking and answering the question of whether the means taken by Parliament and the Government are no more than are necessary to achieve their legitimate aims? Is the least sacrifice being made of the basic rights of the detainees in the sense that there is no alternative involving a lesser sacrifice? That was what the House of Lords decided in the Daly case, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn.
If that is the test and if the Newton committee has put forward a series of alternatives that are less restrictive of human rights, I believe that the Government will find it difficult in any further litigation to justify the measures taken, according to the test of what is strictly required by the exigencies of a situation; and if Ministers reject a series of proposals by an independent committee of Privy Counsellors that has been established by Parliament with the express purpose of considering the proportionality of the measures that we passed in the statute.
Therefore, my noble friend's amendment is of critical importance, not whether we vote upon it or what the outcome is, but regarding the question he asked. If the truthful answer is that the Government do not have an open mind about every recommendation by the Newton committee and have closed the door to them, I would say as a lawyer—who may often be wrong—that the Law Lords or the European Court of Human Rights would be likely to say that the principle of proportionality and the "least sacrifice" test have not been satisfied. That is why I am so glad that my noble friend has asked that question and why obtaining a specific reply from the Minister is important.
Lord Judd: My Lords, no one in this House underestimates the grave dangers which confront us or the heavy burdens of responsibility that they place upon Ministers, the police and the security services. I pay tribute to them all.
There has been reference to the events of the past week and the release of the United Kingdom detainees from Guantanamo Bay is highly relevant to the debate. When we debated such issues last week I said that I was a layman and, therefore, was always cautious about speaking in debates of that kind, because there was so much legal expertise available. But, perhaps a layman's perspective is valid, because many people are perplexed about how four people who have been detained for over two years have now been released without charge. It illustrates the pitfalls of a lack of transparency and emphasises the public anxiety about what is really going on and the reliability of the information on which draconian steps may be based.
Having mentioned Guantanamo Bay, I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that, in congratulating the Government on their hard work in achieving this result, I wish them well in the work they are doing on the remaining four who are still incarcerated. But, as I

1349
have said before, let us never forget that our concerns apply to everyone in Guantanamo Bay—to the non-British every bit as much as to the British. The whole principle, if that is not a misuse of the word, on which Guantanamo Bay is operated is wrong and its provocative nature is disturbing, because it drives young recruits into the arms of the extremists.
Derogation has been referred to. As a layman, I am convinced that if the rule of law is to be sustained, there have to be certain absolutes. Therefore, derogation is an extremely serious move. The trouble with derogation is that once it has been used, it can too easily drift into becoming an easier habit. It has to be exceptional for very demonstrable reasons. The difficulty is that as Britain is the only country in Europe that has found it necessary to derogate, it is important to stress—and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for putting it so bluntly—that the Government have totally failed to demonstrate at any point why something is necessary in this country when it is not necessary in any other country in Europe.
I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There I encounter the anxiety of people from all over Europe that a country such as ours, with its reputation as the fortress of the principles of the rule of law, should have introduced this measure when no one else has done so. I do not want to overdo it by pointing out again that I speak as a layman. For those of us who look at the law as laymen, there are certain principles that are extremely important—including the presumption of innocence and the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt", which is different from "reasonable belief or suspicion". There is also the tremendously important principle that justice should not only be done but is manifestly seen to be done. If confidence in the law is to be maintained, those principles should be sacrosanct.
I would argue that it is precisely when the pressures are at their greatest that it is most important to stand by those principles. It is both right and politically prudent, because, if we do not stand by them, the danger is that we give the extremists a victory. We play into their hands, do exactly what they want us to do, and we act as recruiting agents for impressionable young people who move into the arms of sinister, manipulating extremists.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and stressed that it should provide some sort of legal reassurance. But, she has to accept that there are great misgivings about it. I cast no aspersions on the members of the SIAC, who I am sure are dedicated and honourable people, trying to carry out the best possible job in a difficult situation. However, there is in fact secret evidence in its proceedings and those about whom secret evidence is given have no opportunity to see or to hear it. There are special advocates who are not allowed to discuss the secret evidence with those they are defending.
There is the evidence of third parties and where that is used in the secret part of the proceedings, there are anxieties that some of it may have been secured under torture from people in other parts of the world. That
1350
raises the whole issue of the reliability of evidence secured under torture. It is most distressing in terms of our commitment under other conventions to be firm in our stand against torture and there is the danger that inadvertently, by the back door, we are almost condoning torture.
There is the question of intercepted communications and we all know that that is central to the secret part of the proceedings. If other action has to be taken so urgently and quickly, there is also a need to get this part of the operation on side and to use methods within our legal system whereby intercepted communications can become at least part of—possibly never fully—the open proceedings.
I support what has already been said about the implications of "free to leave". Either these people are sinister dangers for whom special provisions overriding the normal operation of the law are necessary, or they are not. If they are, to say that they are free to leave at any moment begs credibility. Flow on earth can we simply say, "They can go at any moment to carry on their dangerous activities anywhere else in the world but we are not worried about that"?
In our deliberations in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we envisaged the approach of the amendment, but we placed on the provision a time limit of six months. There was a good deal of discussion in the committee about placing that time limit, but the decision to do so was unanimous. We were afraid that without a pressing time limit, things would be kicked into touch or lost in the long grass.
In our deliberations in the Chamber last week, I specifically drew attention to what we, members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said in our report. My noble friend the Minister was dealing with a wider debate and although as usual she did an exceptionally good job in summing up, she was unable to refer to the committee's specific recommendations. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I briefly summarise them.
In paragraph 33, we said:
"We continue to doubt whether the very wide powers conferred by Part 4 are, in Convention terms, strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".
In paragraph 36, we said:
"we are nevertheless certain that a more satisfactory legal framework is urgently required which would be both effective and compatible with the United Kingdom's human rights obligations including full compliance with Article 5 of the ECHR".
In paragraph 37, we said:
"If the Government argue that it is necessary to continue Part 4 in force this should be limited to six months and should be subject to a firm undertaking that the Government will actively seek, as a matter of priority, a new legal basis for its anti-terrorism tactics to be put in place speedily and in accordance with the principles developed in the Newton Committee Report".
Then in paragraph 40, we referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, referred to in his own report, which we felt was most important: that these people have not been charged let alone found guilty and there is real anxiety here about the conditions in which they are being detained. People in that situation

1351
should be treated with great dignity and respect and the conditions in which they are kept should demonstrate that dignity and respect. Frankly, not everyone is certain—to put it mildly—that, with regard to those in Belmarsh, that is the case.
In conclusion, I find an interesting coincidence in two important considerations whenever I think about this issue. First, what are we defending? We are defending men, women and children of course and we must. But over centuries, our forebears struggled to establish the principles which they believed ultimately were essential to the defence of freedom in our society. Those are enshrined in the European Convention. It is almost impossible to over-emphasise the dangers in lightly putting to one side that story of struggle over centuries.
Tremendous issues of principle are therefore involved, but the coincidence to which I referred is that there is an extraordinary political counter-productivity in what is done. Those against whom we are trying to protect our families and our society want to undermine and irreparably damage the principles of our society and we must deny them that victory. We must deny them an incremental victory, as happens when tremendously important principles are gradually eroded.
It is of course for the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to decide whether to put the amendment to a vote, but I want to thank him for having brought the issue to a head. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said about the issue being partial in terms of the total concerns of his committee, but it was important that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, put it so firmly before us. I am determined that I do not want to be part of giving wicked, sinister, manipulative extremists any kind of victory by the erosions of what I believe to be central to the rule of law and the well being of our society.
12.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, your Lordships' House is asked to renew the powers of government to hold foreign nationals without trial. Belmarsh prison lies within my diocese and I know it well. I would not want any person to be incarcerated there for an indefinite period without fair and transparent legal procedures.
The Minister, in her introduction, indicated that she does not envisage the state of public emergency ceasing to subsist. Surely, then, in the event of the public emergency continuing indefinitely, legislation is needed which deals with a situation that is becoming normative. In the mean time, although I do not envy the Home Secretary the weighty decisions he is called on to make, we might observe that where statements are made and decisions are taken which need to be taken on trust, someone somewhere needs to have the evidence on which the core for that trust is based. The country was persuaded to trust Her Majesty's Government and the intelligence services when, not so very long ago, firm assertions were made concerning the possession and deployability of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. We went to war on that basis.
1352
If errors were made over weapons of mass destruction, and it seems that they were, is it too implausible to suppose that they may be made over individuals also? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, last night five UK citizens were released without charge after being held for two years at Guantanamo Bay because, I presume, the security services regarded them as a possible threat. Perhaps the security services have changed their minds in those two years. However, in a situation where mistakes can be made, I urge at the very least that, if powers granted to the Government are to be renewed, anonymised information should be published about the detainees.
If governments may err, so, too, may democratic peoples. I believe that we need to balance the safety of society against the honour of society. Those who elect to office people of liberal and noble views and who grant them extensive powers may yet be surprised if those powers are used differently under a government as yet undreamed of. I do not say that that is probable or even likely, but those who enjoy their citizenship in the land of the free and who rejoice in an honourable tradition of welcome to people of other nationalities will be very concerned about jeopardising the freedom of the future in the name of the safety of the present.
If it is anticipated that dangers will beset this country for the foreseeable future, emergency powers are not the appropriate way to proceed. And if Britain is to maintain her human rights record, it is questionable whether ongoing emergency legislation should be used to deny to the citizens of other lands the protection that we afford to those of this country. It is not that protection against a possible terrorist threat is unnecessary but, if it is to be a long-standing threat, perhaps the way forward is to attend to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and to seek a way to respond to such a threat which does not require derogation from Article 5, or any other article, of the European Convention on Human Rights and which gives due regard to risk, to human rights, to evidence and to the kind of country in which we wish to live.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I intervene briefly to underline the importance that we on these Benches attach to the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham in very powerful and eloquent language.
I want to say, first, that we should not make the mistake of trying to define terrorism in too narrow terms—a point raised, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. This morning, a terrible incident occurred in Madrid. It is important to say that it took place in a country which is not related to Al'Qaeda and where terrorism has been one of the weapons chosen by certain groups in society. Following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, it. occurred in a country which has not sought to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights—perhaps because it has experienced dictatorship and therefore understands deeply how significant it is to hold on to the basic foundations of a just society, the rule of law and democratic ideals.

1353
Secondly, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, real concerns arise from the way in which we try to resolve the problem of people who are detained but not tried. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, removal is a very strange way to deal with the issue because we then simply export to other countries which are even less capable of dealing with the matter people who we believe pose a serious threat to society. It is extraordinary that we should have allowed that to happen unquestioned when, undoubtedly, some of those who are said to pose a serious terrorist threat will be sent to continue their dangerous activities elsewhere. That is hardly a sensible approach to global terrorism.
Thirdly, as has been said by a number of noble Lords—not least, the noble Lord, Lord Newton—I believe it is important to underline that we are giving greater consideration to what is accepted by the Minister, the Home Secretary and others as a continuing threat. In the other place on 25 February, the Home Secretary asked the House to,
"retain part 4 for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; col. 306.]
In other words, the Home Secretary concedes that we are likely to see a continuing terrorist threat over many years, and he appears to feel that Part 4 can therefore be sustained by annual extensions. That is not a satisfactory outcome.
My final important point is that we need an absolute assurance from the Minister concerning the reaction of the Government, as expressed in an intelligent and constructive debate on 25 February in another place. Then, the Home Secretary indicated willingness to listen sympathetically to proposals for ways in which detainees could be tried and to a whole range of measures, including that suggested by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill—the inquisitorial approach. We need a clear indication from the Minister that that will be regarded as something to be pursued urgently in the review. There needs to be a true sense that it is one of the most important things that the Government should do. There can be no question of this measure returning for a further annual extension without the Government having addressed the serious implications of our derogation and the serious implications for our belief in democracy of sustaining a rule in which men and women can be detained for years without ever being tried for what they are said to be suspected of.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware that I rise not in the correct order and I apologise for speaking this late in the debate. It means that many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made eloquently, not least by the chairman of our committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in putting forward his amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lord Judd. I agreed almost entirely with my noble friend's speech, although I wish to pick up on one point that he made concerning the conditions in which the detainees are being held.
1354
I visited both Belmarsh and Woodhill to see the detainees and had the opportunity to speak to them. I also had the opportunity, as did other members of the committee, to see the facilities that had been provided by the Home Office following the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I believe we all agreed that they are excellent facilities and we all regretted deeply, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his latest report, the decision of the detainees not to take advantage of those facilities. I hope that that provides some reassurance that what we considered to be a totally appropriate regime and environment are in place, should the detainees wish to go there.
Of course, that does not detract from the issue that we are debating today—that is, whether the detention itself is an appropriate measure. On that, I start by saying that, like others who have spoken, I shall be supporting the renewal of the provisions put forward by my noble friend today. I believe it would be irresponsible of this House not to support the renewal of Part 4 unless and until we have in place a replacement set of measures—I believe that it will be a set of measures rather than a single measure—that better balances the eternal difficulty of reconciling the right of all citizens to security and public safety against the right of suspects to what is, in the Home Secretary's words in the introduction to the discussion document, nonnegotiable—the right to a fair trial. Equally, I believe that it would be irresponsible of the Government not to take the opportunity presented to them by a year's renewal.
Perhaps I may say, having been part of its authorship, that the Privy Counsellor Review Committee published a very considered report. We sat for a long time; we heard a lot of evidence; we thought a great deal about the issue; and the report has been not badly reviewed in some areas. In our report—the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—there is adequate material on which I believe the Government could take action. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I believe that the crunch will come not on today's renewal debate but were we to be faced with a renewal debate in a year's time without, as he said, satisfactory changes having been made or the prospect of a better package.
So, in spirit I am very much with my colleague and committee member, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I have to say that the spiritual may not be echoed by the corporeal as far as voting is concerned, were the noble Lord to push the amendment. The reason for that echoes the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I believe that the balance of the noble Lord's amendment in referring only to the derogation issue is not satisfactory.
The reasons I shall give today for being deeply concerned about Part 4 are not those civil libertarianism issues which have been raised and spoken about eloquently—not that I am not concerned about them—but the efficacy issues. I took very seriously the tenor of the contribution made in another place by my honourable friend Vera Baird QC about not assuming that other countries' regimes were better or less destructive of civil liberties than our own simply

1355
because they had not gone through the process of seeking a derogation. I think that it is to the Government's credit that they recognise the need for a derogation and were willing to argue the case for it. So I do not think we should assume that everywhere else is necessarily better than ourselves. There was some evidence to the committee about long periods of detention in other countries under other mechanisms—equally unsatisfactory I would suggest in civil liberty terms—but that has not been given the imprimatur of a derogation because the government concerned have never sought it.
Today of all days, when in another European country we have seen multiple deaths from terrorism, is a day to consider the efficacy of these provisions as well as what they do in terms of civil liberties. My concerns are threefold in that area. The first is around the whole issue of identification, policing and disruption. Before anything can be done to a suspected terrorist, we must know that they are a suspected terrorist. That is why in the debate last week I welcomed the additional resources that are being made available to the security services. I hope they will also be made available to Special Branch in the Metropolitan Police and other police forces, because it is enormously important.
We have referred today to the case not of the suspected terrorist but of the known terrorists of UK nationality who were suicide bombers in Israel. The Guardian used the phrase that they were noted by MI5 but not judged to be a security threat. So the first hurdle of identification of people who are a threat apparently was not met. That is the first hurdle before we talk about any measure, whether detention without trial, prosecution or surveillance and disruption.
That is the first issue. For the second issue one can take the same example because of the potent photographs of those two young men kitted up to do their terrible deed. They were pursuing, in their own minds certainly, a cause that was very specific; it was a Palestinian cause. It was a Hamas press release that told us what they had done.
The link with Al'Qaeda, which would be necessary to bring them under the remit of Part 4, would then have to be established with perhaps more or less difficulty, but it would become a link with a link with a link. We categorised it rather jokingly as, "I have danced with the man who has danced with the girl who has danced with the Prince of Wales". But we do have to understand that Part 4 and the derogation allows us to tackle only terrorism that is related to Al'Qaeda. So, if there is a different ideological base or a different base in terms of the organisation, those who pose the threat cannot be captured by Part 4.
Of course the efficacy of Part 4 comes into doubt most clearly and in the most focused way when we deal with UK citizens, whom it does not cover. Many noble Lords have made the point today that I made last week; that is that in anti-terrorist legislation we should be looking for measures that meet the threat appropriately and not measures that are only efficacious against one section of the community; and, as the noble Baroness,
1356
Lady Williams, said, that efficaciousness is deeply undermined by the defence that is always made by the Government; namely, that these people could leave the country at any time.
I think that it has been generally accepted that if they pose that great a threat, it is not a satisfactory remedy for them to be "at loose" elsewhere and able to adopt another identity and perhaps return to this country to plot against UK citizens or citizens of any other country. If they are not that great a threat—it is not a threat to us that they are walking around—and they are not detained in another country, equally, they could be contained under surveillance noted in this country. So I do not understand the logic of the Government's position concerning that.
It leads us into a situation with the SIAC reviews which, for any of us brought up in liberal traditions and with an understanding of the British legal system, is difficult to accept. SIAC is constructed with great care. Having observed its proceedings and read both the open and closed judgments I have to say that no one could cast aspersions on how the process was undertaken by anyone involved, and I include the Home Secretary, who I believe from what we saw certainly has taken the greatest care with certification.
I made several members of the committee laugh by saying that observing SIAC was like Kafka played by the rules of cricket. That really was the sense you got out of the process; that an enormous lot was being done to try and ensure a scrupulousness in administering something that was fundamentally flawed—fundamentally flawed because those accused did not know what the accusation was and they or their lawyers did not have the right to see the evidence against them.
I know it is not easy to deal with these situations. We should not pretend that it is. There will always be a group of people, of whatever nationality, where the information against them—the mosaic of intelligence, reports and hearsay that has come forward—will make anyone who sees it deeply anxious that they should be stopped from being a threat, but which is not of an evidential standard for a normal prosecution in the criminal courts. That will remain a tremendously difficult issue with which to grapple. There is a range of measures on offer; from looking at offences that could be created—as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—to looking at the admissibility of intercepted evidence—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, may speak about this in a moment; and looking at the possibility of constructing a trial that allowed an investigating judge to look at some of this difficult secret evidence that should not be in open court, should not damage the security services or put them at risk.
There is a way of devising a range of measures and a package of measures that will better balance both giving additional protection to UK citizens and discharging the UK Government's responsibilities, but less undermining the fundamental liberties that we all hold dear on which our liberal democracy is based. I implore my noble friend not to interpret the fact that I am here to, in the immortal phrase used in my time

1357
in another place, "abstain in person" on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, should he decide to divide the House, in any way as detracting from the urgency of the Government looking to bring forward a better package of measures so that we are not faced with a renewal order next year.
1 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is difficult to measure up to such an eloquent speech as the one that we have just heard. I agree with every word of it. It is not the only eloquent speech that we have heard today. Like others, I support the renewal of these powers. Having heard what the Minister said, there seems to be no question about that; it goes without saying. Like others, I look forward urgently to the day when Part 4 can be replaced, the sooner the better, as far as I am concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has done the House a great service by moving his amendment to the Motion.
That seems to be even more so if the Minister is right in the message that I think she was giving, that the threat is not, as we had all hoped in the aftermath of 9/11, one that would soon go away or at least diminish in strength. She gave an extremely gloomy message today, that this threat is likely to continue more or less indefinitely. If that is the case, then surely it is all the more important that we should take the message from the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, very seriously indeed.
The two points I have to make are very pedestrian compared with the points that have been made so far in the debate. As the Minister will remember, a week ago I asked her whether the reason why those who are currently detained without trial is a gap in the substantive law—a gap in the Terrorism Act 2000—or whether it is some evidential difficulty. I think I received the answer this morning when the Minister referred to evidence being unavailable as the reason why they are not being prosecuted. Perhaps she could confirm that what I heard was correct. If so, perhaps she could tell us a little more about the evidential difficulty. Is it a practical difficulty, the practical difficulty of which we are all aware, of producing oral evidence in court, which would put lives at risk, or is it a legal difficulty by reason of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? Or is it perhaps a mixture of both? She ought to be able to give us an answer to that question without giving comfort to the terrorists who we all know may be in our midst.
My second point relates to the recent decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked why the Government are contemplating an appeal in that case. I echo that question. Is it because the commission erred in law, in which case I can well understand why an appeal would be necessary? Or is it because the commission reached a decision on the facts with which the Government disagree? Again, I hope that she will be able to answer that question without saying that the
1358
whole matter is sub judice, which is an easy thing for Ministers to say when they do not want to answer awkward questions.
I was a little surprised. although again I may have misheard her, that the Government had been disappointed by the decision of the commission. Why should they be disappointed? Surely the release of one more person who has been wrongly detained is something to rejoice at? During the first Iraq war, I and two others had the job—we were known as the three wise men, a description that may have applied to the other two and not to me—that is now performed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We were abolished by statute, and that is not the first time that I have had the privilege of being abolished by statute.
My job then was to interview the many people who had been detained in Pentonville prison on the grounds that they were a risk to security. It is an experience that I shall never forget. A lot of people had been, to use a crude phrase, "rounded up" on evidence provided by MI5. Our job was to go to see those people, talk to them and find out what we could about them. Of course, inevitably we found out that many of them were being detained on evidence that was totally worthless, and many were being detained even on the grounds of simple mistaken identity. On those occasions, our job was to go to the Home Secretary, which we did, and say, "You must release A, B, C and D", and the Home Secretary released them. He never once gave me the impression that what I was telling him was disappointing. So why now should the Government be disappointed by the conclusion which the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has reached? They should be pleased.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Is he aware that his point is particularly strong because the European Court of Human Rights decided that he and the other wise men should be replaced by a judicial review procedure, or a proper court procedure? It is particularly strange now for the Home Secretary to express disappointment when that better procedure, more judicial procedure, is used, than when the three wise men did it in a way that did not comply with the full rigours of the convention? Is he aware that that makes his point even more strongly than he has just put it?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, obviously, I am delighted to hear that the point is stronger than I thought it was. I did not entirely follow everything that the noble Lord said because, I am afraid, I have left my hearing aid behind. I am sure that I shall read what he said.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I can be brief today, first, because the issues have been so eloquently covered by all noble Lords who have spoken and, secondly, because I had the opportunity to take part in the debate on the full range of the

1359
Newton report last Thursday. The views that I expressed then, reported at cols. 823 to 828 of Hansard, are still relevant to this debate.
We recognise that the threat of terrorism is a real and significant danger. We agree with the Government that, without the powers in the 2001 Act, our defences against terrorism would be weakened to an unacceptable level. For that reason and despite the reservations that I expressed last week about Part 4, we support its continuance for 12 months.
Last week, I made it clear in particular that we considered that the Government should heed the request made in the Newton report and seek an alternative approach as soon as possible, because the provisions of Part 4 are such a serious infringement of civil liberties. I welcomed then the Government's undertaking to consult on Part 4 over the next six months. I pay particular heed to the words used by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, which were echoed in the eloquent speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The reality that they highlighted so well is that, if we are here next year considering a renewal because no progress has been made, the Government may face a very different debate.
For the reasons that I gave last week and having heard the full debate today, I can say that I support the Government in the making of the order without amendment.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken for making it clear that they support the making of the order. I say that with genuine feeling. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his kind words about me. They were undeserved, but I say, "Thank you" anyway.
The debate has raised some important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked whether there would be a genuine discussion in the next year, between now and the time when the order comes to be debated—if it comes to be debated—in 12 months' time. The answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes", but I need to put that in context. In our debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, accepted, I think, that the task given to the committee of Privy Counsellors was to consider this Act, not, perhaps, to put forward concrete substitute proposals for what would replace it. We all accepted last week that any proposals to replace Part 4 would need careful consideration, to ensure that the level of security that, we assert, Part 4 currently gives was maintained and that any substitution in procedure would not undermine that security but would give appropriate care to the rights of those who are subject to the procedure, which we all wish to preserve. So, I say right at the beginning that the aspirations of the noble Lord and others in that regard are totally shared by the Government.
1360
The position that we face today is that Part 4 is the best that we have at the moment. In the past year, it has proven to be robust. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that the Act—particularly Part 4—was created in circumstances that made it over-hasty and did not allow us to have mature reflection on all the issues. Of course, I concede that the circumstances in which we found ourselves at that time were such as to cause us to take emergency action. I hope that noble Lords who have participated in the debate will agree with me that the care that this House and the other place took in crafting the provisions—albeit speedily and against a background of emergency—was very robust. That is why we have the benefit of the report by what I will call in short form the "Newton committee"—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, will forgive me if I call it that. It is why we have the benefit of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and of two serious and informative debates, last week and today.
I also pray in aid the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hayman. She argued—rightly, if I may respectfully say so—that the Government should be commended for coming before the House and expressly seeking a derogation. I hope that noble Lords are not in any doubt that the Government take any derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights very seriously and do not seek one lightly. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, indicated, I think, that such a derogation should not be dismissed lightly. I think he said that some would say that it was a small price to pay for the right measures. I must make it clear that the Government do not believe that it is a small price. The Government believe that it is a weighty price but a necessary one.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is getting close to the crux of the issue between us, as there is so much that we agree on. In trying to craft what she called a substitute, would it be one of the cardinal aims to remove the need for derogation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we must consider whether it is possible to craft something that is equally robust but would not necessitate derogation. If it were, the Government would have done so. Our view, based on the information that we have and our discussion of the issues, is that the situation that we now face can be properly met only by the provisions that we have at the moment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall give way in a second. We have the discussion paper and all the issues that were laid out by the human rights committee and the Newton committee. There is also the discussion of the suggestions made in the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. All those issues will be debated, as a result of those discussions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, further to the point made by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, can the Minister say, at least, that the Government will endeavour to bring before the House, before the expiry of the present order a year from now, proposals based on the discussions in another place on 25 February and by the committee of Privy Counsellors for alternative routes to deal with the problem that she outlined, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, so powerfully argued?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that what was said by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place was absolutely his intention: there will be an open discussion of the issues. If, as a result of those discussions, the Government come to the view that that is a course that should properly be taken, it will be taken. I hope the noble Baroness understands that I cannot give any guarantee in relation to timetable because I cannot foreshadow the nature or the extent of the discussions that will take place and what may emerge as a growing consensus as to what may be the way forward.
I take very seriously what has been said in debate. I also take very seriously what my noble friend Lady Hayman said about the nature of this issue. I take seriously what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in terms of the length of time that these provisions may remain in force. There are many considerations that arise as a result of those suggestions. Some noble Lords have said that we may need further or other legislation. Is that right? Would that be a course to go down? Those are all issues that I am sure will excite a lot of attention and discussion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As the Minister will be aware, the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others suggest that the robust measures—words used by the noble Baroness four or five times—do not deal with her devastating point that the measures are both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. They are under-inclusive in that they do not deal with some really nasty people who are British citizens; they are over-inclusive in taking unnecessary powers that could be dealt with in a more proportionate way.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the under-inclusiveness—that they do not go far enough—and the over-inclusiveness will be dealt with urgently so that the House has options properly considered by the Home Office back with us well before a year from now? I think that that is what all sides of the House are asking the Minister to tell us.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have tried to make it as clear as I can that these issues are included in any discussions that we shall have as a result of the discussion paper. I hope that your Lordships will find that the discussion paper is very open. It does not prohibit any issue being raised by any other party, who may say, "We need to consider the following".
1362
However, I also need to say that the issue of what we do about our own nationals has always, to date, been dealt with separately because we have an irrefutable problem: we have no capacity to ask our own nationals to leave this country. They will be dealt with within our borders. They are British citizens and they have a right to remain.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I am sorry, but she provokes me on this point, which I made last week. These particular foreign nationals are in exactly the same position as our citizens. In effect, because of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and because we cannot deport them, they must be dealt with within our own country, which is exactly the same as with UK citizens.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes in that regard. I understand that she would say that we have to look very particularly as to the procedure that we therefore adopt in relation to foreign nationals to cure that mischief. I know that the noble Baroness understands that the Government currently believe that one cannot conflate the two. We have made it plain that the discussions we shall have as a result of the discussion document produced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will allow us to look now at what other options there may be to address the issues on which we are clearly divided.
I am unable to say what the outcome of those discussions will be. I hope that we could craft something together which everyone would think was robust and which would be supported on all sides, not least because we are all in agreement that, first, there is a threat; secondly, we have to respond proportionately to that threat; and, thirdly, we need to ensure that the ordinary rules that we would expect to apply will not be deviated from unless it is absolutely necessary. Those are things on which we agree. We are therefore saying that that is a discussion which now has to take place, and will take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked me a number of questions about timetabling. I shall now turn to those because I need to be clear about what the next 12 months are likely to bring about. The suggestion is that we are going just to kick this into the long grass, come back in 12 months' time and say that we want the provisions to be reaffirmed.
I and, I am sure, all my noble friends will have listened clearly to what this House has said; namely, that we have been put on probation for 12 months and we will be dealt with and sentenced in 12 months' time. I hear that stricture. I reassure noble Lords that it will be heard by anyone who has either listened to this debate or reads it in Hansard.
As your Lordships know, the Government's response to the Newton report was published on 25 February. It formed part 2 of the discussion pa per on counter-terrorism powers. The response indicated where the Government wanted to look further at the committee's recommendations. It also, for example,

1363
raised the issue of whether any further offences could be created. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested a broadly drawn offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. Is that something which could assist us in this regard?
The discussion paper invites further ideas. We have heard many ideas in last week's debate and in today's debate. I remind noble Lords that the consultation period will continue until 31 August. So we have a period to get further ideas that can be scrutinised. We are also looking at whether the restriction on the use of intercept materials should be changed. The review is under way. It will report shortly. The noble Lord asked whether it would report six months from today. I would be bitterly disappointed if we did not have the results of that review available within the next six months.
Can I say, hand on heart, written in stone or blood, that it will be there in six months to the day? The answer is "no". Will we ensure that we do everything to encourage and enable it to be delivered as quickly as possible? The answer is "yes". Noble Lords who have had the advantage of standing at the Dispatch Box, and others, will know that sometimes our disappointment is expressed, but there may be little that we can do about it. That is something which will be energetically pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also commented on numbers. I hope that your Lordships will understand when I say that the Government are clear that the threat now comes predominantly from foreign nationals. I am not in a position to go into the details, but that is the clear information that the Government have, and that is the position. In addition, I need to say that numbers themselves are not the determining factor. The powers tackle the adverse effects for the country in meeting the emergency arising from the continuing and unrestricted presence in the United Kingdom of suspected terrorists who cannot be removed to third countries. We think that it is not necessary to extend the measures further to include UK nationals.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the noble Baroness, but have I got what she is saying right? We quoted from evidence given to us by the authorities that approaching half of those suspected of terrorism are British nationals. Is the noble Baroness saying, "Well, if you weight it for the potential seriousness of the terrorism, it is the foreigners who are more likely to do the serious things than the British suspected terrorists"? Is she saying that it is a matter of weighting the quality of terrorism rather than the numbers of suspected terrorists?
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no. That is not what I am saying. Of course, I appreciate that noble Lords have used figures in this debate. I am not able to comment on figures for very obvious security and other
1364
reasons. I am therefore obliged to indicate to your Lordships that the Government's information makes it clear that the dominant, major threat comes now mainly from foreign nationals. That is our assessment; it is not simply a numbers game. I hope that your Lordships will understand why I cannot go further.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked about SIAC. I hope that I have acknowledged, both last week and today, that we believe SIAC is working very well. That does not mean that we unequivocally agree with every decision it makes. There is, of course, a case in point where we do not believe that SIAC have got it right. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was teasing me when he asked whether we were appealing on fact. The noble and learned Lord knows that the only basis on which we could possibly appeal would be a point of law. That is why I say to the noble and learned Lord that on this occasion we believe that SIAC has got the law wrong. Even the most noble and learned judges are not infallible.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, raised a number of points which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. He specifically questioned the issue of exporting terrorism, a theme raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman. It is not an issue that we take lightly. However—it hurts one almost to say so—-our major concern must be the protection of the United Kingdom. I hope noble Lords will understand that we work very closely with all our security colleagues around the world in relation to these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Judd asked about the status of other European countries and why they have not derogated. I hope that what I have said and what my noble friend Lady Hayman has said goes in part towards the answer—not least because we have to make an individual assessment of the threat, and that individual assessment has caused us to believe that the derogation was necessary. I absolutely accept that there may be a different view in that regard. I think my noble friend Lady Hayman is right: it may not be that other countries have not derogated in fact; they just have not derogated de jure, in law, whereas we have found it necessary.
It is not a comfortable position in which we find ourselves. But, as I have said, the Government have not closed their mind and we will continue to consider whether this is the best way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked a very specific question about whether we accept, or agree with, the Court of Appeal definition or test in relation to proportionality. It is the correct test. However, we do not consider at present that there is any less intrusive measure which would meet the exigencies of the public emergency. That is where, perhaps, there is a difference of view.
That does not mean that we are not prepared to continue to keep these issues under review; it does not mean that we have closed our minds. I tried to make it clear on the previous occasion, and I repeat today, that no solution we come up with is likely to be perfect. We are all trying to get the best solution we can. No matter

1365
what solution we come up with, many will still feel some anxiety about it. The Government are clear that we need to continue to look at this issue.
I turn now to some of the specific points raised by my noble friend Lord Judd on the whole issue of secret evidence. I hope that noble Lords will not mind me reminding the House that we adopted the SIAC-type process following the European Court at Strasbourg ruling in Shahal. It was adopted precisely in order that we might address the concerns about secret evidence. Again, we have not suggested that it is a perfect solution, but it is the best we have available to us to enable the courts to consider secret intelligence.
As I said earlier, we are looking at whether the restrictions on the use of intercept material could be relaxed. When the review is published we shall, of course, be able to consider that issue further.
My noble friend Lord Judd also asked about SIAC and the issue of the use of torture and interrogation. Your Lordships will know that SIAC has adopted the common law approach to evidence which may have been obtained elsewhere through the use of torture, save for evidence that is obtained from a party—usually the defendant—in a criminal trial, where all the evidence is admissible however unlawfully obtained. However, where material may have been obtained by torture, the means by which that information is obtained will bear on the proper weight to be given to the information.
I turn now to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. He asked about anonymised information on detainees and whether or not it should be published. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that anonymised information is already made available, as recommended by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on the Home Office website.
The right reverend Prelate asked about SIAC and the decision that we have made. I hope I have explained why we are appealing that decision. He also referred to the replacement of the temporary nature of the legislation. I hope that I have dealt with that, too, in terms of where we may respond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked for a clear indication that the Government will not come back for a further renewal in a year's time. I think that I have dealt with that as best as I am able in terms of the approach that we hope we will be able to take in due course.
I thank noble Lords for the rigour with which they have approached the debate. It is right that there should be a rigorous scrutiny of the measures we are taking into account today. I very much welcome the assent of noble Lords to the continuation of these unfortunately very necessary powers, in the interim and for the next 12 months.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short discussion on the amendment I have proposed from these Benches. I am extremely grateful to all who have spoken. It has been an outstandingly valuable debate, as the Minister has acknowledged. Although at the end of the day we may not find ourselves in complete
1366
agreement, there is a great deal to agree on. It is to the Minister's credit that she has identified some of those points.
Although obviously concerned not to have the potential support in the Lobbies of the Conservative Front Bench, I am very heartened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Newton—who will also not be there—will be at my shoulder, and that I shall have the spiritual guidance of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, hovering above me. It fortifies me to think that I might be able to survive this ordeal knowing that I have that, let alone the support of both the Church and the law in the shapes of the right reverend Prelate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is very cheering from the point of view of a minority party proposing an amendment to have mustered such support.
The noble Baroness could not have put it better: the Government are now on probation. I think that she has got the message, loud and clear, from all sides of the House that it would be quite wrong for the Government to assume from here on that they can come back and say, "Renew Part 4", and expect acquiescence from all of us concerned with the problem of terrorism. We are saying, "You have got to do better, and you should do better within the next year".
I particularly welcome what the Minister said about telephone intercepts. It is very good news that she expects to see the conclusion of the Government's review within six months of discussion. I think that will help them to generate an alternative. She was careful to qualify that, by saying that she would be bitterly disappointed if such a review were not completed in time. It would be a very hard-hearted Home Secretary who would want bitterly to disappoint the noble Baroness, but perhaps this one is hard-hearted, so we shall have to keep up the pressure.
That brings me to my conclusion. We could say that we will rest on our laurels; it is clear what the feeling of the House is and it is clear that the Government are moving, under pressure, towards some abandonment of their first rejection of the Newton proposals on Part 4. However, I am afraid I am not able to feel confident about that, for two reasons. First, the noble Baroness was so circumspect about timing that I, for one, was left very unsure whether the Government would come up with new proposals within the year which are necessary for us to have an alternative. I understand her caution, but I cannot agree with it.
Secondly, when it comes to the content, the noble Baroness has, in her usual skilful way, left it rather unclear whether the Government will simply cherry-pick among the Newton proposals or whether they will make a point of reviewing all of them seriously, even those hitherto rejected, in order to try to come up with a combination which does not provide for derogation from the European convention. In the light of that, I think that we shall have to test the opinion of the House.
1.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.[Teller]

Methuen, L.

Avebury, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Barker, B.

Morgan, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Northover, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dearing, L.

Rea, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Rennard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L.[Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Joffe, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Laird, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tope, L.

Lyell, L.

Walmsley, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Maddock, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Filkin, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gale, B.

Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Golding, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grenfell, L.

Billingham, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Borrie, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harrison, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Haskel, L.

Brookman, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Burlison, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chorley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jordan, L.

Cobbold, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Condon, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Denham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dixon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Morris of Manchester, L.

Moynihan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

1368

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Puttnam, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Radice, L.

Tenby, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thornton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Richard, L.

Triesman, L.

Rooker, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walpole, L.

Sewel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Warner, L.

Simon, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Slim, V.

Weatherill, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strange, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
1.53 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill be postponed until after consideration of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before the House would renew the temporary provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 which give effect to what is known as 50:50 recruitment and lateral entry for a further three years, keeping them in force until March 2007. I know that some of your Lordships harbour principled misgivings about a measure which is, as the Act itself makes clear, discriminatory.
When the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, led by Chris Patten, made its report, it reflected the agreed. principle of the Belfast agreement that the Police Service should be representative of the society that it polices. The Patten report itself pointed out in paragraph 14.2 that:
"real community policing is impossible if the composition of the police service bears little relationship to the composition of the community as a whole".
It continued:
"If all communities see the police as their police, there will be … more effective policing".

1369
That issue of representation is crucial to furthering that effectiveness, not just the police reforms.
The RUC was a tine police service and it had many strengths to which I am glad to pay tribute. However, despite much effort, it was not representative—only just 8 per cent of its regular officers were Catholic. Many will say that the fact that there were so few Catholics in the RUC was due to intimidation from the IRA and others, and the Government acknowledge that that played a part. However, since the Government's implementation of the Patten recommendations, and with support for the police from the SDLP in particular, there has been an unprecedented response. In six competitions there have been nearly 33,000 applications. The level of applications from the Catholic community has consistently averaged around 35 per cent.
I accept that many qualified Protestant candidates who might otherwise have joined the service have been turned down in part because of 50:50. However—and this is an important point—the number of applications means that, across the board, 96 per cent of all applicants are unsuccessful compared with the one in eight who gets into the police in Great Britain. Indeed, the Chief Constable has had to turn away qualified Catholics as well as qualified Protestants. That is a consequence not of 50:50 but of the quantity and calibre of applicants. As a direct result of the 50:50 policy, Catholics are making up an increasing proportion of regular officers: the proportion has increased from just over 8 per cent at the beginning of the process to over 14 per cent now.
Although some suggest otherwise, that progress simply could not have been achieved without the 50:50 recruitment policy; that policy is producing real results. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said during the passage of the principal legislation in 2000:
"Quotas may not succeed, but I have been persuaded … that targets certainly have not".—[Official Report, 23/10/00; col. 122]
I hope that he can now be assured, after more than two years of recruitment, that quotas are succeeding.
Let me make another point clear: no one is appointed unless they pass the qualifying tests—all recruits are there on merit. All the recruits deserve our support. As the Chief Constable wrote in a newsletter on 10 October,
"They are professionals of the highest calibre and I am proud to have them under my command".
He went on to say:
"The aim is to make the police service reflective of the whole community of Northern Ireland. This is what I want to see. It is what my organisation wants to see. And, above all, it is what the vast majority of people living here want to see".
To those who are against the 50:50 provisions, I would say that to remove this key plank of the Patten recommendations would be to undermine the confidence of the nationalist community in the police. For we are now reaching a point when those who might try to say that the police are not "our" police, look, more than ever, like what they are—stuck in a past which bears little resemblance to the reality of today.
Many noble Lords will want to know when the Government plan to bring 50:50 to an end. There is no doubt that, should 50:50 go now, applications to the
1370
police from Catholics would drop substantially, As set out in the Patten model, our target has always been to reach a proportion of 30 per cent Catholics in the regular service by the year 2010–11. We are on course to achieve that. I would not want to prejudge when the 50:50 provisions should end, but I can say that the Government do not want to continue the practice any longer than necessary. As the then Lord Chancellor said:
"Fifty-fifty recruitment is an exceptional means of addressing an exceptional problem. Because it is exceptional, it will remain subject to regular review".—[Official Report, 15/11/00; col. 296.]
I urge noble Lords to support this order, which is required to deliver better policing in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 February be approved [9th Report, from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
2 p.m.
Lord Laird Lord Laird rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 12 February".
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I rise to propose an amendment to this Motion. In doing so, I say that nobody wants to see a fully representative police force in Northern Ireland more than I do. Nobody has worked harder, in my opinion, than a number of us to return the society in which we live, our children live, our parents live—in which we all live and wish to continue living—to some sort of normality.
We opposed the concept of 50:50 recruitment in 2000, when the Bill came before your Lordships' House. It is no pleasure for me to stand here now and say that everything that we thought about 50:50 recruitment has been proved correct. Despite what the noble Baroness has said, it is our distinct view that 50:50 recruitment is in clear contravention of the Belfast agreement, command paper 4705, dated 10 April. Under "Rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity", it refers to,
"the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
The concept of 50:50 recruitment, or recruiting people on the basis of their religion, is totally different. What it has done is to produce a lot of hurt, initially in the Unionist community. I have a large file, which I am quite prepared to let anybody see on a confidential basis, of some of the best people in society in Northern Ireland, who spent a lot of time trying to get into the police force but have been turned down in the initial stages because they were members of' the Protestant community. They were kept out for that reason. However, I have a letter here—it is only one of a number—dated last week, in which a Roman Catholic member of our community was refused entry into the PSNI on the grounds of his religion. The letter said:
"You have passed all aspects of the selection process. I regret to inform you that the Chief Constable cannot offer an appointment to those candidates from your community background".

1371
There is an increasing number of people in that situation. The last campaign has got to the stage where it discriminates against my Roman Catholic fellow countrymen.
So it all depends on where you are and what lottery you are in—what pool you are in—as to whether you are in or not. Do you know whether you are there on merit or whether somebody from the other community who did not get in might be better qualified than you? It is a tragic state of affairs. In the Belfast News Letter of 18 February, a widely respected politician in Northern Ireland said:
"Quotas lead to resentment when those who are qualified or passed over because of their religion or race. We are risking a morale-sapping backlash".
That was written by David Ford, leader of the Alliance Party.
The whole objective of the building of the Northern Ireland that we want to see and have put a lot of effort into is to build a Northern Ireland in which somebody's religion is of no importance. But what message is a 50:50 recruitment into the police force giving us? It is a tragedy. The interesting thing is that those people who for 30 years have made an industry out of human rights are strangely silent. All those people, including the so-called Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who have argued about human rights for 30 years, are missing today. I might conclude that it is something to do with the fact that what we are talking about here are the human rights of people who wish to join the police force. It is therefore for others to decide their motives.
If we boil it all down, we are really talking about individual rights versus community rights. I am very hesitant to go down the community rights line. Society is built on the rights of the individual; that is why we have courts to decide whether somebody has been dealt with fairly or unfairly on an individual basis. If we ever proceed on the basis of community as opposed to individual rights—and this is the only piece of legislation that I have ever come across in the western world that talks about religious discrimination—we are opening a Pandora's box that could be very dangerous for us all. To take the most awful example of the past 100 years, looking at the rights of the greater good is what the Nazis did in Germany. What I am saying is that we protect the good of us all by going down the individual route.
It is also interesting to put on the record that since the inception of the Northern Ireland state in 1921, not one piece of legislation on the statute book has discriminated against anyone on the basis of their religion. That has been confirmed by Written Answers in this House in the previous parliamentary Session. The first time that any legislation went on to the Northern Ireland statute book that discriminated against anyone on the grounds of their religion was in 2000 with this wretched Bill.
We must be very cautious. This is having an untold effect. The hurt is bad, as is the draining off of some of our best young people, who say they want to be a
1372
policeman or policewoman, and who go off to the Met or some other police force. We cannot afford to lose the best people from Northern Ireland because of religious discrimination. We cannot afford to build up the hurt that has been built up on both sides of the community because of religious discrimination. Have we learnt nothing?
The process is now a lottery. I am highly upset that the Government should think so little of those of us who are rebuilding the Province that they should burden us with this sort of religious nonsense once again, which is exactly the sort of thing that we wish to get away from. Producing a lottery is not the answer. Perhaps the solution would be to hand the whole recruitment to the PSNI over to Camelot and let it run it as a lottery alongside the National Lottery. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 12 February".—(Lord Laird.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for bringing the order before the House today. I take as my reference that which I said in the debate on 15 November 2000, when the Bill was under scrutiny in your Lordships' House. In principle we disagree, as we did then, with the 50:50 policy. One does not need to cast the memory or the thinking process back too far to understand that under-representation of Catholics in the police force was 100 per cent a consequence of insufficient Catholic and republican applicants and nothing whatever to do with the recruitment process. There has been legislation in Northern Ireland concerning fair employment, which related to those matters, for many years. It was strictly adhered to and policed. In fact, all recruits to my company and most others had to declare at the time, in a totally confidential envelope, whether they were perceived to be Roman Catholics or perceived to be Protestants. I say that because one has to be a Protestant or Roman Catholic Jew or, in my case, a Roman Catholic or Protestant atheist. That is the way it is and was—I do not believe that it has changed very much.
We on these Benches do not argue with the fact that the republican, nationalist and Roman Catholic population is still under-represented on the police force. What is required is for the leaders of the larger part of that community to join the police force and police board and take a full and active part in the administration and policing of our Province. I know that the SDLP is a very courageous example here and I give it full credit. It is suffering in its own communities on a regular basis. But we need the full weight of the republican movement and Sinn Fein to help to correct this anomaly.
At Third Reading of the legislation on 15 November 2000, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, moved a very reasonable and sensible amendment to this part of the Bill. It placed responsibility on the chief constable to bring in measures to ensure that the composition of the

1373
police service is representative of the population of Northern Ireland. There was a long debate on that amendment. It will suffice for me to restate what I said on that day:
"I support the amendment".
That was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
"The business of 50:50 recruitment and of reaching the right balance in reflecting the population is necessary, but there is a better way of doing it than the way proposed in the Bill. I hope that the Government will be able to find a way and not be stuck with something that is rather meaningless. As I have said, once we get open season for the nationalist population to join the RUC, we are home and dry".—[Official Report, 15/11/00; col. 286.]
I still believe all that I said four years ago.
I am sad that the Government have found themselves stuck with a heavy and cumbersome tool to solve a delicate confidence-building problem. In her remarks, the Lord President said that to remove the plank of 50:50 would remove the confidence of republicans in the police force. With all due respect to her and the Government, I think, hope and believe that we are well past that day. But I believe that the continual aggravation, the speeches that can be written—some of them instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, just now—and the accusations that can still be made in this political process are wrong. I am getting frustrated with the Government's lack of progress in Northern Ireland. It is high time that some progress was made to rethink this cumbersome and now somewhat old-fashioned and outdated tool. On that basis, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Laird.
I have spoken with a number of people at some length outside the Chamber. A debate has been going on about the "snakes and ladders" process. Recruits find their way up the ladders, get into the pond for selection and fail to be selected, in the manner read out by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, because of the 50:50 rule. They crash to the bottom and have to pick themselves up and start all over again or go to London, or some other place, if they wish to join a police force.
The Lord President was good enough to write to me about this. I read her letter several times and I have forwarded it to my honourable friend in another place, David Lidington. We are not convinced by what she wrote or by her reasons for not looking at this process or changing it. From what she wrote to me, I understand that she is saying that people are basically satisfied with the system and that those who fall to the bottom of the ladders—go back to "Start", so to speak—have a better opportunity to get in if they climb the ladders a second time and score better points on the way up. I am not sure that that addresses the point. I can see the argument, but I do not give it a great deal of credit.
It is sad that four years on we are still stuck with this 50:50 business and that we are still arguing about it. It is even sadder—this may be criticism of myself—that I have not changed my mind nor seen reasons to do so. If the Lord President was going to remind me that at some stage in the past year or so my honourable friend in another place took a somewhat different view over
1374
50:50, I shall put on record that I never really agreed with him and that the party has looked at the matter again and has returned to its original stance, which I think is fair. I support this amendment.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I too thank the Lord President for introducing this order. As she said, the 50:50 recruitment formula was proposed in the Patten report as a technique for redressing the considerable under-representation of Catholics in the police service. The overwhelming preponderance of Protestants in the RUC had been one of the main areas of contention between the two communities. In the view of these Benches, it would be premature to change the formula at this stage.
I welcome the modifications that have been made to render the process more efficient and less irksome for applicants. I also accept the arguments about not providing for a so-called "rollover", which is the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would like to see, that is a rollover for candidates who meet the selection criteria but who are not appointed. All the candidates in each cohort have to be assessed It would not be proper to introduce an element of assessment that compared between cohorts. That would make for an unacceptable degree of inequality. Happily, there is no shortage of applicants for the PSNI at present. When I visited the police training college at Castlereagh, I was very impressed by the quality of recruits coming from both communities and, indeed, from outside Northern Ireland.
The politics of Northern Ireland are currently in a very fragile state. The peace process is all but stalled. At this juncture, an attempt to unravel these relatively recently introduced developments, including the 50:50 formula for police recruitment, is not needed. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that it would be particularly helpful if Sinn Fein would join the policing board. That is one of the biggest problem hurdles in the peace process at the moment. Sinn Fein's intransigence in this regard is extremely unhelpful and counterproductive to its own interests. Having said that, I nevertheless repeat that we shall support the passage of this order and we shall not vote for the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in an ideal world there would be no need for 50:50 recruitment for the police. But, sadly, Northern Ireland is not an ideal world. That is why we must have a way to make sure that policing is more representative of all the local communities in Northern Ireland. Whatever the reasons for only 8 per cent of the members of the RUC, as it then was, being Catholics, the fact is that this did not represent policing by consent, policing with the support and approval of local communities. The great tribute to the Patten report is that 50:50 is working. It is increasing the number of Catholics in the police. It is increasing the confidence that local communities have in the police force. It will be judged as one of the success stories of the present time that we are moving towards having a police service that will represent its local communities.

1375
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made a number of comments to which I take exception. I shall come on to those in a few moments. But the fact is there is no evidence that the best people are being lost unless there are that many good people. There has to be a limit to the number that the police can recruit in Northern Ireland. Provided they meet the required standard, we are right to recruit people in a balanced way from both communities. That is what 50:50 seeks to do. There will be a day in the future when that will no longer be necessary, but for the moment it is. It is desirable and proper that that should happen. If, indeed, good people are being turned down by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, that is because there are more than enough good recruits on both sides of the community to fill the places. That is surely a tribute to the attractiveness of policing as a career in Northern Ireland. Despite the difficult history and the difficult circumstances at the present time, we are moving towards having the sort of police force that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, talked about human rights but it is surely an abuse of human rights if people are being policed by members of the other community with very few of their own community around. Surely that is a greater abuse of human rights than the arithmetic argument that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, used, although he did not produce any evidence to back it.
I join in paying tribute to the SDLP. Its presence on the police board and the other bodies across Northern Ireland is a step it has taken to ensure that the nationalist community has the kind of policing which it ought to have. It is a positive stand in favour of good policing and I pay tribute to that body. I hope that it will not be long before Sinn Fein sees that that is the way that it should go as well and that it should take on board its full responsibilities to ensure that all the communities of Northern Ireland are policed in the right and proper way.
I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said. He used expressions that I consider unfortunate and he attacked the Liberal Democrats. He referred to Hitler's Germany and Nazism. I hope that, on reflection, he will withdraw those comments both as a general proposition and in relation to the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Europe, Hitler's Germany and Nazism, will realise that the noble Lord's words are so far removed from an accurate description that they are rather offensive. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw those comments.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not recognise those remarks but they sound like comments that I may have made yesterday. I do not know that I referred to the Liberal Democrats. I did not refer to the Liberal Democrats as Nazis. I was making the very simple point that if you start looking at community human rights as opposed to individual human rights, you are starting down the road that Hitler went down. What
1376
Hitler did was get rid of the flotsam and jetsam of society. That was deeply regrettable. I refer to the old business about the liberals in Germany. They did not complain; they were pragmatic at the start. Towards the end of the process of infringing human rights, they could not complain because they were either dead or in concentration camps. I do not make any comparison; I am just saying that that is the most extreme example. If you start down a road, it is always very useful to know where you are going. If I have offended anyone, I shall certainly and gladly withdraw those remarks.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for withdrawing those remarks. He certainly offended me by using them. I accept that he has withdrawn them. It is not my mission to argue on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—they can argue very well on their own behalf. However, we ought to engage in this debate in a sensible and balanced way. Of course there are arguments against 50:50; I understand that. No one—noble Lords or anyone else—has the right to argue that that is not the case. However, the language that we use is important because it could lead to misunderstanding.
I draw my remarks to a close. On two occasions I have seen police training in Belfast. I have chatted with police recruits from both communities. I have been enormously impressed by the high calibre of the individuals, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, who have joined the police. I have been impressed by their dedication and commitment to a task that is still more difficult in Northern Ireland than it is in Britain. I hope that that will not be the case for much longer but it is at the present time. I have been impressed by their dedication, the skill shown in the training and the fact that there are such excellent people committed to serving their communities. If there are so many excellent people in Northern Ireland that some good people are not selected for the police force, that is a good thing in terms of the police service; namely, that more good people want to join than there are places for. I am sorry that some people cannot fulfil their ambitions to serve in the police force, if that is what they want, but in any walk of life where there is competition, some people do not succeed. We have probably all failed at some point in our lives in achieving what we want.
I repeat the tribute that I consider should be paid to the quality of the people in the police force. It augurs well for the future of policing in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the result will be better policing and greater consent by ordinary people for that.
Finally, I am still totally enthusiastic about the Patten report. It marked an important change for Northern Ireland. I believe that when the history of these difficult times comes to be written the Patten report will be seen as a landmark on the way to a peaceful and just Northern Ireland.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I wish to preface my remarks on this order by referring to something that happened yesterday evening when the

1377
noble Lord. Lord Joffe—I have mentioned this to him and I make my comments now without any rancour whatever—said:
"I should mention that, at the same time, a decision was taken that the Bill as it stands specifically excludes reference to Northern Ireland. I am sure that that would interest the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis".—[Official Report, 10/3/04; col. 1324].
I raise that point as I think that it illustrates an attitude of mind that somehow seems to fail to recognise that those of us who have associations with the Ulster Unionist Party are British. We are British to the backbone and our objective is to try to sustain a form of true Britishness in terms of ethos, principle and practice throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. That is something that of late I think our Government have failed to do.
It is not so much what is enshrined in legislation—although that again and again discriminates against the people of Northern Ireland as compared with what the people in the rest of the United Kingdom have come to expect—but rather the knock-on effect of legislation. I shall illustrate that at a later stage. The knock-on effect of legislation that is flawed in so far as it disregards certain principles and practices is serious and significant.
Before I go any further I should indicate that I have been associated with policing in Northern Ireland since 1958—I think that is 46 years ago—when I joined the Ulster Special Constabulary. Later I was associated with policing as a parliamentarian and as an adviser to the RUC Federation. I am associated with the police right up to the present day. As an officer in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, I worked hand-in-glove with the police for 12 years during the recent terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.
At the time of the Patten commission, I discussed with Chris Patten, who I know well, the imbalance in the RUC. About 88 per cent of its membership comes from the Protestant tradition with only about 8 per cent from the Roman Catholic tradition. That had to be addressed. My party and those with whom I would work most closely had no objection to the issue being addressed. But what they said again and again was that if they conceded the suggested 50:50 proposal, it would become a continuous process. At the same time there was a proposal from a Dublin source suggesting that there should be an initial one, or perhaps two, exclusively Roman Catholic intakes of 800, to achieve an immediate boost in order to overcome the confidence problem and the imbalance in the religious make-up of the RUC.
At that time I argued that creating such a stratum—or two—from that single tradition would only succeed in creating a different legacy of imbalance for the following 30 years and would have an undue impact at every level of promotion down the years. I said that it would institutionalise a divided force. I argued publicly, both with my own colleagues, and in evidence to the Patten commission, that the one-off process would be disastrous and that we would be better off with a strict three-year 50:50 policy—although my party, the Ulster Unionists, did not approve. I argued further that it presented difficulties and could not be
1378
extended ad infinitum. It would require an immediate response from the Roman Catholic tradition and should be seen only as an initial confidence booster to that tradition and nothing more. I argued that it might just be tolerated as an acceptable gesture of good will, but that we could not, and should not, do anything that would institutionalise sectarianism in the RUC.
For the past four years I have lived to regret my generosity in trying to resolve a problem that faced us, because not only do we now find an institutionalised sectarianism, but that the sectarianism is extending to other areas of the administration—pertaining to the RUC and beyond. Institutionalised sectarianism in the RUC is now a day-to-day rule of thumb. Why does it take utter, total and complete precedence over issues of gender, age, meritocracy and, indeed, geographical considerations?
I shall give the Minister an example that strikes close to home for me. All my public life, and before that, I have sought to reconcile the two traditions in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are those of us who, if we have the courage to put our heads above the parapet, are able to carry the community forward on a fair and equal basis. In my public life I have found those people in the SDLP and among independent members of the nationalist community. I found that to be the case particularly during my time as a councillor in Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council, where we had an agreeable arrangement of responsibility sharing before there was ever any imposition of the d'Hondt system.
We have been overtaken by d'Hondt. When it came to appointing a district police partnership, we sought to follow instructions and tried to implement d'Hondt but found that Sinn Fein was not prepared to play its part. The outcome is having to re-run d'Hondt—I hope that the Minister will listen to the terms in which I state my case—and one then achieves a political imbalance. Our borough council does not look at whether it is a Protestant or a Catholic who sits on the council; we have abandoned and eschewed sectarian approaches to the problems that we face as councillors.
As a result of our political imbalance, when we came to select the eight independent members we found ourselves—although I contradict myself by using sectarian terms—with 38 applicants, three of whom were from the Roman Catholic tradition. They were good people and we sought a shortlist down to about 25—one more than required—and interviewed them. Before the interviews we received an instruction from the Police Board and its agents, PricewaterhouseCoopers, that we should inject another name, a late applicant. I refused. I was told that the instruction came from the Police Board. I have taken legal advice on that issue and I shall read it to noble Lords. It says:
"The injection of an additional name into the selection process on the 18th December 2002. This would not normally be considered appropriate in fair employment terms but it does not seem to be contrary to the particular process set out herein under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 and the Code of Practice".

1379
I have used that illustration to show the insidious nature of imposing something that is narrow and wrong and which highlights the differences within our society, rather than resolving them.
My problem with the DPP has reached a dreadful stage because I have refused to proceed with an extended process that is being imposed upon me. One of my nationalist friends on the council has written to the chairman of the policing board and said, "Look, we are very sorry. We didn't get 4:4"—four nationalists and four unionists—"but we have not done badly because we have the potential for 3:5". He received a condescending letter in reply from Professor Ray, who said, "Dear Councillor, you misunderstand. We require you to appoint seven Roman Catholics out of the eight in order to create balance within your DPP".
In other words, because Sinn Fein refused to participate, members of our community who attend the Roman Catholic church on a Sunday morning are equated with Sinn Fein. I do not believe that they appreciate that and we certainly do not. Therein is the problem. I do not want to detain the House for ever, but I could give examples of existing inequities that would take us through until tomorrow.
I shall move on. Recruitment to date has been encouraging in the RUC. I have the statistics and notice that in Competition 5, there were 62 per cent Protestant and 36 per cent Catholic. In Competition 6, there were 63 per cent Protestant and 35 per cent Catholic. No one has mentioned gender balance or geographical recruitment across Northern Ireland, urban and rural, east and west. If after three years there has been the morale booster which we all sought, the Government should suggest to this House a one-year extension—certainly not a three-year extension which institutionalises sectarianism.
The outcome of events does not resolve any of the problems in Northern Ireland. Statistics may suggest otherwise and the Minister will rely on them. We all know the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics", and we are suffering from that in Northern Ireland. Does anyone believe that if we transfer the grievances, perceived and real, of one tradition in Northern Ireland to the other tradition, we are resolving anything?
In conclusion, I shall illustrate that by drawing attention to what is happening to the electoral process. For years, the two major parties in Northern Ireland were the centre parties, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. They brought us to a point where we had, warts and all, the Belfast agreement of 1998, which I supported unequivocally. It gave us an opportunity to extend what society was willing to tolerate, accommodate and implement. That was replaced by governmental machinations which were less than worthy of what we had then sought to achieve.
The outcome is that my party is not a popular party in Northern Ireland. It is seen as having been unable to deliver its objectives. The same applies to the SDLP. We are now driving society to the two extremes where
1380
there is no compromise and only tragedy and a slowing down of the coming together that some of us have spent a life-time achieving.
If the Minister and the Government want to move us forward in Northern Ireland, they must stop seeking the easy way forward; the numerical and statistical way forward. They must look at what is honest, principled and will appeal across our traditional divides to all sections of the community. Only that can be a way forward.
I apologise: I have indulged myself in something I feel very strongly about. Your Lordships have been patient and I am grateful. I hope that the Government will understand the sincerity with which I tried to put the case not for one religious or another religious community; not for one political or another political community, but for the people—the 1.7 million people—who live, work and try progressively to get on in Northern Ireland.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, we have been patient as we have listened to his words. But, as he also said, he wanted to emphasise his sincerity on the subject of policing. He has given many years of his life to that in order to help to bring into Northern Ireland a balanced police service for all the people of the Province. That is what those of us who are level-headed want to see. We want to see not only people who are Protestant and Roman Catholic but those who represent the ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland.
When I entered the Chamber, I was disturbed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, support discrimination on religious grounds. That is a sectarian approach and I resent it. He said that in job applications it was normal that some well qualified people would not be appointed. But they are appointed or not on grounds of merit. We are talking about discrimination on the grounds of religion and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should not support sectarianism or discrimination on grounds of religion.
I hope that the Government never again try to renew this order, which perpetuates discrimination on religious grounds. A Labour Government, of all governments, should be ashamed and hold their head low when they support such a policy.
As regards South Tyrone borough council, I declare myself a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It has created 25 district policing partnerships. Only one council has failed to come up with the requirement under the legislation and that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I hope that the problem between Dungannon and the Northern Ireland Policing Board can be corrected, because, if not, we know what the legislation states—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can go over the head of the local district council and appoint a district partnership himself.
I want to raise a question relating to ethnic groups. It appears to me that discrimination in the police service takes place not only against Protestants in

1381
favour of Roman Catholics but also against ethnic members. Apparently, ethnic applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are treated as being non-Roman Catholic and are therefore lumped in with Protestants to be discriminated against. Can the Minister explain to the House the position of black Protestants when they apply to join the police service? Are they discriminated against because they are Protestants or because they are black?
Better still, what is the position of a black Catholic who applies? Does discrimination then take place in favour of that person because his religion is Catholic or does it still go against him because he happens to be a member of a black ethnic group in Northern Ireland? Those issues need to be clarified because the number of ethnic members in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland is very small indeed and, likewise, they feel that discrimination is occurring against them.
I turn to the overall position in Northern Ireland. As one of the three Ulster Unionist negotiators of the Belfast agreement, I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that that agreement is now over. It is finished. First, I fail to see how it can survive in a situation where Sinn Fein/IRA refuse to decommission. That has brought about a complete collapse of support for the Belfast agreement among unionist people.
Secondly, I fail to see how the agreement can survive because, time and again over the years, the Government have rubbed salt into the wounds of the unionist majority. Measures have been taken such as the removal of the Union flag from government buildings. The Belfast agreement stated that Northern Ireland was British and part of the United Kingdom and that that could not be changed without the principle of consent. What did the Labour Government do? Within a year, they removed the Union flag from most government buildings in Northern Ireland. They continued to insult the majority community in Northern Ireland.
However, one of the greatest sores—even now, the Government do not seem to appreciate this—has been the obvious discrimination against Protestant applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Nothing has done more to undermine unionist consent for the Belfast agreement. I implore the Government to recognise the mistakes that they have made and to recognise that religious discrimination should not be part of government policy because it undermines the future prospects of success of the Belfast agreement.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a difficult discussion because we are dealing with difficult and sensitive issues. I shall try to deal with the points as they arose. First, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said that he considered the measure to be in clear contravention of the Belfast agreement. I say to the noble Lord that it is clear, and stated, in the Belfast agreement that the police service should be representative of the society that it polices. That is at the core of what the 50:50 rule tries to achieve.
I understand the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, and others with respect to the hurt felt by those who are turned down.
1382
But I want to emphasise that those who are accepted are accepted on merit. Those who are rejected are rejected because sufficient qualified applicants from their community background in the merit pool have scored better. It is very important that noble Lords understand and recognise that point.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, that is a lovely way of presenting the case. The reality is that some who are rejected are rejected not on grounds of merit but on grounds of sectarian discrimination.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, it is most important that we recognise that 96 per cent of those who apply are rejected. That position can occur in any job application. In referring to the 50:50 rule, we are talking about a Protestant pool and a Catholic pool, but those in the pool must pass the test. They must be qualified before they enter the pool and before they can be accepted. Indeed, some people pass the test but are then not accepted because others in the pool have a higher score. That is the reality of recruitment.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can she confirm that, in any one campaign, it is possible for a person from one community to score a higher mark and not get in and for someone in the other community who obtains a lower mark to be accepted?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am sure that that is possible. It will depend on the number of applicants who pass the test and it will depend on the pool. However—I must emphasise this point—the reality is that everyone who is appointed has passed the test and is there on merit. It would be very wrong of us to undermine the quality of the applicants and those who have been accepted into the Police Service of Northern Ireland because the fact is that they are there on merit.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for giving way. As I understand what she is telling us and as I understand the situation, the merit principle stops once the pool of applicants who have passed the test is filled. There is a ladder up to the pool from which people are appointed. Once in the pool, the 50:50 rule is then followed and merit ceases.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. My understanding is that there are more people in the pool than there are jobs. Therefore, a person can enter the pool but still not be appointed. That applies to both communities. Some people, both Catholics and Protestants, pass the test and get into the pool but are then not appointed because there are not enough jobs. Is that clear to the noble Lord?
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Yes, it is absolutely clear. Those who get the jobs do so on the 50:50 basis rather than on a 1:20 merit basis.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, also said that he wanted us

1383
to reach the point where religion was of no importance. I cannot agree with that more heartily. Of course, that is what we all want to see, but I hope we all agree that we want to see a police service in Northern Ireland where the people see the police as their police.
The noble Lord raised some questions about equality and human rights. I can say to the noble Lord that the Equality Commission has said that it considers the achievement of a police service which is representative of the whole community it serves to be of prime importance. The Human Rights Commission has said that the provision should be renewed.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the fact that fair employment legislation has existed in Northern Ireland for many years. I agree with that. I also agree with the noble Lord when he says that we need community leaders and political leaders to encourage members of their community to apply to join the police service. Again, I endorse that view wholeheartedly. I also agree that if Sinn Fein joined the Policing Board, that would achieve more than anything that the Government or the police could do to encourage applications from republicans.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, my noble friend Lord Dubs and others paid tribute to the role of the SDLP. I believe it is very important that we welcome the significant contribution that it has made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that this is a sensitive situation. We have seen good results from 50:50. I think that we are at the stage where it is too soon to get rid of it. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who said that it would be premature to change the formula.
My noble friend Lord Dubs said that he saw so many good people not being selected as a good thing. I can only repeat what I said earlier: we should all be pleased to see such good quality in terms of the calibre of candidates, both Protestant and Catholic, who are applying to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, indeed, we should be pleased at the quantity of candidates. I recognise the disappointment felt by those who are not recruited; but, at the end of the day, I think that it is a very positive thing to see so many applications.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, told us that he felt very passionately about these issues. I entirely understand that. In particular, I welcome the experience and expertise that the noble Lord brings to this House on policing matters in Northern Ireland. He raised in particular the issue of the ethos of principle and practice in terms of Britishness. I say to the noble Lord that the Government are working hard to reflect the diversity—a diversity which I think we should welcome—across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord was concerned that we needed to build confidence in the process. I entirely agree with him. As I said in my opening remarks, we will keep this issue under review.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about the possibility of creating a divided force, that has not been the experience to date. On listening to the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland that is certainly not the
1384
experience. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Dubs gave an example of the training days that he had witnessed. I can only repeat that these are special measures for a special situation.
The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney, raised the situation regarding other forms of discrimination. The Patten report acknowledged that there were issues of community representation at nearly every level in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but it stated that the religio-political imbalance was the most vital to be tackled if the police were to gain acceptance in the community.
We need to improve female recruitment. The proportion of women in the regulars has increased from 10.88 per cent in 1998 to 16.47 per cent at the beginning of 2004. On the position of black applicants, the application process requires applicants to declare whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic. So, if an applicant is both black and Catholic he will be counted as Catholic; and if he is black and non-Catholic he will be counted as non-Catholic.
With respect to the position on the Policing Board and the divisions which may sometimes arise on it, perhaps I may say to noble Lords that the Policing Board exists to represent the different facets of political and other opinion within Northern Ireland society, and it would be surprising if its members agreed on all issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was concerned that we would institutionalize "sectarianism"—as he called it. I can reassure the noble Lord that although the order deals with continuing the provision for another three years, the legislation is clear that these provisions are temporary. The Government do not want to keep them for any longer than necessary.
Perhaps I may end by saying that the police have made some changes to simplify the process. The process has been rationalised so that non-appointed qualified applicants can omit the initial selection test for the next two competitions. There has also been a change regarding the medical examination to facilitate qualified re-applicants, although it is important to ensure that candidates are and remain fit for appointment.
The Government with the Chief Constable are looking at ways of making the recruitment process less irksome for re-applicants. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of State is looking to see if there is any further scope to reduce the costs and to facilitate applicants.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised, and I hope that noble Lords now feel able to support the order.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and for the clarification from the Minister.
Let me just say that I am determined, as are my colleagues, in the view that human rights cannot be diluted. Some people cannot have more human rights than others. Individual human rights are the most important thing. That is how you build society; that is how you build a future; and that is how we want to

1385
build our future in Northern Ireland. You cannot have a situation where there is a different set of human rights for different people. That is the basis on which I moved the amendment.
3.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Biffen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blood, B.

Laird, L. [Teller]

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Chalfont, L.

[Teller]

Coe, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Feldman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Plumb, L.

Fowler, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Glentoran, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Desai, L.

Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Dholakia, L.

Andrews, B.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Avebury, L.

Ezra, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Barker, B.

Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grantchester, L.

Brookman, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Chorley, L.

Harrison, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Haskel, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hayman, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Condon, L.

Hooson, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Crawley, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hoyle, L.

1386

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L

Hylton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jordan, L.

Sewel, L.

Judd, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Simon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Skidelsky, L.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

Slim, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Methuen, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Morgan, L.

Taverne, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Newby, L.

Tenby, V.

Northover, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Palmer, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Paul, L.

Thornton, B.

Pendry, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tope, L.

Puttnam, L.

Triesman, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rea, L.

Walmsley, B.

Redesdale, L.

Walpole, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Warner, L.

Rennard, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Richard, L.

Whitaker, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Whitty, L.

Rooker, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Roper, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
3.17 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 8 [Restraining orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRAINING ORDERS: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) In Article 7 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9)) (power to make restraining order where defendant convicted of offence under Article 4 or 6 of that Order), in paragraph (1) omit "under Article 4 or 6".
(2) After paragraph (4) of that Article insert—
"(4A) Any person mentioned in the order is entitled to be heard on the hearing of an application under paragraph (4)."

1387
(3) After that Article insert—
"7A RESTRAINING ORDERS ON ACQUITTAL
(1) A court before which a person ("the defendant") is acquitted of an offence may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant, make an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
(2) In proceedings under this Article both the prosecution and the defence may lead, as further evidence, any evidence that would be admissible in proceedings for an injunction under Article 5.
(3) Paragraphs (3) to (6) of Article 7 apply to an order under this Article as they apply to an order under that one.
(4) Where the Court of Appeal allow an appeal against conviction they may remit the case to the Crown Court to consider whether to proceed under this Article.
(5) Where—

(a) a county court allows an appeal against conviction, or

(b) a case is remitted to the Crown Court under paragraph (4), the reference in paragraph (1) to a court before which a person is acquitted of an offence is to be read as referring to that court.

(6) A person made subject to an order under this Article has the same right of appeal against the order as if—

(a) he had been convicted of the offence in question before the court which made the order, and

(b) the order had been made under Article 7.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 101, 117, 124 and 125, which stand in my name.
We have debated at length the provisions in the Bill that relate to restraining orders. These orders will give continued protection from harassment following a conviction or acquittal for any offence where the court considers it necessary to make the order to protect a person from harassment.
The Government believe that the same degree of protection should exist in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 41, which would extend the provisions in Article 7 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 to allow for restraining orders to be made on acquittal as well as on conviction, and will apply these to all offences, not just those under the 1997 order. These provisions replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of Clause 8, which apply only to England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 101, 117, 124 and 125 are all consequential on that change. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 41, Amendment No. 41A:
Line 13, 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 this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 B to 41 E, if only to explain why at this stage I will not be pursuing them. As the Minister herself said, we had an extensive debate on Tuesday evening with regard to the application of these provisions to England. The Government's amendment, Amendment No. 41, replicates those provisions for Northern Ireland.
When the Government brought forward the clause in Grand Committee, in which noble Lords may not vote, I made it clear that I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would withdraw the government amendment at that stage, simply because it had been tabled so late in the day that it had not been possible to take soundings from my colleagues in another place and from organisations in Northern Ireland.
As with a previous clause relating to Northern Ireland, there are still some concerns about the clause. However, on Tuesday evening, when we debated the provision applying to England, I took the opportunity to test the opinion of the House, as I believed that it would be better to have clarity about the burden of proof in the Bill. In testing the opinion of the House at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night, I found that the troops were not around, and I lost the Division. It would be churlish of me to have a go today on the Northern Ireland provision, when the House had signified its dissent from my view on Tuesday evening. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, having spoken to the amendment at some length, would the noble Baroness care to move the amendment, in case anybody wishes to reply?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I should have made it clear that I would withdraw the amendment after the debate. At this stage, I am moving the amendment, but I shall not pursue the matter. I had a full opportunity to air my views on Tuesday evening. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. I do so because harassment is a rather vague situation, and there is a lot of it in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend's amendments, especially Amendment No. 41A, would make the nature of the offence of harassment more specific. Amendments Nos. 41B and 41C have the advantage of tying down a witness in the trial. That is an advantage.
I have an open mind on Amendment No. 41D, but I have nothing against it. Amendment No. 41E, which says,
"leave out 'both the prosecution and the defence' and insert the prosecution, the defence and the person against whom it is proposed to make an order under Article 7A(1)",
would make the matter more specific. That is why I support the amendments.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 41B, moved by my noble friend. I apologise for the fact that I was not here at the end of the debate on the matter earlier this week. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General probably dealt on that occasion with the point that I am going to make.
In Committee, I made the point that, if courts are to have the power to make a non-molestation order against a defendant, although he has been acquitted, it

1389
should be made clear that the power also exists for the court to make such an order in respect of any other witness or the complainant. It may be that the defendant may be shown to require the protection of the order just as much.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that he would consider the matter again. I hope, despite his rather questioning expression, that that is still his intention. It would be sensible to make it clear that the power to make an order on acquittal means that the court can make an order not only in support of the defendant but against anybody who has taken part in the hearing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 41A and 41C, for the reasons that have been given. I record that because it is a development that ought to receive further consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we also support Amendments Nos. 41B and 41C, for the reasons given.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for making it clear that she does not wish to press the amendment. I shall say a word or two in response to the comments made by noble Lords. To the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, I say that I know that the similarity between myself and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General is overpowering, but, in fact, I answered on the matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, knows, the effect of the provisions is that an order can be made in relation to a defendant but not in relation to another witness. The noble Lord will remember that, when we debated the matter last time, we made it clear that the ability of the court to make a bind-over in relation to any other person in the court would still prevail. The noble Lord will also remember that, as a result of comments made by the ECJ, one must be very specific, when making a bind-over, about the precise ambit and the conditions that apply. That route could be used.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would make the same changes to the provisions allowing courts in Northern Ireland to impose restraining orders on acquittal that they sought to make to the corresponding provisions for England and Wales. They are an attempt to make it clear that, when making a restraining order on acquittal, a court must be,
"satisfied on the basis of facts proved on a balance of probabilities".
The amendments would also allow the courts making a restraining order to do so in respect of witnesses in the trial and to specify that the terms of a restraining order could prohibit only acts that would amount to harassment. Lastly, they would give the person against whom it was proposed to make the order the right to be heard.
Having discussed all those issues at some length in Committee and earlier, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is unnecessary for me to recite all my
1390
objections to the proposals. To the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I say that we appreciate that there are difficult and different issues in Northern Ireland, but, having considered the two situations, particularly with regard to this field, we feel that there is no distinction in fact to be drawn between the way in which the provisions would operate in Northern Ireland and the way in which they would operate in England and Wales.
Unless noble Lords want me to recite everything that I said on a previous occasion, I shall gratefully accept the noble Baroness's generous approach in accepting her defeat, albeit at 10 o'clock.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I accept that defeat, but I shall keep on trying on other matters. I am a very trying person, as she knows.
For the reasons that I gave, I shall not press the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friends for their support and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his. We did not debate Amendment No. 35—which is the subject of Amendments Nos. 41B and 41C—in any detail. The noble Lord supported it.
There are still issues regarding restraining orders to which we will need to return at Third Reading, but I hope that they will be focused on a narrow range of subjects. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 41A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 41, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 B to 41E, as amendments to Amendment No. 41, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 41 agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 9 [Application by prosecution for certain counts to be tried without a jury]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 30, leave out "following three"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 to 45. All the amendments are supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
In this clause, the Government seek to remove jury trial in certain cases. The Government's proposals have been put there to overcome the problem that was caused by the decision in the case of Kidd, which precluded the practice of sentencing on the basis of specimen counts, if those counts were the only ones proved and/or admitted by a defendant.
Some organisations, such as Liberty, oppose the proposals altogether. I respect their views. Liberty is not persuaded that the tests set out in Clause 9(5)—that it would need to be in the interests of justice for certain counts to be tried without a jury—are ever likely to be met. I have therefore kept that view carefully in mind during our debates. It confirmed my

1391
view that the amendments presented today are a minimum required to make these proposals acceptable and workable.
My honourable friend in another place and I have already made clear during debates on the Criminal Justice Act that we would look with favour on any sensible resolution of the Kidd problem. However, it should be noted that at that stage none of us had seen the Government's amendments, but we had received a letter from Judge Alan Wilkie QC, the Law Commissioner, which was circulated to Oliver Letwin, Simon Hughes, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and me.
Judge Alan Wilkie's concern was to highlight the view of the Law Commission that its proposals should not be seen in the same contentious light as those that were then under consideration in the Criminal Justice Bill. He made it clear that,
"It is not our intention by our scheme to reduce the number of jury trials, or the number of counts on an indictment which will be the subject of jury trial".
As I made clear in Grand Committee, our objective is exactly the same. Any proposals in this Bill should certainly not be an assault on jury trial. They should provide a sensible way forward by retaining jury trial in those cases where there is such a large number of counts that there are too many to be accommodated in a single trial and, as a consequence, there would be no jury trial at all.
We also need to consider the Government's concern that proposals could lead to a jury trial on such a limited group of counts that the sentence would not be appropriate to reflect the extent or level of offending. My amendments, which I outlined in Grand Committee and return to today, provide the basis for ensuring that the Government's solution is the most appropriate solution to the problem caused by Kidd.
I offer Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 as the best way forward unless the Government can find a way of reassuring me that Amendment No. 45 would provide a sufficient way ahead on its own. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are consequential on Amendment No. 42.
I note that the Law Commission states in its report No. 277 at paragraph 7.6 that:
"although it [this method of trial] will be available for use in certain cases which would attract the sobriquet of 'serious fraud' and will also be capable of being used in non 'serious' fraud and other cases, it will not be available for use in all cases of 'serious fraud'".
My objective has been to ensure that the Government will not try to introduce, through the back door, the proposals that were rejected by this House in the Criminal Justice Act.
Specific undertakings were given in that regard by the Home Secretary. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the clear undertaking that she gave in Grand Committee. She said,
"nothing in this part is intended to encroach or encroaches on the undertakings given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary during the passage of what is now the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those remain separate and apart".—[Official Report, 2/2/04; col. GC 265.]
1392
As a consequence of that I am therefore able to give today my party's agreement to the principle behind the Government's proposals, but I believe that they still need some amendment to make the detail of them appropriate and workable.
Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 make it clear that the conditions set out in Clause 9 are conjunctive and not disjunctive. The amendment was prompted by a drafting complaint made by some of my noble friends and people outside of the House. The conditions must be met if an application by the prosecution for part of a trial on indictment in the Crown Court to proceed in the absence of a jury is to be successful. Despite the Minister's reassurances in Grand Committee, at col. GC 265 of the Official Report on 2 February, I regret that I was not reassured. I remain of the view that this improved drafting is important.
The amendments also make it clear that all the counts must be of the same type of offence. Amendment No. 44 has an added advantage. It alters the first condition in the Government's subsection (3) where they say that the condition is that the number of counts included in an indictment is likely to mean that a trial by jury involving all the counts would be impracticable. I have replaced that by what I believe to be a stronger test; that is, the number of counts is such that the trial would be so unmanageable that it would not be possible to proceed.
Amendment No. 45 offers the same proposal but as a standalone amendment without the encumbrances of my proposals in Amendments Nos. 42 to 44. I am still open to persuasion on Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, but I cannot as yet see any merit in dropping the intent behind Amendment No. 45. We had a lengthy debate about the concerns behind the use of the word "impracticable" in Grand Committee. I remain of the view that it could allow a concern with the budgetary demands of the Treasury to override the public interest of having a trial go ahead with a jury.
If the Minister remains of the view expressed at col. GC 265 of the Official Report on 2 February that this part of the Bill is not a cost-saving exercise. I do not believe that the Government should have any problem in accepting my Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we support Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44. We agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. The counts included in the indictment should be for the same or similar offences, which is the material change that Amendment No. 44 makes. We also believe, and said so in Grand Committee, that "unmanageable" is a better word than "impracticable", again, for the reason that we would not wish to see trial by jury being set aside because of cost consideration.
I also speak to Amendment No. 46, which is grouped with these amendments. Clause 9(9) sets out a definition of where a count is to be regarded as a sample of other counts, but it does not lay down very many conditions. It states merely that,
"the defendant in respect of each count is the same person, and … the judge considers that the sample count is a sample of the other counts".

1393
How many times have I addressed your Lordships on the basis that the discretions should remain with the judge in criminal trials'?
In this area, it is helpful to put some boundary on the judge's discretion by insisting that the evidence in respect of each count is admissible at the trial of the sample count. When that point was raised in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that she was tempted to say "yes" to my suggestion that that should be a part of the definition. She went on to say that although she was uncomfortable about giving an unequivocal "yes", she would consider the matter and might return with a similar response or more arguments. We consider this to be a very important way in which the discretion of the judge is put within certain bounds rather more than it simply being the same defendant in respect of each count. That is the reason why this amendment is put forward.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 42 to 46 for all the reasons that have been given. I do not think that it is appropriate to seek to improve on the reasoning. I just want to say that I am, as are all other noble Lords, very concerned about the jury question and the prospect that somehow they will be surreptitiously removed. I am very concerned about that. I support the amendments really on that assurance.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, accepts, as I think that she did in Grand Committee and again today, the good faith of the Government that Clause 9 is not some kind of backdoor way of reintroducing clauses that the Government lost in the Criminal Justice Bill, I have a real difficulty in understanding why she is pursuing this amendment again today, as well as having argued it in Grand Committee.
It seems that Clause 9 is seeking not to reduce the number of jury trials, but to preserve the possibility of a jury trial in cases where, because there are so many small counts on small matters in an indictment, a jury trial would be impracticable or, if she prefers to use the word, unmanageable.
The noble Baroness referred to concern about the conditions laid down in Clause 9. As the clause stands, I cannot read it in any way other than that it allows for there to be a trial by jury on some counts and trial by judge alone on the other counts, with the great advantage of the judge being able to sentence, if there is a finding of guilt, on a whole number of counts and not only a small number of them.
If that is so, each of the three conditions in Clause 9 has to be complied with. I shall not read them out but they are very important conditions. Perhaps the third condition in relation to the interests of justice is the most important. It is not merely a throw-in line; it includes the public interest and the interests of justice so far as concerns the defendant or defendants. Unless the judge is satisfied as to the interests of justice being fulfilled under the Clause 9 procedure, then that procedure would not be available.
1394
As to "impracticable" versus "unmanageable'', I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Government perhaps wanting to follow a Treasury line and save money by using this procedure. The Government have sought to answer that concern. I do not have a particular view about the two words concerned but, overall, I doubt whether there is a great deal of advantage to justice in the amendment proposed.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, although I am not moved to follow Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44, I think there is a case for changing the word from "impracticable" to "unmanageable" for the reasons already expressed. I shall listen to what the Minister says in reply, but I cannot see any reason why the one word cannot take the place of the other to the greater satisfaction of your Lordships.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in speaking in support of the amendments I risk the direct and simple criticism that I am raising a matter which should have been raised in Grand Committee at this stage of the Bill. But it has just occurred to me and I ask the Attorney-General—who I think is to reply to the debate—to forgive me for doing so.
As I understand it, the decision to divide is to be taken at a preparatory hearing before the judge prior to the start of the case. That is contained in the first line of Clause 10. The judge, therefore, faced with a large number of counts, decides that it is reasonable for the jury to take counts one to six. He considers that those counts are samples of counts seven to 20 which, depending on the outcome of counts one to six, should then be dealt with without a jury as allowed for in Clause 11.
Clause 11 states:
"where, in the course of the proceedings to which the order relates, a defendant is found guilty by a jury on a count which can be regarded as a sample of other counts to be tried in those proceedings, those other counts may be tried without a jury in those proceedings".
My question is merely this: what if the jury convict, but not of all the first six counts? What if they convict of one count but not of the other five? On the face of it, it appears that that would still allow the judge to try the other counts without a jury because there has been a conviction. But, in those circumstances, one would have thought the jury had made it clear by their decision that they did not look upon the counts as a pattern of behaviour but as an individual offence occasionally.
Some thought should be given to ensuring that it is made clear that there have to be convictions showing that it is accepted by the jury that there is a pattern of behaviour—that is, convictions on all six counts—before dealing with the other counts without a jury. The danger with the present wording of the Bill is that there could be one conviction out of the first six counts, and that would allow the remaining counts to be tried without a jury.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I intervene perhaps as much to allow the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to receive help from his distant advisers as for any other reason.
Less frivolously, I hope that he will look favourably on the substitution of "unmanageable" for "impracticable". I think "unmanageable" gives the flavour of the anxiety with which those concerned will be afflicted. All of us long for shorter indictments, but sometimes it is not possible for justice to be done without a lengthy indictment. But the matter can be dealt with. The inconvenience and difficulty that flows from that can be mitigated by the device embodied in Clause 9. However, it is the manageability which is the test rather than the practicality.
I cannot enlarge on that. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will get his advice very soon anyway and I do not need to say any more. I support all of the amendments, including Amendment No. 46, but that is conditional upon a satisfactory answer to the important technical point raised by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his courtesy. I have enough to say before the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, arrives—I shall come to that in a few moments—and I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 46.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the same point about "impracticable" and "unmanageable" appears in Amendment No. 45, which is grouped separately. I shall say what I have to say about that at this stage and we shall see whether there is anything more to be said about it when she comes to move that amendment.
I have already detected wide consensus on the fundamental purpose and utility of these provisions. All of us who have practised in the courts before the decision in Canavan and Kidd will recall that it was commonplace that offences were put forward as sample counts; if there was a conviction, the judge would feel able to sentence on the basis of the totality of the criminality for which that sample was said to stand, not simply for the count that was there.
The reason for the decision in Canavan and Kidd—that a court could not sentence for something which was not admitted and of which the person had not been convicted—is, of course, logic which is unassailable. But, as noble Lords know, that has led to the position where someone could be charged with what are, in effect, samples of a series of conduct and without some other mechanism it would not be possible to sentence them for the degree of criminality involved. One good example of the many one could give is that of someone who was engaged in a series of frauds on the Internet, where a
1396
large number of victims were involved. A relatively small amount of money is taken from each victim but the totality is quite significant. In such a case, you do not want to say that the choice is, on the one hand, to prosecute 1,000 counts of fraud, requiring each victim to come to court; or, on the other hand, to find yourself saying that the defendant has only been convicted of defrauding £5,000—and that is all we can sentence him for—when in fact the totality of his conduct has been £1 million or something of that sort.
I say that because it is right that we should understand the purpose behind the clause. I know that that is accepted and I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said about her acceptance of the principle. I know that the honourable Member in another place, the shadow Attorney-General, made the same point, not only during the passage of this Bill but at the time the Criminal Justice Bill was going through. I do not therefore think I need say anything further to confirm what my noble friend Lady Scotland said about the intention behind this when she spoke in Grand Committee. It plainly is not in order to find a back door to something which was not accepted during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act.
As a matter of precision, let me point out that the provision in relation to jury trial and judge-alone trial in serious fraud was not rejected. It was passed, and remains on the face of the Criminal Justice Act. However, the noble Baroness is quite right that undertakings were given about what steps would be taken before, if at all, that provision was implemented.
My noble friend Lord Borrie makes the point absolutely correctly. This provision does not reduce the number of jury trials. There will still need to he, and there will be, jury trials in these cases. The provision prevents those jury trials being impossibly difficult to handle or impracticable. We will come back to what word we use. It ensures that people are sentenced for the full extent of their criminality.
Having said that, I turn to the specific differences between the proposals in Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 46 from the clause as it stands. The first change is the requirement which Amendment No. 44 would insert that,
"the counts included in the indictment are for the same or similar offences".
We do not regard that as necessary for two reasons. First, it is, in any event, a requirement of the indictment rules that offences to be inserted into an indictment should meet that test. So making that proposal a statutory requirement would add nothing.
Secondly, it will be necessary for the judge, in making an order, to be satisfied that each count or group of counts which would be tried with the jury can be regarded as a sample of counts. It is difficult to see how a judge could reach the view that something was a sample of counts without regarding the counts that were going to stand for it as same or similar offences. The amendment seems unnecessary for both those reasons.
The second change would be to substitute "unmanageable" for "impracticable". I have heard what has been said about that, not only by the noble Baroness

1397
but by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in particular. Plainly, there is not that much difference between the words—I think that is a matter of consensus. Why, then, change one word to the other? I have two points about that.
First, I reject the suggestion that the reason for using "impracticable" is to allow budgetary considerations to override the public interest. That is the consideration to which the noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, referred. Those were her words—would the budgetary considerations override the public interest? My Lords, they cannot. It is not a test for the Treasury or the Government whether it is appropriate in a particular case—it is a test for the judge. The judge, in our version or the proposed version, has to be satisfied that, as stated in Clause 9(5),
"it is in the interests of justice for an order"
to be made. The same test would be inserted by the noble Baroness. In those circumstances, how could a judge say, "I think the public interest is not in favour of this taking place, but I will allow budgetary considerations to override it"? It is his judgment that it would be in the interests of justice to do it. That seems to be a conclusive answer to the concern raised by the noble Baroness.
My second reason is that I find "unmanageable" not a happy word to use in the context of control and conduct of a trial. Who is it, one is saying, is incapable of managing the trial? If you ask the judge whether he thinks a trial would be unmanageable, are you saying, "You must decide that you are not capable of managing this trial, or that someone else is not capable of managing it"? That is an attack, to some extent, on ability and capability, whereas the test of impracticability does not carry with it the same possible connotation that someone is simply not up to doing what is required.
While I started by saying that I think there is a consensus that there is not an enormous difference between the words, for my own part, I regard "impracticable" as a much happier word to use in the context of a statute, and one which a judge is required to consider.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the Minister leaves this topic, will he confirm that not only would budgetary considerations not come within the word "impracticable" but also matters of time, the court calendar, and so on, which may tempt a judge to deal with the matter rather more quickly than he otherwise would?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not see any judge saying, "I think it is in the interests of justice to do it this way" just because it will mean that the case will finish on Thursday rather than Friday. I do not see that happening. A judge would have to be satisfied that it was appropriate to deal with it. He has to look at the nature of the case and the circumstances, with the appropriate sample counts, and decide whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. In my view, one can trust judges to apply the word "impracticable" properly.
1398
That brings me to the third point—the difference proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford in Amendment No. 46. The amendment proposes the addition of a new condition that the,
"evidence in respect of each count is admissible at the trial of the sample count".
It is probable—indeed, it is highly probable—that, given the high degree of similarity that will exist between the sample and the subsidiary counts, much of the evidence admissible in the former would be admissible in respect of the latter. Indeed, it is not only probable, it would also be helpful, for the sake of the efficient trial of the subsidiary counts, to be able to rely upon the evidence, such as evidence of dishonesty, which will have come out in the first trial. However, it will not be at all helpful to use the concept of admissibility as a condition for this taking place, because the judge will have to make a pre-assessment in relation to the counts and the subsidiary counts that this condition will be met.
As the noble Lord and others will know, the current position is that counts can be included on the same indictment, even though the evidence on each of them is not admissible on the other. That sometimes gives rise to issues in the course of the trial, and we have all seen that take place. The way in which this has been dealt with by the courts, particularly by the House of Lords in the well known case of Christou, is to say that the discretion of the trial judge to sever an indictment must be left unconstrained and should not depend upon any strict rules of admissibility of evidence.
That is why I come back to this point: the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others consistently said during the course of the Criminal Justice Act that we really ought to trust judges more; we should recognise that they are well trained and experienced in using their discretion properly in the interests of justice. I have said that I am also of the view that we can trust judges. In those circumstances, I believe that we can perfectly well trust judges to know what a sample count is, which is what they are being asked to do. They will be very familiar with that concept; they can work it out for themselves. They do not need us to make their job more difficult by saying that before they reach that conclusion, they have to go through all the evidence and make sure it is admissible in that way.
On the three changes that are proposed, it is not necessary to include "the same or similar". Your Lordships have heard why I think that the word "impracticable" should remain as it is. Thirdly, the necessity of including an additional condition of admissibility of evidence is not necessary and makes the judge's job more difficult. We should trust the judges to apply this provision in a sensible way—the way that is intended.
Finally, I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who asked what would happen if a subsidiary count was related to more than one sample count and there is a conviction on only one of the samples. That is one way in which

1399
the example that he gave could have arisen. It is unlikely that a subsidiary count would be related to more than one count. The rational basis on which that could happen—when there is an acquittal on one count but a conviction on another—would be because the jury were satisfied that the course of conduct had taken place in relation to only one count. In that event, it would be for the judge to decide how to proceed.
For my own part, taking the example that the noble Lord gave, if there are six counts in the first indictment, only one of which results in a conviction, I would anticipate that the trial judge would take the view that it would not be safe for him to conclude that the jury were satisfied that this was a repeated offence by the offender. It would not be safe to proceed to deal with the subsidiary counts on the basis that they were, broadly speaking, proved by the first count. However, it would be for the judge to decide and one would leave the matter to his discretion.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am grateful to the Attorney-General because what he has said is helpful. He made it clear that one would not expect the judge to use the power he undoubtedly has—since he made the decision prior to the hearing—to try the other cases without a jury unless it is clear on the convictions of the jury as a whole that they have accepted that there was a series of offences rather than an individual offence. He made that clear.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the difficulty of giving a categorical answer is that one would have to look at the circumstances of the trial, which only the judge would know. He would know whether the jury, in the course of the trial, had decided a specific offence in relation to one or two counts, perhaps in the early period. No doubt he would be able to interpret the verdicts. He may say, "What I interpret from this verdict, because of the way the case has been run, is that, although the false statements made in the early period of the trial were innocently false, the jury had obviously not accepted that they were made dishonestly. However, by their verdicts in relation to the later counts it is clear that, at least by April 2001, they are satisfied that he was acting dishonestly". In those circumstances, if the subsidiary counts all relate to that later period the judge could safely proceed on that basis. I offer that as an example of how the judge might interpret the verdict.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendments that I proposed today. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, asked why I had accepted the Government's assurance and then still said that changes needed to be made to the clause. Although I accepted the Government's assurance that the principle of what they were trying to do was one with which I concur, the way in which they drafted the provision means that we do not necessarily end up in the situation in which we would all hope to be.
1400
I was not reassured by the assurance in a sense. There still needs to be some tweaking, but not major surgery on this part of the Bill.
On the Attorney-General's rebuttal, he first attacked the issues over "the same or similar offences" and talked about indictment rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, also referred to the fact that indictment rules should be able to cover this matter. I have a similar approach to this question in Amendment No. 50. I will consider further what the Minister said with regard to my first amendment before we reach Amendment No. 50. I am not convinced by his rejection of my proffered solution of having "unmanageable" instead of "impracticable", because it has the advantages alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Although I do not intend press this amendment, which as I explained in the first instance, is part of a package solution, I still feel that the word "unmanageable" is better for the purposes of this Bill—in narrowing ways in which the jury trial would be obviated—than the word "impracticable". I do not in any way think that it criticises those people who would then be responsible for applying the terms of the clause in the real world. For me, it is not a case of an individual's capability being brought into question—that they cannot do the job—but whether the system as a whole can cope given all the other strains upon it. It is a case not of attacking individuals, but of questioning whether the system itself can always properly cope with the constraints upon it.
Although I will seek formally to withdraw this amendment, I give notice that when we reach Amendment No. 45, which we have covered by the debate on this group, I shall seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6. line 36, leave out "impracticable" and insert "unmanageable"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I formally beg to move this amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Barker, B.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Blaker, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Avebury, L.

Brigstocke, B.

1401

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Naseby, L.

Coe, L.

Newby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Craigavon, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fowler, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Higgins, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Roper, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kingsland, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Laird, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Tope, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Gilbert, L.

Golding, B.

Andrews, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Harrison, L.

Bhatia. L

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Blood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Borrie, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bragg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brennan, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brookman, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Burlison, L.

Jordan, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Condon, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Palmer, L.

Dixon, L.

Paul, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

1402

Sawyer, L.

Tenby, V.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Thornton, B.

Sewel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Sheldon, L.

Triesman, L.

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warner, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitaker, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving Amendment No. 47 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 53 and 54 in the same group. All the amendments are concerned with the essence of a single point, on which there will obviously be substantial disagreement.
I share totally the concept that discretion on these affairs should be left to judges. I take the point further: judges have a lifetime's experience, so it would be far better to leave them to get on with it. If judges do not do their work satisfactorily—I have not come across many that have not—they should not be there. Therefore, it is a much preferable system to have what in effect has developed from the authority and discretion of the old red judge on Assize and been carried through the years, rather than to have this Byzantine maze of complexity in Clauses 9 to 12.
I think back to the days when I served as a recorder. The last thing that I would have wanted would be to have the Bar say, "Have a look at this", "Have a look at that", and "Have a look at the other". If one does not know how to deal with a multi-count indictment, one should not be a recorder. One can borrow a thought from the remarkable maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk. One has only to look at the maze of complexity in the provision of Clauses 9 to 12 and listen to some of the arguments and analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I am not mocking their analysis. I am not in a position to do that and I would never dream of doing so, but the analysis should be unnecessary. Does not that aura of complexity, to use a noble and learned Lord's wonderful phrase, make your Lordships sigh for the relative simplicity of the past?
I want to be fairly short. At the moment, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I are in agreement about a fundamental principle, that in essence discretion should be left to the judges. Where we disagree is that there should be a trial by a judge without a jury. That is a serious objection.
This amendment is built upon an adaptation of the extant regime. It deals with what is required in a little more detail and with greater precision. What we propose is written in plain English and I think that, with leave, it should be read. We propose:
"A procedure to reduce complexity and length of trial on multi count indictments in the interests of due and expeditious dispensation of justice on implementation of these provisions shall be introduced by Rules of Court to ensure that appropriate directions as to the form of indictment and on other matters arising on the depositions shall be given by a judge of the Crown Court at a pre-trial hearing subject to review by the trial judge before arraignment".
It is very important to retain that discretion of the trial judge. The way in which it is proposed to work is very simple.
"Before pre-trial hearing a judge of the Crown Court shall have considered whether on the depositions the form of indictment is appropriate in the interests of due and expeditious dispensation of justice, and whether certain directions such as set out in subsection (3) should be given".
I shall come to those directions in a moment.
If he forms the provisional opinion that such directions should be given, he gives notice to the prosecution and the defence and they then attend for a pre-trial hearing. At that hearing, the directions deal with
"severance of … counts with directions for trial on … other counts … designation of sample counts with directions that other counts lie on the file … election as to whether to proceed on substantive counts or on conspiracy counts which replicate the substance"—
on the same depositions—
"provision of particulars of any count … amendment of indictment … disclosure of objections to admissibility",
and so forth.
I added subsection (4) because, in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, surprisingly said that she was rather attracted to this proposal. I suppose that the simplicity of it might have attracted her—I do not know; but she said so. But then she said, "The trouble is, it does not take account of Kidd". Well, my Lords, it does. It was designed and drafted to take full account of Kidd. So, for clarification, I have added subsection (4), which makes it perfectly plain that this does take account of Kidd.
I am not saying that I could hold the noble Baroness to her approval merely because I have taken that subsection, but I do ask the Attorney-General to approach this and the advantage of it with an open mind.
The last subsection makes provision for the panel of judges. Of course, for this pre-trial review, you have to have judges who are fully competent to deal with it. The subsection says that the panel,
"shall be established by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice".
I hope that there will be no need to have to change that drafting, but I am not too sure. That does not go to the essence of this problem.
It is simply the question of approach. Are you going to leave this to the judges with all their experience, to deal with it in the way that they think right? Are you going to ensure that Kidd is observed? Are you going to ensure that we do not have criminal trials by judge alone? To me—perhaps I am too traditionalist—that seems incredible. There are other ways of dealing with it.
I should be very interested to hear what your Lordships' reactions are to this. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to reflect again the views I expressed in Grand Committee. Although I cannot follow my noble friend down the very careful and enticing path that he prepares for us—because I have given my word that, as a matter of principle, I have accepted the Government's approach—I think that, with his experience, expertise and a lifetime in law, he has prepared here a very credible alternative to the Government's approach. He has done so despite the fact that no one else has been able to come forward with such a good proposition. I think it is very helpful that he has given the Government the opportunity to explain why their approach is so significantly better than his. I suspect that they might find that quite a difficult task.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in his proposal that we should omit Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 from the Bill. They introduce a strange concept of criminal law under the heading of "sample counts". Quite frankly, having studied them closely, I find them vague, ambiguous, unwise and, above all, unnecessary. We have plenty of opportunities within the criminal law of dealing with the kind of cases to which these four clauses would apply.
As to my noble friend's amendment, I respect his motives and I admire the way he has had it drafted but, with deep respect, I am not so sure that it is necessary. This is an unusual Bill altogether. It introduces a number of new concepts of the law. They overlap to some extent with the well established existing law. Above all, I find Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 unnecessary.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, this amendment goes very much with the grain of the development of criminal procedure over the past few years with its emphasis upon case management and the importance of the trial judge taking charge of a particular case and setting out guidelines for the way in which a case is to be conducted. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for dealing with the matter with such clarity.
I was very much tempted to follow the noble Lord along the lines that he sets out here but today and in Grand Committee we heard assurances in relation to the limited role of Clauses 9 to 12; that is, that they are not to be used as a roundabout way of limiting trial by jury, that they are not to be used so as simply to cut down the costs of criminal trials, nor are they to be

1405
used for the convenience of the court calendar and to save time which might otherwise be expended in a lengthy trial. With the assurances that we have received today, we on these Benches are satisfied that there is merit in the scheme that the Government are putting forward. Although we have not finished with that scheme and will propose further amendments at Third Reading—particularly along the lines that we have discussed today—we commend the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but I do not think that we can follow him in the detail in which he has set out his proposal.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on one point I can enthusiastically agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and that is on the desirability of judicial case management of all cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, that is very much the direction in which we are moving and there is more to say about that topic in the future. The new criminal rules committee, which will come into operation as a result of the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, will be an important vehicle for case management of cases by judges.
Although we enthusiastically agree with the noble Lord on that proposition, I must disappoint him completely on the rest of his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked why any of this was necessary. It is necessary for the reasons that I gave before—that the result of the decision in R v Kidd and others is that there are trials which cannot deal with the full criminality of a particular individual because it would be too much to include all the counts. I give one or two examples. A defendant made 60 fraudulent mortgage applications to various building societies of approximately £200,000 each. To have charged all those offences in a single indictment would have overloaded it. It would have been impracticable. Noble Lords might even think that it would have been unmanageable, but we need not worry about that now. On the other hand, sentencing a defendant for just one or two of those offences, when he had committed 60 of them, may be to constrain the judge's sentencing power.
I can give many other examples. We used to deal with the matter before, because we were content with the idea of sample counts. We are no longer content so that has to be dealt with and is necessary. Why can I not follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? Much of what the noble Lord proposes in subsection (3) regarding directions that can be given by a trial judge can, and are, given by him already. They include directions on severance of counts, provision of particulars, amendment of indictment, questions of admissibility, exchange of experts' reports and so on. But while his amendment identifies that there is a problem, it does not solve the matter because of a contradiction in the amendment.
The noble Lord proposes that the trial judge should have the opportunity of identifying sample counts—in subsection (3)(b)—but then says in subsection (4) that those can have no effect, because the defendant cannot be sentenced for anything of which he has not been convicted. I am sure that it is what my noble friend Lady Scotland meant in Grand Committee when she
1406
said it did not deal with Kidd. It does not deal with the problem that Kidd has exposed, which is: how does one find a way of convicting on only a few counts, but ultimately being able to sentence on many? Our solution is to say that the defendant must be convicted on those many counts, but it is unnecessary to go through the full panoply of a jury trial when the sample counts really tell what the criminality is. The strong likelihood is that the defendant will plead guilty to those other accounts, but that will be for him to decide.
I regret that while I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of case management, his substitute clause would not be effective in any way to meet the problem with which the House otherwise agrees that we need to deal. While I thank the noble Lord for his thought, I must reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in his experience, has he been involved in cases in which there have been many similar counts that have not been mentioned in the indictment, but which I always felt were rightly referred to by the prosecution after conviction? That is certainly within my experience and that of many others who have been involved as prosecution, defence or recorders in criminal cases.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord was in good company in thinking that they were referred to rightly—until 1998, when the Court of Appeal said that they could not be. That is what the matter is all about.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the Attorney-General. With respect, I do not agree with his criticism of the subsection, because it does not affect the sample counts upon which they are tried. It affects what used to be counts that lay on the file. However, this is not the moment for me to pick at construction, because it looks as if my own Front Bench has become rather hooked on some kind of assurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, whether he is hooked or not, has certainly got wind of that. Therefore, I will not get very far with the amendment. In those circumstances, I thank noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Renton, who stood by me in the wilderness, but I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Procedure for applications under section 9]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Effect of order under section 9(2)]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert "but only when the sample count has, at a preparatory hearing before the trial which led to the conviction for the sample count, been linked in accordance with section 9 to the counts which might be tried without a jury"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have certainly never seen my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway as being in a wilderness—if so, it is a crowded place. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 52 in the same group, and will not move it when it is reached in the list.
Amendment No. 50 is based on a Law Commission proposal that toughens up the drafting of new rules on judge-alone trials. At paragraph 7.4 of its Report No. 277 on the effective prosecution of multiple offending, the Law Commission stated:
"The judge would decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant in respect only of offences linked to those upon which the jury has convicted. Those linked offences will have been pre-selected and placed in a schedule attached to the indictment. The schedule would reflect the full extent of alleged offending. The offences in the schedule will be listed, as appropriate, in groups and each group linked with a specified sample count in the indictment".
I believe that that was an appropriate recommendation from the Law Commission and it should be clearly on the face of the Bill. When the Minister responded to me in Grand Committee at col. GC 266 on 2 February, she acknowledged that the requirement for the judge to identify which counts are related to which does not form part of the clause. In accepting that, she said that the clause currently reflected what the Government expected to happen; that is, that provisions of my Amendment No. 50 should be there. She was, in effect, saying, "Amendment No. 50 should happen. It is not in the clause, but don't worry, it'll happen anyway". She said that my Clause 9(8) requires the judge in making an order under subsection (2) to specify which counts are to be tried without a jury and it is intended that he or she should also make clear to which sample counts, if there are indeed more than one, those counts or groups of counts are related.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, maintained that she did not think it necessary to put that clarity into primary legislation, but it might be appropriate for rules to cover the point. I hear thundering back at me in an argument from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that the new rules committee might be found by the Government to be a solution to my proposal here.
The Law Commission's position should be clearly on the face of the Bill before we go ahead with the considerable changes the Government are introducing in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that is exactly the answer the noble Baroness is going to get. In our view, Clause 9(8) requires the judge, in making an order under subsection (2), to specify which counts are to be tried without a jury. While it does not require him to specify to which sample counts, if there are more than one, those counts or group of counts related, it is likely that that is what he will do. He will make that clear in the course of the discussion whether it is an appropriate case for there to be sample counts. There will plainly be discussion between prosecuting and defence counsel as to whether certain counts will follow from those samples.
1408
I repeat the answer given in Committee by my noble friend Lady Scotland. We do not consider that there is a need for the provision to be put into primary legislation. If the new rules committee—once the Bill is passed, it could be done by the Crown Court Rules Committee—believes it would be helpful to spell out such matters, we can safely leave it to do so at that time.
I understood that the noble Baroness was not speaking to Amendment No. 52 and would not be moving it, so I said nothing about it either.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for at least saying what I thought he was going to say, even though it did not please me terribly. This is one of a group of amendments which refers to how one deals with sample counts. If we had been able to vote in Grand Committee, it is an amendment that might well have been happily disposed of at that stage. However, we could not do so.
There are other amendments to which we may return at another stage and to which I could give my support if I am able to deal satisfactorily with this one. It may well be that if I am not successful with this amendment—I hope that I shall be shortly—I shall then be able to put the full weight of my party behind Amendment No. 46, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke earlier. However, I still hope that my amendment will be agreed to and, on that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howe, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Avebury, L.

Kingsland, L.

Barker, B.

Laird, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monson, L.

Coe, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dundee, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Parkinson, L.

Fookes, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Fowler, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamwee, B.

Renton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Higgins, L.

Russell, E.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hooson, L.

Selborne, E.

1409

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Tope, L.

Walmsley, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Healey, L.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle. L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jordan, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Levy, L.

Bhatia, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstonc, B.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Blood, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Borrie, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brennan, L.

Morgan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Palmer, L.

Brookman, L.

Pendry, L.

Burlison, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Carter, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Rea, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Rooker, L.

Crawley, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Dixon. L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Dubs, L.

Sewel, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting. L.

Sheldon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Filkin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gilbert. L,

Tenby, V.

Golding, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Triesman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden. B.

Grantchester, L.

Warner, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 8, line 18, leave out from beginning to "time" in line 19 and insert "Where, in the case of proceedings in respect of which an order under section 9(2) has been made, a jury convicts a defendant of a count"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50A standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50B, 50C and 50D. These amendments make some improvements to Clause 11. The first amendment deals with a point raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
The purpose of subsection (5) is to provide that where the trial of some counts proceeds without a jury by virtue of an order under Section 9(2), time for appealing against the jury's verdict in respect of the counts which the jury has tried does not run until the end of the non-jury part of the trial.
The difficulty lies with the opening words of the subsection. It states:
"Where the trial of a count is conducted with a jury because of an order under section 9(2)".
Although this is not actually incorrect, it is not a mistake for conducting without a jury, there is no doubt that the present drafting has led to some confusion, which this amendment resolves. For the purposes of an appeal against conviction under Section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968, time runs from the date of conviction—that is, the verdict—not from the date of sentence, if this is later. We do not want to alter that position in Clause 11(5).
In order to give effect to our policy that the proceedings should end where there is a two-stage trial at the date of a conviction or verdict, Amendments Nos. 50B and 50C make clear that the point front which time for an appeal begins to run is the conclusion of the non-jury proceedings excluding sentencing.
Amendment No. 50D is a drafting amendment. The words at the beginning of subsection (6), "Nothing in this Part", are not apt, as the multiple offending clauses do not constitute a part by themselves, and so the amendment substitutes a reference to Clauses 9 to 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 50B to 50D:
Page 8, line 21, leave out "trial ends" and insert "proceedings end"
Page 8, line 21, at end insert
"(5A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5) the date on which proceedings end, any part of those proceedings which takes place after the time when matters relating to sentencing begin to be dealt with is to be disregarded."
Page 8, line 22, leave out "Part" and insert "section or section 9, 10 or 12"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 22, leave out from "affects" to second "that" in line 26 and insert "the requirement under section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 51, I shall also speak to the other amendments standing in my name. The amendments seek to introduce a procedural change to the court process for determining fitness to plead under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. They provide that the decision on whether a defendant is fit to plead to a charge should be taken by the judge hearing the case and not by a jury.
Amendment No. 55 introduces the change that the decision whether the defendant is fit to be tried is to be taken by the court without a jury. This replaces the requirement in Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 that a jury should take this decision. This was a recommendation made by Lord Justice Auld. It seeks to streamline the somewhat cumbersome process where separate juries must decide whether the defendant is fit to plead, and if not, whether he did the act or made the omission as charged. It does not affect the requirement for a jury to decide the facts of the case, or deprive the defendant of the chance to be acquitted by the jury on the facts.
Amendments Nos. 55A, 55B and 55C tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would give the jury the responsibility to determine the question of fitness to plead where the initial decision on fitness to plead has been challenged. The defendant may sometimes disagree with the decision on fitness to plead. However, if a decision as to fitness to plead is difficult, I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that the defendant is likely to be best served through a judge making the determination. The judge, who is trained and deals with these cases on a reasonably regular basis, would be better placed than the jury to understand the relevance of possibly conflicting professional opinion. Perhaps more importantly, if there was a dispute, the judge would have to give the reasons for his decision. This would not be the case with a jury finding. This would help the defendant if he wanted to make an appeal to the Court of Appeal, either on the grounds that he should have been found unfit to plead or on the grounds that a finding of unfitness should be overturned. Therefore the defendant would be in a less favourable position if a jury were to determine fitness to plead. The remainder of the amendments in this grouping are consequential, to reflect the change of responsibility for determining fitness to plead.
Amendment No. 51 removes the reference to the finding of unfitness being made by a jury from the multiple offending provisions in the Bill that we have just debated. Amendments Nos. 90 and 109 remove the references from Section 11 of the Jurors Act 1974 to the ballot and swearing of jurors for the purposes of the decision on fitness. Amendments Nos. 91 and 110 remove the reference to the jury's role in unfitness from Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, relating to the constitution of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Amendment No. 98 removes the reference to the jury's role in finding unfitness from the process for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer to the Court of Appeal in Section 9 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1995. Amendment No. 105 removes the reference to a jury's role in finding unfitness from the provisions in Section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding trial without a jury.
Lastly, Amendment No. 126 changes the Bill's Long Title to include a reference to the changes in the procedure for finding unfitness, as well as a reference to the new proposed disposals to be available to the
1412
court on the finding of unfitness on a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. These disposals are the subject of the next grouping. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall speak to my amendments, which are grouped with government Amendment No. 51. As the Minister pointed out, Amendments Nos. 55A, 55B and 55C are amendments to government Amendment No. 55, and they are all very much probing amendments at this stage.
When I first received the letter from the Government on 23 February saying that they intended to tackle this issue in this Bill, I sought to find out from Mind. Mencap and other organisations which might have a direct interest in these provisions whether they had any view they wished to express. Unfortunately we did not see the amendments themselves until last Wednesday, 3 March. Silence can sometimes be taken by the Government as consent, but there can also be silence quite simply because it is sometimes not possible for a busy voluntary organisation, however large or small, to respond in a short time-frame. That is the position in which I find myself. None of the organisations that I have contacted more than once since 23 February has been able to come up with a response as yet, although they hope to do so by Third Reading on 25 March.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government's reasons for removing the decision from the jury with regard to unfitness to plead and giving it to the judge alone, and I looked at the proposals in the Auld report. My amendments were tabled in order to try to elicit from the Government why they felt it was important to change the current procedure, particularly where there could be a challenge to evidence. The Minister says one of the great advantages of the change would be that—as we have argued before—as well as the competence of the judge, sometimes one also has to consider the competence of the jury, which has to decide whether or not somebody is telling the truth, and has to make judgments on evidence from expert witnesses.
I appreciate what the Minister says, particularly with regard to reasons. That is something I shall consider carefully before Third Reading. As regards other matters in the family court, I am certainly aware of the level of training that there was for volunteers, such as magistrates sitting in the family court, before they felt confident enough to properly carry out the new rules with regard to giving reasons for decisions in family cases. I know that it is a complex matter. Certainly, there could be an advantage to any person involved in a fitness to plead matter if there were reasons. I thank the Minister for her explanation. This matter must be taken seriously.
Perhaps the noble Baroness has not quite taken into consideration one issue that I consider important. The result of this kind of decision still can be a very serious

1413
matter. It may be one in which it could be thought that a jury has the right to play a part as a matter of public interest. The result of the decision that someone is unfit to plead can be draconian, in a sense. It could be a hospital order without restriction as to time.
I was interested that in the Auld report on page 217, paragraph 213, the point is made that nowadays the consequences of a finding of unfitness to plead are much more flexible than they were. It points out that they could range from a hospital order with restrictions—in practice, it could be without any restriction as to time—to an absolute discharge. That is true, but one must also remember that there still is the possibility that the person will end up with a hospital order without restriction as to time. That is one reason why there might be justification for retaining the jury's role where there are challenges to evidence.
My purpose was to have my concerns put on the record and to have time to reflect properly between now and Third Reading. By then, I hope that I might have further or any response from those organisations which, at their heart, are concerned to act on behalf of those who might be affected by the Government's changes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we have not heard the justification for this change other than that it appears in the Auld report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said a moment ago, the result of the finding of unfitness to plead can result in indefinite detention.
I well recall one of the first trials that I attended in front of Mr Justice Edmund Davies, as he then was. The defendant stood completely mute and was found unfit to plead. Apparently, when taken to the cells he asked the detective in charge of the case, "What does during Her Majesty's pleasure mean?". When he was told, he said. "Get me back in that `blankety-blank' dock as soon as you can". So he was returned to the dock and found fit to plead. I think that he was later sentenced for the offence for which he stood charge. That was an early experience for me.
What comes from it is the fact that there are very serious consequences from findings of that sort. Traditionally, they have been in the hands of the jury. Where there is an issue, very often it depends on the weighing up of conflicting medical reports, subject to the direction of the judge. So far as I am aware, the system has worked perfectly well. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline exactly what is behind Lord Justice Auld's "reform"—I put that word in quotation marks—and whether it is anything more than a desire to speed things along and tidy things up.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear the real mischief that this change seeks to cure. It is a very strong traditional view that was expressed, not just by Lord Justice Auld, but by others, that this is a very cumbersome and very complex procedure which is not necessary.
1414
I remind noble Lords, and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the jury would still have to find that the defendant did the act with which he was charged before the court could make a hospital order. As noble Lords will also know, there will still be a right to apply to the tribunal if a hospital order is given.
The difficulty that defendants now of course find themselves in is that if a jury makes a decision in relation to fitness to plead, it is not obliged to give any reason for that decision. Therefore, if a defendant does not agree with the decision taken. it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to challenge it with any ease. The advantage will be that the judge will be obliged to give a reasoned judgment as to why lie has chosen either to adopt the medical evidence produced before him or her, or to reject that evidence, in a way that makes the decision more transparent. The Government have listened to the exhortations of the judiciary and Lord Justice Auld, who thinks it is meritorious, and we believe therefore that the provisions are sound.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about the importance of juries making decisions in relation to fact and that they bring huge experience to the process. We agree. That is why the jury will retain a very significant role. This relates only to a decision as to unfitness to plead.
Your Lordships will know that, regrettably, medical evidence is now becoming more and more complex and sometimes more and more contentious. Knowing exactly what the decision maker took into account when making a decision becomes of greater interest to everyone.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, among the amendments to which the Minister referred was one which amends, yet again, the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is now so wide, would it not be better to drop the words "Domestic Violence" from the Title and call it a criminal justice Bill—because that is what it has become?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I could not disagree with the noble Lord more profoundly. This is the domestic violence Bill and will remain the domestic violence Bill. It has been longed for for 30 years.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am not disputing that. I support it covering the principles of domestic violence. I am making the point that it covers many different things. The whole of the Attorney-General's speech in reply to the previous debate quite rightly referred to what would happen in fraud cases; we have made common assault an arrestable offence. We are extending the Bill in so many ways that it goes far wider than domestic violence. I merely wonder whether we should face reality and recognise that it goes wider than domestic violence.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and I understand why he says it. But I invite him to remember that this is the "Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill". The sections about which the noble Lord has made, not his complaint, his comment, are relatively small parts of a Bill to do with

1415
domestic violence and victims. I know the noble Lord will recognise that I have acknowledged his concern, but I think the Title is an appropriate one for the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Rules of court]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 54A:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 9 TO 12 TO NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) In their application to Northern Ireland, sections 9 to 12 have effect subject to the modifications in Schedule (Modification of sections 9 to 12 for Northern Ireland).
(2) Sections 9 to 12 do not apply in relation to a trial to which section 75 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (trial without jury for certain offences) applies."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have debated at length the provisions of Clauses 9 to 12 in relation to England and Wales and we have had clear and helpful statements from the Benches opposite as to their support for those clauses, or at least the principle behind them. Government Amendments Nos. 54A, 70A and 90A, the three amendments to which I speak, provide for those measures to be extended to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 54A provides for the application of Clauses 9 to 12 to Northern Ireland; Amendment No. 70A inserts a new schedule to the Bill which sets out the necessary modifications to those clauses in relation to their application to Northern Ireland; and Amendment No. 90A is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 54A and 70A, and provides that a person appealing in relation to a hearing under Section 10(1)(b) may be granted legal aid.
Given the degree of discussion and consensus on Clauses 9 to 12 in relation to England and Wales, I hope your Lordships will agree that I need to say no more in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"UNFITNESS TO PLEAD: PROCEDURE
(1) The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (finding of unfitness to plead), in subsection (5) (question of fitness to be determined by a jury), for the words from "by a jury" to the end substitute "by the court without a jury".
(3) In subsection (6) of that section, for ''A jury" substitute "The court".
(4) In subsection (1) of section 4A (finding that the accused did the act or omission charged against him), for "jury" substitute "court".
1416
(5) For subsection (5) of that section substitute—
"(5) Where the question of disability was determined after arraignment of the accused, the determination under subsection(2) is to be made by the jury by whom he was being tried.'"'
[Amendments Nos. 55A to 55C, as amendments to Amendment No. 55, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF COURT ON FINDING OF INSANITY OR UNFITNESS TO PLEAD ETC
(1) For section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) substitute—
"5 POWERS TO DEAL WITH PERSONS NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY OR UNFIT TO PLEAD ETC.
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a special verdict is returned that the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity; or

(b) findings have been made that the accused is under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him.

(2) The court shall make in respect of the accused—

(a) a hospital order (with or without a restriction order),

(b) a supervision order, or

(c) an order for his absolute discharge.

(3) Where—

(a) the offence to which the special verdict or the findings relate is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, and

(b) the court have power to make a hospital order,
the court shall make a hospital order with a restriction order (whether or not they would have power to make a restriction order apart from this subsection).

(4) In this section—

"hospital order" has the meaning given in section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983;

"restriction order" has the meaning given to it by section 41 of that Act;

"supervision order" has the meaning given in Part I of Schedule 1A to this Act.

5A ORDERS MADE UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 5
(1) In relation to the making of an order by virtue of subsection (2)(a) of section 5 above, section 37 (hospital orders etc) of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act") shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference in subsection (1) to a person being convicted before the Crown Court included a reference to the case where section 5 above applies;

(b) the words after "punishable with imprisonment" and before "or is convicted" were omitted; and

(c) for subsections (4) and (5) there were substituted—

"(4) Where an order is made under this section requiring a person to be admitted to a hospital ("a hospital order"), it shall be the duty of the managers of the hospital specified in the order to admit him in accordance with it."

1417
(2) In relation to a case where section 5 above applies but the court have not yet made one of the disposals mentioned in subsection (2) of that section—

(a) section 35 of the 1983 Act (remand to hospital for report on accused's mental condition) shall have effect with the omission of the words after paragraph (b) in subsection (3);

(b) section 36 of that Act (remand of accused person to hospital for treatment) shall have effect with the omission of the words "(other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law)" in subsection (2);

(c) references in sections 35 and 36 of that Act to an accused person shall be construed as including a person in whose case this subsection applies; and

(d) section 38 of that Act (interim hospital orders) shall have effect as if—

(i) the reference in subsection (1) to a person being convicted before the Crown Court included a reference to the case where section 5 above applies; and

(ii) the words "(other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law)" in that subsection were omitted.

(3) In relation to the making of any order under the 1983 Act by virtue of this Act, references in the 1983 Act to an offender shall be construed as including references to a person in whose case section 5 above applies, and references to an offence shall be construed accordingly.
(4) Where—

(a) a person is detained in pursuance of a hospital order which the court had power to make by virtue of section 5(1)(b) above, and

(b) the court also made a restriction order, and that order has not ceased to have effect,
the Secretary of State, if satisfied after consultation with the responsible medical officer that the person can properly be tried, may remit the person for trial, either to the court of trial or to a prison.

On the person's arrival at the court or prison, the hospital order and the restriction order shall cease to have effect.
(5) Schedule 1A to this Act (supervision orders) has effect with respect to the making of supervision orders under subsection (2)(b) of section 5 above, and with respect to the revocation and amendment of such orders.
(6) In relation to the making of an order under subsection (2)(c) of section 5 above, section 12(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (absolute and conditional discharge) shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference to a person being convicted by or before a court of such an offence as is there mentioned included a reference to the case where section 5 above applies; and

(b) the reference to the court being of opinion that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment included a reference to it thinking that an order for absolute discharge would be most suitable in all the circumstances of the case."

(2) Before Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) insert the Schedule set out in Schedule (Supervision orders) to this Act.
(3) In section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (substitution of finding of insanity or findings of unfitness to plead etc) and in section 14 of that Act (substitution of findings of unfitness to plead etc), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
"(2) The Court of Appeal shall make in respect of the accused—

(a) a hospital order (with or without a restriction order),

(b) a supervision order, or

(c) an order for his absolute discharge.

1418
(3) Where—

(a) the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, and

(b) the court have power to make a hospital order,
the court shall make a hospital order with a restriction order (whether or not they would have power to make a restriction order apart from this subsection).

(4) In this section—

"hospital order" has the meaning given in section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983;

"restriction order" has the meaning given to it by section 41 of that Act;

"supervision order" has the meaning given in Part 1 of Schedule 1A to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity; Act 1964 ("the 1964 Act").

(5) Section 5A of the 1964 Act applies in relation to this section as it applies in relation to section 5 of that Act."
(4) Section 14A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (power to order admission to hospital where, on appeal against verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, Court of Appeal substitutes verdict of acquittal) is repealed.
(5) Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 (c. 25) and Schedules 1 and 2 to that Act are repealed."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 71 would introduce procedural changes to the court process and powers under the insanity legislation. There is a need to amend the court's procedure to bring the range of disposal options available to the court following a finding of unfitness to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity in line with the options available under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to change the disposals available to the court finding of unfitness to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity reached under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. Previously, the court could make an order for the defendant's admission to hospital, a supervision and treatment order or an absolute discharge. However, the court did not have to be satisfied that the defendant was mentally disordered before ordering his admission to hospital. Therefore, it was theoretically possible for someone who was not mentally disordered to be detained in hospital.
In addition, the admission order relied on the Secretary of State to issue a warrant ordering the defendant's admission to hospital within two months. This caused practical difficulties if the Secretary of State was not informed of the court's decision in time, as it could lead to the order lapsing and no further detention being possible.
The new options are for the court to make a hospital order, with or without restrictions, under the Mental Health Act 1983 in the same way that it could have done if the defendant had been convicted of an offence; for the court to make a new disposal called a supervision order, which is tabled in Amendment No. 71; or for the court to give an absolute discharge.
Amendment No. 56 would make hospital orders apply in the same way as those under the Mental Health Act 1983, with one exception—that the court will be able to order a hospital to admit a defendant. This is to reflect the fact that the court will not have the option of imposing a prison sentence on a defendant who is found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead. The

1419
application of the 1983 Act means that the court will be able to make a hospital order only if there is evidence that the defendant is mentally disordered.
The new supervision order seeks to provide a disposal to deal with those cases in which the defendant is not mentally disordered—he might be unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity because of some physical disorder such as diabetes or epilepsy—but it is still thought that some intervention is required.
Where the finding is one made on a charge of murder, the court will have to make a restricted hospital order if the conditions as to mental disorder are met. Where they are not, the supervision order is available to provide a structure for whatever treatment is appropriate to address the risk of further harm.
The powers in the Mental Health Act 1983 to remand a defendant to hospital for a report or for treatment and to make an interim hospital order have been extended to cover the situation in which a court is considering which disposal to make following a finding of unfitness or insanity. This power to remand for report or treatment will be useful to the court if, for example, it is unsure whether a hospital order is the correct disposal following a finding of unfitness of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Amendment No. 57 would provide a new right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against disposals following a finding of unfitness to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity. Amendment No. 71 would insert a new schedule into the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. It makes provision about the new supervision order which creates a range of powers for the court to dispose of defendants found unfit or insane, but for whom disposals under the Mental Health Act are not justified.
This new supervision order is similar to the existing supervision and treatment order available under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, which it will replace. However, it is broader in two respects. First, it can include requirements for medical treatment in respect of physical illness rather than simply mental illness. Secondly, it is possible for the order only to provide for the supervision of defendants without including any requirement to submit to medical treatment. It is narrower because it cannot include a requirement for treatment as an inpatient. We think that that strikes the right balance in meeting the needs of the defendant.
Like its predecessor, the supervision order is non-punitive and carries no sanction, there being neither conviction nor evidence justifying medical compulsion. The order enables the court to require the provision of appropriate support and treatment to the defendant to minimise the risk of further harm and provides a means of drawing any problems to the attention of the relevant authorities.
Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 93 and 111 are consequential amendments. Amendments Nos. 93 and 101 also remove the provisions in Section 71 of the
1420
Mental Health Act 1983 requiring the Secretary of State to refer to the mental health review tribunal. Similarly, the amendments also remove the interpretation from Section 79 of the 1983 Act of restricted patients detained under the insanity legislation, since the proposed amendments would enable such persons actually to be detained under the relevant provisions.
Amendments Nos. 95 and 112 amend Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Amendment No. 103 inserts a reference into Section 133 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. All the other amendments are consequential. I have taken a little time to go through them because I anticipate that those who come to look at these provisions may want to know precisely what we had in mind and how they will fit together. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being comprehensive, but I hope that I will never have to repeat the information. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"APPEAL AGAINST ORDER MADE ON FINDING OF INSANITY OR UNFITNESS TO PLEAD ETC
After section 16 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) insert—
"Appeal against order 'node in cases of insanity or unfitness to plead
"16A RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST HOSPITAL ORDER ETC.
(1) A person in whose case the Crown Court—

(a) makes a hospital order or interim hospital order by virtue of section 5 or 5A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, or

(b) makes a supervision order under section 5 of that Act, may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order.

(2) An appeal under this section lies only—

(a) with the leave of the Court of Appeal; or

(b) if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal.

16B DISPOSAL OF APPEAL UNDER S. 16A
(1) If on an appeal under section 16A of this Act the Court of Appeal consider that the appellant should be dealt with differently from the way in which the court below dealt with him—

(a) they may quash any order which is the subject of the appeal; and

(b) they may make such order, whether by substitution for the original order or by variation of or addition to it, as they think appropriate for the case and as the court below had power to make.

(2) The fact that an appeal is pending against an interim hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 shall not affect the power of the court below to renew or terminate the order or deal with the appellant on its termination.
(3) Where the Court of Appeal make an interim hospital order by virtue of this section—

(a) the power of renewing or terminating it and of dealing with the appellant on its termination shall be exercisable by the court below and not by the Court of Appeal; and

1421

(b) the court below shall be treated for the purposes of section 38(7) of the said Act of 1983 (absconding offenders) as the court that made the order.

(4) The fact that an appeal is pending against a supervision order under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 shall not affect the power of the court below to revoke the order, or of a magistrates' court to revoke or amend it.
(5) Where the Court of Appeal make a supervision order by virtue of this section, the power of revoking or amending it shall be exercisable as if the order had been made by the court below.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 57A:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"PROSECUTION APPEALS
(1) In section 58(13) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which defines "applicable time"), for "start of the judge's" substitute "time when the judge starts his".
(2) After section 58(13) of that Act insert—
"(14) The reference in subsection (13) to the time when the judge starts his summing-up to the jury includes the time when the judge would start his summing-up to the jury but for the making of an order under Part 7.""
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, by providing for trials to take place without a jury in the circumstances identified, Clauses 9 to 12 would have an incidental effect on the prosecution appeals provisions in Part 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
I move swiftly to make this point: it is intended that the prosecution right of appeal under Part 9 should be available in both stages of a two-stage trial provided that the conditions in Part 9 are met. The amendments will allow for those provisions to be modified in order adequately to deal with the particular differences that arise in a two-stage trial. One example of the interaction that we need to clarify is the point up to which the right of appeal is exercisable. Noble Lords will recall that the existing reference, which is before the start of the judge's summing up to the jury, would not be apt when there are two stages in the trial and the second stage does not include the jury.
Amendment No. 57A is an amendment to Schedule 4. It enables the Home Secretary to resolve such points by making modifications to Part 9 by order rather than including complicating modifications on the face of the Bill. In the example that I have given, the problem could be solved by a modification along the same lines as that which Amendment No. 105A would make to Section 58(13) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The need for this amendment arises not from Clauses 9 to 12, but from the provisions for non-jury trial in Part 7 of the 2003 Act. The current definition of applicable time in Section 58(13) means that the definition of the point beyond which the prosecution right of appeal cannot be exercised is inappropriate when there is no jury. Alternative provision ought to have been made in last year's Act, but, by an oversight, was not.
The amendment substitutes a formula which does the trick in cases which are conducted without a jury under Part 7. In order to bring Amendment No. 105A within the scope of the Bill, it is necessary—and I say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, in anticipating what his comment might
1422
be—to insert a reference to its purpose in the Long Title. That is what Amendment No. 127 does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 57B:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"INTERMITTENT CUSTODY: AMENDMENTS OF PART 12 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003
Schedule (Intermittent custody: amendments of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) (Intermittent custody: amendments of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) has effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new sentence of intermittent custody, which is currently being piloted. The pilot has highlighted two areas in which the legislation creates outcomes that are unintentionally inconsistent between those offenders sentenced to a term of intermittent custody and those serving custody plus. These are technical amendments to address the inconsistencies.
Amendments Nos. 57B, 71A, 100A, 121A and 128 concern offenders sentenced to more than one term of intermittent custody, ordered to be served concurrently, and the definition of the required custodial period under which HDC—home detention curfew—release dates are calculated. Before becoming eligible for release on home detention curfew, an offender must be serving a minimum custodial period of 42 days and must have served a specified portion of the custodial part of the sentence. Prisoners must have served at least half the required custodial days and a minimum of 28 days in custody before release on HDC is possible. I hope that your Lordships are still with me.
Currently the 2003 Act states that for those sentenced to intermittent custody, "the required custodial days" for home detention curfew purposes equals the "aggregate" of the number of custodial days ordered to be served. That has had the unintended effect that, when there are two concurrent intermittent custody sentences, the custodial periods are added together and it is the total that defines the required custodial period. That is inconsistent with custody plus sentences that are to be served concurrently. Here the required custodial period is defined as the actual custodial days to be served and not the aggregate of the number of custodial days.
In order to remedy that inconsistency, Amendments Nos. 57A and 71 B provides that, when an offender has been sentenced to concurrent terms of intermittent custody, the required custodial days for home detention curfew purposes is the aggregate of the custodial days less the number of days to be served concurrently. That will have the effect that the required custodial period for those serving concurrent sentences of either intermittent custody or custody plus will be identical. The amendment does not make any changes to the release dates on intermittent custody sentences where there is no early release on home detention curfew.
Amendment No. 71 A also concerns the length of the period an offender sentenced to intermittent custody has to spend on licence. Currently, in providing for consecutive sentences of less than 12 months, the Act does not specify clearly the licence arrangements for those sentenced to consecutive terms of intermittent custody. In order to remedy that omission, there needs to be inserted Amendment No. 71A. That amendment will ensure that those sentenced to consecutive terms of intermittent custody will, for the purposes of release and licence, be treated consistently with those serving consecutive sentences of custody plus. That is, the offender will serve a period equal to the aggregate of the custodial period and on completion will then be on licence for a period equal in length to the longest remaining licence period for any one of his sentences.
Your Lordships will remember that when we debated the matter in 2003, we said that the pilots would be extremely useful to identify inconsistencies—and here we are. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am not going to take us back to those happy days of debating Part 12 of that legislation—although I forget which part prosecution appeals ended up being in, as the Bill changed in many respects as it passed through this House.
The Minister has given us a very careful and helpful explanation of why the amendment is required, as a result of the experience of the pilots. I recall having tabled several amendments on intermittent custody, trying to work my way through some of the consequences of the provisions and asking questions around the very issues that the noble Baroness has dealt with today. I shall look carefully at the explanation that she has given. I certainly hope that there will be no need to return to the matter at Third Reading. It will probably take me until then to understand the explanation. The Minister has raised a serious matter: the value of pilots is to ensure that we can have just such a change.
Having said that I agree that changes are sometimes needed, I thought that I ought to wait until now before coming in on a point that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow has raised, as I did not want to abuse the rules of Report. My noble friend is right to draw the House's attention to occasions on which the Government repeatedly change the Long Title. The noble Baroness says that this is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill—that is absolutely right; I have agreed with her on previous occasions. However, my noble friend is right to draw the House's attention to the continual changing of the nature of the Bill in that, increasingly, outside organisations have said to me, "This appears now to be less of a domestic violence Bill than a general crime Bill".
The serious nature of that is simply that, when practitioners seek to find particular legislation, they will not necessarily direct themselves to this Bill as the source of that information, because it is being referred
1424
to in a general sense simply as the Domestic Violence Bill. That is one of the difficulties that arise with this rather small but composite Bill. In that respect, I support my noble friend's continued reminders.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Anelay has said. This is yet another example of the point that I have made. I am not complaining at all; indeed, as the Minister knows, I welcome Part 1, which deals with domestic violence. But the scope is becoming so wide that, when one is suddenly asked, "Are you going to go on sample cases because of Kidd?", one must say to the judge, "Although the case is on fraud, if your lordship would be good enough to look at the Domestic Violence Act". It makes it more difficult to follow things through when provisions are scattered among different Acts.
Does the amendment that the noble Baroness has just moved mean another amendment to the Long Title? If, as threatened, at a later stage, major changes regarding the whole Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are to be made by means of the Domestic Violence Bill, will that require a further amendment to the Long Title?
On a point of nostalgia, I must confess that I look back with a good deal of happiness on a certain parole review that I once recommended and that was accepted. It was recommended that in sentences of up to four years, an individual spent half of the period in custody and half on parole, with the risk of being recalled if he committed any further offences. Happily, that report was implemented very quickly by the then Home Secretary, but since then we seem to have moved away increasingly. We now get different dates and different times. I yearn slightly for the simplicity of the proposals made at that stage.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, have said, and I take my wigging with good grace.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"COMPOUND ALLEGATIONS
(1) The Crown Court Rule Committee shall make rules of court under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) (power to make rules of court) to make provision for the trial of compound allegations and, in particular, the rules shall provide for—

(a) a definition of "continuous activity" suitable to be tried as a compound allegation;

(b) a procedure for informing the sentencer in the Crown Court of the true extent of the guilt of a defendant who is found guilty by the jury of the compound allegation.

(2) The definition referred to in subsection (1)(a) shall include the same conduct occurring on a series of separate occasions or the same repeated conduct which, looked at in the round, may properly be regarded as one activity.

1425
(3) The procedure referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall provide that the procedure may only be applied—

(a) where the allegation involves two or more similar offences connected by time and place of commission or common purpose (typically, the same act committed against the same victim), so that—

(i) they can fairly be recognised as forming part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise; and

(ii) having regard to the allegations made and the defence put forward that, save for particular marginal issues, it may fairly be said to be an all or nothing case; and

(b) where the case has been identified at a preparatory hearing as appropriate for the use of a compound allegation.

(4) The procedure referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall include provision that—

(a) in order to convict of the count containing the compound allegation, all (or at least 10) of the jury must agree that they are sure that the defendant committed the alleged offences on at least one (the same) occasion;

(b) in order to acquit, all (or at least 10) of the jury must agree that they are less than sure that the defendant committed the alleged offence on any occasion at all;

(c) if the jury is unable to attain the level of agreement either to convict or acquit, then there may be a retrial;

(d) if, but only if, the jury had convicted in accordance with paragraph (a) then the jury must be asked, for sentencing purposes, to clarify the extent of the offending by identifying any occasion or occasions of alleged offending where it is unable, by a sufficient majority, to agree that it is sure of guilt, and any occasion so identified is to be discounted by the judge in measuring the appropriate sentence.

(5) The rules to be made under subsection (1) may also provide for—

(a) directions for the judge to follow at a preparatory hearing under subsection (3)(b), including but not limited to the appropriate scope and form of an indictment for a compound allegation; and

(b) directions for the judge as to the summing up and direction of the jury at the end of a trial of a compound allegation.

(6) The Crown Court Rule Committee shall make rules of court under section 2 of the Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90) (powers of rule committee) and section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) to provide that offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) may be tried as compound allegations, and for the purpose of this subsection, the Rule Committee may by order amend or repeal provisions of the 1915 Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in Grand Committee on 2 February, as reported at col. GC 281 of Hansard. I did so because I thought that it was important to ask the Government to put on the record why they have rejected the Law Commission's recommendation in paragraph 6.9 of its Report No. 277, The Effective Prosecution of Multiple Offending. The technical explanation of the text of the amendment was given at col. GC 281. As this is a follow-up amendment to ask the Government where they have got to, it would not be proper to go fully into the detail of the text on Report, particularly as noble Lords present suffered with all of us through several days in Grand Committee. In response to my arguments then, the Minister said that the Government were still
1426
considering the detail of the Law Commission's recommendations in respect of compound allegations and that the Government would,
"consider further the extent to which, if at all, it might be necessary to resort to primary legislation"—Official Report. 2/2/04; col. GC282.
Therefore, in order to get a kind of progress report since then, my questions are as follows. When do the Government expect to conclude those further considerations? Will that be in time for Third Reading on 25 March? Why do the Government still believe they need Clauses 9 to 12 if changes in the indictment laws can solve the problem of charging and sentencing for downloading thousands of child pornography images? Why can they not solve the problem of dealing with other multiple offending by this method? Do we need to press ahead with judge alone trials to solve the problem of Kidd? I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am happy to respond to those questions. The noble Baroness asked first why the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the Law Commission. She also asked this in Grand Committee in a debate that was short, I think because of the hour. It is right to point out that the Law Commission did not recommend that there should be any legislation. The Law Commission's statement at paragraph 6.9 of its report was not a call for legislation. It was a statement of view that certain offending—it identified the downloading of pornographic material involving children satisfying certain conditions—
"is capable under the present law of being charged by way of a compound allegation".
It was saying that certain offences are already capable of being charged as what it describes as a "compound allegation". It went on to say:
"If it is thought appropriate to crystallise these principles so as to make them clearly applicable to offending other than theft or fraud it may be achieved by a change in the Indictment Rules".
It was not recommending primary legislation. It was saying that such offences can be dealt with under the existing law but that if it is necessary to clarify this, it could be done by means of changes to the indictment rules. We agree that the existing common law permits the charging, in appropriate circumstances, of what may be viewed as a series of individual offences or as a continuous transaction involving several elements.
I turn to the next question asked by the noble Baroness about when the Government expect to conclude their consideration. My belief is that the Government have concluded their consideration and that what I am now saying is the result of that consideration.
The third question—this is the substantive question—was why we need Clauses 9 to 12 in those circumstances. There are different categories of case with which one can be concerned. The Law Commission identified, particularly by reference to a case called Barton, circumstances where one can get into difficulties if one applies the idea of compound allegation to particular kinds of transactions.
I shall give an example, as I tried to do in the earlier debate, of where Clauses 9 to 12 would operate. If somebody had defrauded many different victims in a

1427
similar way over a period of time, I doubt that it would be appropriate to charge that as a single count of a continuous activity or a compound allegation, whichever one wants to do. They are individual crimes, committed on different days, on different people. That is a very good example of where the new procedure in Clauses 9 to 12 would be appropriate.
In fact, we are now not so sure that the example of downloading indecent pictures of children is such a good example of where Clauses 9 to 12 would be used. That may well be an example—this is what the Law Commission is saying—of something which is a continuous offence, or possibly, depending upon the period of time over which it took place, of several continuous offences because sometimes it will make sense to divide the period into a number of blocks and to charge a count in relation to each of them.
The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted in relation to that category of conduct. It sees that it should be possible under the existing law to charge a series of elements of downloading of indecent photographs in a single count rather than charging each image separately. Plainly, no one can bind a particular judge's discretion if he thinks that, in a particular case, that is an appropriate way to proceed. Obviously, I cannot give any guarantees in relation to that.
The fundamental point is that we see, importantly, room not only for circumstances in which it is proper under the existing common law to charge what might be described as a number of elements—but is actually a single continuous activity or a compound allegation—but in which, at the same time, it is necessary to have the provisions in Clauses 9 to 12 so that we can deal with matters which would not properly fall within that sort of concept as individual counts, although without the need to have each individual count tried in front of a jury.
I should add that that is why we would not be in favour of the amendment, because it would necessarily involve—I give this as an example but there are other issues, too—introducing a procedure for special verdicts by a jury. We have not had those for a very long time. It is a quite complicated and cumbersome procedure. It is certainly not something to which the Government think it necessary to resort in order to deal with what is otherwise the Kidd problem which we discussed earlier.
I hope that those explanations are helpful to the noble Baroness. In short, however, we do not consider that the amendment is necessary. Indeed, we would be concerned that it could tie the hands of the judiciary and the rules committee in how they can apply the existing common law. Therefore, I resist the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has indeed taken the proposal much further forward. He was right to say that it was not debated at any length in Grand Committee. At that stage, in speaking to an earlier group of amendments, the Minister gave me a nod and
1428
a wink that she would be saying something that might be helpful—which she did, which was to say that the Government were thinking about it. The noble and learned Lord has said that they have thought about it. And this was the result today. I am grateful.
The basis on which I originally raised the issue was that the Government—in putting forward their proposals in the Bill, and in press releases and interviews before we entered into discussions on the Bill—were using the case of the downloading of multiple images of child pornography as an argument for the necessity for Clauses 9 to 12. It was when I saw the Law Commission's view that in fact it might not be necessary that I thought it was important for the Government's view to be tested.
I certainly am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his further explanation with regard to the conversations he has had with the CPS, for which he has departmental responsibility, and the view that has been expressed to him that it can cope with the child pornography cases under existing procedures—subject, as he says, of course, to any decision by a judge. Certainly in the light of the explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given today, I am content to withdraw the amendment and not to return to it at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Code of practice for victims]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Victims of criminal conduct shall be entitled to services provided by persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions relating to—

(a) victims of criminal conduct, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided under subsection (1)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. I can say now that, to assist progress, I shall not move or speak to Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
I have tabled these amendments as a result of the briefings that I have received from Victim Support both before Grand Committee and subsequently. The amendments have been redrafted to take account of the responses given in Grand Committee by the Minister to my original amendments.
I am very grateful to Victim Support for its briefing given to me and to other noble Lords throughout the progress of the Bill. It has been invaluable. Victim Support makes the point that the rights of victims of crime arc not listed as such in the Bill. The organisation therefore suggested Amendment No. 59 to ensure that there is in the Bill an entitlement to services for those people who are victims of criminal conduct. The services would be provided by those persons who appear to the Secretary of State to carry out functions that cover,
"(a) victims of criminal conduct, or
(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system".

1429
The Secretary of State would be required to,
"issue a code of practice as to the services that should be provided"
by these persons or organisations.
Amendment No. 62 provides a definition of "services" to which victims have a right. In Grand Committee the Minister found fault with my drafting at col. 420, in that that amendment did not cover the right to give personal information. That omission has been remedied in my Amendment No. 62.
In July 2003, the Government strategy, A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses, recognised that the majority of victims have needs outside the criminal justice system. In fact, Victim Support has calculated that only 3 per cent of victims go through the court process. An additional 1 per cent receive criminal injuries compensation. We shall certainly return to that issue in detail on a later occasion when the Government—if they do—introduce their changes in another place. Victim Support argues that everything in the draft code currently is there only for those 4 per cent.
Many victims have other needs such as those relating to health, housing, insurance, financial matters, employment and education issues. The Government have said that they wish to take this further and that they want to improve matters in that area. In this Bill they create the commissioner for victims and witnesses, who is to be responsible for a range of departments beyond those dealing only with criminal justice. Therefore, Victim Support's hope is that in future the victims' code's remit will be extended to those other departments. However, it wants to ensure that everyone knows what kind of services should be involved. Therefore, Amendment No. 62 begins by clarifying that the services provided should be,
"protection, personal support, to receive and provide information and to receive explanation".
Noble Lords will be aware that services such as these are already provided by Victim Support, which is a national standard bearer for quality of services to victims of crime. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 60.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I hope that I may raise one or two queries about the amendment. Clause 13 as it stands provides that in so far as people, organisations or whatever provide support services to victims of crime, a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State will apply. Clause 15 states that failure to comply does not in itself create any liability, criminal or civil, but is admissible in evidence. In Grand Committee my noble friend the Minister gave examples of industrial tribunal unfair dismissal proceedings where that might be so.
1430
Amendment No. 62 seeks to define "services". That seems to me helpful although I had, as it were, assumed that that was just the kind of thing that was intended. However, Amendment No. 59 purports to create an entitlement of the victim to support services—but I am not sure from whom. How does one pursue that entitlement? How is it enforced? Does it mean an entitlement from one organisation or, if there are several providing services of various but perhaps similar overlapping kinds, does it mean entitlement from each and every one of them?
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as she has not yet discussed her amendment, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in which she does not intend that the code of practice should itself be more than guidance and should not render anyone liable in criminal or civil proceedings, but elaborates somewhat on how it might be admissible in proceedings, which is not all that different from what the Bill already provides for.
I am puzzled to know, if the amendment were passed and there was an entitlement, how would that be enforced and against whom? Therefore I am doubtful whether the amendment should be accepted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I shall deal with the second batch of amendments in a moment. We discussed these issues previously in Grand Committee, as the noble Baroness indicated, and I see that the amendment has been revised so that the proposed definition of "service" has been broadened. However, I still feel that the principle of providing a definition could potentially lead to precisely the kind of inflexibility that we are seeking to avoid. When I say "we", I know that the noble Baroness does not wish to provide inflexibility and neither does Victim Support, I understand. There will be far more opportunity to develop new and innovative "services" for victims if we do not provide a narrow definition now.
As to the presentational amendment to make absolutely clear that victims have entitlements to services, we are not convinced that it improves the drafting in any material way, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has made clear. In fact, it might cause confusion as to the status of rights under the code. The intention is that the code should not give rise to rights which are enforceable in the courts. We think it is more appropriate for the code to be policed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The amendment suggests that services provided under the code are legal entitlements and would cast doubt on Clause 15, which states explicitly that failure to comply with the code does not give rise to any criminal or civil liability.
I understand why the noble Baroness has phrased her amendments in the way that she does, but we believe that they are unnecessary.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I am grateful for those responses which have pulled my amendment apart and contrasted it with my amendment to Clause 15. My purpose, of course, was to try and take further the probing amendments that I tabled in Grand Committee—we have done that.

1431
Against that background the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says this amendment seems to be, or is, in contradiction with my amendment at Clause 15. My difficulty with the Government's drafting is that they have the worst of both worlds. They are not providing victims with an entitlement to services that some organisations believe is right, because the Government are rightly trying to ensure that we do not create an open season in the courts for people to sue if they do not receive a particular service, at a particular time and at a particular level.
I sympathise with the Government for not wanting that, but the difficulty is that they have raised the expectations of victims that services will be provided and those organisations that represent victims are asking: why, if there are to be services, can there not be an entitlement to them? So, I was happy to take the amendment forward on that basis. However, we will debate the amendments to Clause 15 later. There I have real problems—although I agree with what the Government say they are trying to do on Clause 15, I do not believe that their drafting achieves it.
As this amendment was tabled as a consequence of discussions with Victim Support, I will consider carefully with it whether there is anything which can be brought back at Third Reading that the organisation would find helpful. If its advice is that the matter has been taken as far as it can, the issue will not return in this or any other form. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Procedure]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 39, leave out "and the Lord Chancellor" and insert ", the Lord Chancellor and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as appointed under section 17(1)"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 68 and 75 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay. We are grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford. They refer to the obligation to consult the commissioner for victims and witnesses in any revision of the code of practice. They follow on Amendment No. 62, to which my noble friend Lady Anelay has just spoken and I note the Minister's reply.
Amendment No. 63 would ensure that the new commissioner for victims and witnesses is fully consulted if and when the Secretary of State revised the code of practice. Clause 18(1)(c) places the commissioner under a statutory duty to keep the code of practice under review, yet the Bill does not accord the commissioner a role in the process of revising the code commensurate with his duty to review the code. The amendment would plug the gap.
Clause 18(2) already provides for the commissioner to make ad hoc proposals to the Home Secretary either at the Home Secretary's request or on the commissioner's own initiative. This is very useful as it provides a flexible way for the commissioner to share ideas with the
1432
Secretary of State at any time. But Clause 18(2) does not establish or form part of a formal consultation process for revising the code of practice.
If and when the Home Secretary revises the code under Clause 14(8), the Bill provides in Clause 14(2) to (7) for public consultation on the revision. In addition, the Bill gives the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General special provenance in the revision process. There is no mention of the commissioner.
If the Bill passes into law as it stands, the commissioner will most probably make representations to the Home Secretary during the public consultation period. However, the revision process would be greatly enhanced if legislation provided that the commissioner had a named role in the process together with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General.
Formally including the commissioner will enhance the process in several ways. Whereas the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor have wide remits, the commissioner's remit will be confined to victims and witnesses. The prime function of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor will be to champion the rights of victims and witnesses, but they will also be under a duty to keep the code under review. The commissioner will, it is hoped, have built up a wealth of knowledge in the field of victim and witness policy. Surely, in the course of the acquisition of that knowledge, he will be aware of any deficiencies in the code of practice which need to be rectified or improved.
It seems logical that the commissioner should be formally included in the revision process for those reasons. This amendment would help enable the Home Secretary to make fuller use of the commissioner's expertise and improve the effectiveness of the revision process.
Furthermore, victim and witness policy will not stand still and at some point in the future the code is bound to be revised. The Bill gives the commissioner a remit that reaches beyond the sphere of criminal justice into health, housing and so forth. My noble friend Lady Anelay made that point.
It is quite foreseeable that the commissioner may make proposals under Clause 18(2) touching on these and other policy spheres which fall outside the remit of the Home Secretary. If the Secretary of State wished to pursue such proposals in the interests of victims and witnesses, it is clear that the commissioner will need to be placed at the centre rather than at the periphery of the drafting. This will promote effective joined-up government.
Finally, I want to make a practical point. It will surely be an effective use of public resources to use the commissioner and his staff as much as possible during the drafting and revision process to ease the burden on government departments and to ensure that any amendments are workable in the long run.
I turn to Amendment No. 65. The Bill currently permits the commissioner to make proposals for amending the code of practice to the Secretary of State under Clause 18(2)(a). As the commissioner will be under a duty to review the code, the commissioner's power to make proposals provides the commissioner

1433
with some of the necessary means for raising issues arising out of such a review. However, it is suggested that providing the commissioner with the facility to initiate a revision of the code will help to ensure that the code remains effective in ensuring good quality services to victims and witnesses.
In certain circumstances, it may make more sense for the commissioner rather than the Home Secretary to use the knowledge gained under Clause 18(1)(c) to initiate a revision process; for example, if the revisions in the code relate to health or housing. The amendment seeks to provide for such a situation and it aims to introduce greater flexibility and make better use of the resources deployed to the commissioner.
The amendment draws on the Race Relations Act 1976, which enables the Commission for Racial Equality to initiate revisions in its own code of practice. While I acknowledge that the role of the commissioner for victims and witnesses is not entirely analogous with that of the Commission for Racial Equality and other equality commissioners in so far as he will not have commensurate policing or enforcement powers, I suggest that, in the interests of victims and witnesses, statute should afford the commissioner a degree of analogous independence.
Under the amendment, if the commissioner initiates a redraft, he will be required to consult the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor. A similar process to the one provided by subsections (2) to (7) of Clause 14 would then be set in train. However, importantly, the Secretary of State will retain the power to reject the revised code in the same way as the Home Secretary may reject the codes of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality. In that way, any draft initiated by the commissioner will not only be subjected to the same consultation as one issued by the Home Secretary but will also be subject to the ultimate authority of an elected representative of Cabinet rank before being put to Parliament.
Amendment No. 67, proposed by the Solicitors' Family Law Association, reinforces the points that I have just made covering the line taken by Victim Support; that is, that the role of the commissioner for victims and witnesses must be taken seriously by the Secretary of State. Clause 18 enables the commissioner to put proposals to the Secretary of State to amend the code of practice. He or she can do so either on his or her own initiative or if the Secretary of State asks the commissioner to make proposals to him. It seems strange that there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take account of such proposals or reports, nor to give his reasons if he then rejects any recommendation made by the commissioner. The amendment seeks to remedy that perceived deficiency. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that at Second Reading I questioned the role of the commissioner and the purpose of having a commissioner at all. I suggested that it might be a smokescreen—that is, to seem to be doing something not very effectively for victims.
1434
I believe that this afternoon's debates have rather underlined that point. When the last amendment, to which my name is attached, was moved, we were told that victims are not to be entitled to services as that would be wrong; nor were those services to be specified. Therefore, the force of Clause 13 is completely disseminated by a lack of a clear purpose—a clear granting of the right to victims.
The commissioner has all kinds of vague functions, such as promoting the interests of victims and witnesses, and they are set in a very broad sense. However, in this amendment the Government may be revisiting the point that he should have the obvious task of playing a part in preparing the code of practice for victims set out in Clause 13. If he has no part in preparing it initially, why does he have a part in reviewing and revising it and making suggestions at a later stage? I commend the amendment because it gives the commissioner something positive to do—something that he can get his teeth into at the very beginning.
I should also say about the commissioner that by Clause 20 he is not allowed to exercise any of his functions in relation to a particular victim or witness. That means that he cannot deal in any way with individual cases. So he has the broadest, vaguest territory to cover without any specific role set out in this legislation. He would immediately have something to do if he, at least, played a part in setting up the code of practice.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while supporting my noble friend Lord Bridgeman on the amendment he moved, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, in replying to the amendments, she can give us some indication of the responsibility to provide treatment for victims. Victims are necessarily people who will have been injured or have suffered in some way. Of course, one hopes and believes that the code will make arrangements for dealing with those injuries and suffering. Will she confirm that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to deal with all the issues raised by noble Lords. We expect the commissioner to be independent. On victims, the witnesses policy is very unlikely to stand still. We believe it will not stand still. The commissioner will have a very important and persuasive role. His or her specialist knowledge will be influential, but not determinative. Of course responsibility for making decisions which may directly impinge on the allocation of resources will be properly discharged by the ministerial officers and their colleagues along with the Secretaries of State who will be entrusted with that task.
I understand that the amendments spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seek to increase the power of the commissioner for victims and witnesses so that he must be consulted on the code. The amendments also give him the power to produce a draft revision of the code which must be laid before Parliament. If it is not laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must explain why.

1435
I strongly resist the amendments. It would be inappropriate for the commissioner to have such a large role to play in relation to the code of practice. The commissioner will be able to offer his comments and amendments to the Secretary of State; and his suggestions will be given very serious consideration by the Government.
I must say that the situation we now envisage in respect of the commissioner is very different from that of the Commission for Racial Equality. The comparison with the Commissioner for Racial Equality is not apposite because of course each will have very different roles with very different powers. The CRE has enforcement powers as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said. Its codes are generally applicable to the public at large. Therefore, they apply to all employers—in both private and public sectors—who are required to avoid discrimination. It is very different for a commissioner to amend a code like this which will have resource implications for public bodies.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I do so while she is talking about resource implications. There was a suggestion that we were going to have inserted into the Bill at some time the question of compensation for victims. The press have trailed the possibility that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme would bring forward revisions which would result in its costs being halved and the cost of injuries to some victims being thrown upon employers. Will we see that provision in this Bill before we finally leave it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to repeat what I have said on at least two, if not three, previous occasions. The provisions are out to consultation. It is not envisaged that we will be likely to spend less money than we currently spend on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The consultation, as the noble Lord will know, because I am positive that he will have read it, preserves the majority of the categories. There are now two or three categories that it is suggested may need to be changed. In that consultation document, a broad range of suggestions is put out for consideration as to changes that we may make. The statutory charge is but one of them. All those matters will come back.
What the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has highlighted is important; namely, that we hope that it will not just be the criminal justice system that will be within the eyesight of the victims commissioner. Noble Lords will know that through the Victims' Advisory Panel we are already working with other departments to look at a number of issues that impinge on victims and witnesses, and other departments' interests. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, indicated a responsibility to provide health provision and treatment for victims and the arrangements for that. Of course, that treatment is already provided by the National Health Service. Your Lordships will know that in a number of contexts we are looking carefully at what additional help and assistance victims will
1436
need. For instance, there is a pilot in Cardiff hospital where the accident and emergency providers are working with Victim Support on domestic violence, to see how they can identify better ways of dealing with victims. All these issues are important. We hope that the commissioner will have much to say about them.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has mentioned, there are also questions in relation to housing. If we take domestic violence, there are new provisions in respect of what local and other authorities may do to provide housing together with other non-governmental agencies and governmental agencies. All these important issues go across departments and rely on the provision of resources.
We see the role of the commissioner as an extremely important, independent and persuasive role, but it would not be appropriate to recast that role in the way that is currently proposed. I assure noble Lords that in accordance with everything that is proper, full and proper consideration would be given to any recommendation made by the commissioner, because the whole point of creating such a commissioner is that he or she will be able to provide cogent, helpful advice to government on how to better meet the needs and provide services for victims.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in a sense this is where we came in on the first day of Report. Will the commissioner have the power to introduce, by regulations or subsidiary legislation, machinery to collect compensation in the way that we discussed on the first day and asked if we could have a recommittal? I am not sure where we are going.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the provisions as they currently stand do not include a provision for the commissioner to provide those roles. I am happy to repeat again that the consultation paper is out, and we will consider the response to that consultation. Once we know what decisions are made, we will be able to make any application in relation to the amendment. It is not proposed that any further role for the commission in that regard will currently be included, until and unless we have the outcome of that consultation.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am sorry that the Minister feels unable to give the commissioner a further statutory or formal role when his role is already substantially enshrined in the statute. I would like to study the Minister's words carefully and talk to the organisations that briefed us.
On that point, my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns mentioned the support that we—on these Benches, certainly—have received from Victim Support and the Solicitors' Family Law Association. I suggest that they might find it useful if the Minister

1437
found time to speak to them before Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 68 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 10, line 19, leave out "and" and insert "or"
The noble Baroness said: It is with great pleasure that I note that the Minister has also put her name to the amendment. Therefore, I can be brief.
I tabled the amendment in response to our debates in Grand Committee. The Government had tabled an amendment to try to meet in full a request from Victim Support. The only query was whether the drafting of the Government's amendment fully met the needs of victims. There was concern that the drafting of Clause 14(9)(a) could allow a reduction in the quality of service alone, because it refers to,
"a significant reduction in the quality and extent of the services to be provided under the code".
Victim Support asked whether that should instead read "quality or extent". We are all familiar with "and/or" debates, but, on this occasion, it seems to be a significant matter.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who wrote to noble Lords on 17 February, saying that the Government would go back to the draftsman to check whether the provision could be construed in that way and to see whether they could make the drafting clearer. She said that the Government would be in a position to offer an amendment or further explanation on Report.
I waited a little while, and, when I saw no amendment, I put this one down, to see what would happen. I was gratified to see that the Government acknowledged that there was such a need for further clarification and that the noble Baroness had added her name to the amendment. It is with pleasure, therefore, that I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I accept the amendment. I felt like mischievously suggesting that I would resolutely resist the noble Baroness's amendment and press my own. The noble Baroness beat us to the mark—probably by minutes—and I am glad that she did. I have pleasure in agreeing with her that the phrase "quality or extent" makes the position explicit.
As I made clear on the previous occasion, there is no disagreement between us. The amendment will ensure that future revisions of the code of practice cannot reduce either the extent or the quality of the services provided to victims by those with obligations in the code. That is our joint intent, and I am pleased that the noble Baroness's drafting was as immaculate as that of parliamentary counsel.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Effect of non-compliance]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"(1) The code of practice issued under section 13 is for guidance as to the conduct of services as therein provided.
(2) Failure to comply with such guidance shall not render persons who administer such services liable to criminal or civil proceedings save as provided by subsection (3) but shall be admissible and may be taken into account on determination of any question arising on such proceedings.
(3) On any inquiry or determination concerned with dismissal, suspension or reprimand on grounds of failure to comply with such guidance and on judicial review of any such decisions, the code shall be admissible as evidence."
The noble Lord said: It is not a particularly good time for me to move the amendment. It is rather technical, and we are at the end of a long day. None the less, the amendment is important.
The title of Clause 15 is "Effect of non-compliance". In fact, it is the trigger clause that gives the quality of legal efficacy to the code. One must be technical about that, because such matters go right up through the courts to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
The code is introduced in Clause 13(1):
"The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided",
which relates to "victims of criminal conduct" and so forth.
Clause 15 states:
"If a person fails to perform a duty imposed on him by a code issued under section 13, the failure does not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings".
The words "not of itself" in a statute are words of limitation and they must be construed as such. As I construe them and, I think, any court would construe them, faced with a negligence action where one of the helpers who was operating the code, probably voluntary, was sued for negligence, this would afford no stop to that.
Clause 15 continues:
"the code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and a court may take into account a failure to comply with the code in determining a question in the proceedings".
At Second Reading, I said that there was a self-contradiction. I did not use that word: I used oxymoron. I said that a self-contradiction is being woven into the fabric of Clause 15, which will create very considerable difficulties.
I must admit that although I know a little bit about codes of practice, I have never come across what I have produced in this amendment. It is a totally novel approach. If it is tight, there is no objection to it. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 70 states:
"The code of practice … is for guidance as to the conduct of services as therein provided".

1439
One should remember that a lot of those services are voluntary, and we live in a highly litigious community. The amendment continues:
"Failure to comply with such guidance shall not render persons who administer such services liable to criminal or civil proceedings save as provided by subsection (3) but shall be admissible and may be taken into account on determination of any question arising on such proceedings".
The amendment proposes a blanket protection from an action of negligence at common law for these people acting in good faith to try to operate the code and somehow slip up. Then the high street solicitor trots along, we get legal aid and off we go. That simply is not on.
I have inserted a special requirement in subsection (3) that,
"On any inquiry or determination concerned with dismissal, suspension or reprimand on grounds of failure to comply with such guidance and on judicial review of any such decisions, the code shall be admissible".
In other words, I am not preventing the workers from facing a charge which would warrant a reprimand, suspension or dismissal.
I do not want to continue for much longer because the question is really quite simple: does the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, accept that, as it is drafted, the trigger clause—Clause 15—is unsatisfactory in that it has words of limitation woven into it? Does she also accept that it fails to protect the workers—the people who render their services—and also fails to protect the victims when those people qualify for reprimand, suspension and so on? That is the essence of the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I can be very brief. I am very firm in my support of my noble friend. We are trying to ensure that the Government's clause is drafted in such a way that it delivers the assurances given by the Minister in the letter that she kindly sent to noble Lords after Grand Committee. She was trying to reassure me that legal proceedings would not be undertaken as a result of any breach of the code in circumstances that went beyond a specific number of examples—one might call them "employment breaches".
My original concern had been that, as Clause 15 is currently drafted, one might end up with a case in a criminal court having a verdict found one way or the other because, during the course of the case, someone who was an alleged victim said, "I did not receive the service to which I believe I was entitled in any respect".
My noble friend is trying to redraft the clause so that it more properly meets what we all agree should be the Government's pronounced objective.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hoped that I had made clear on the previous occasion—and, from the comments of the noble Baroness, perhaps I did—the Government's intent in bringing forward Clause 15.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked specifically whether I believe that Clause 15 is drafted in such a way as to make it unsatisfactory in that it has
1440
words of limitation woven into it and fails to protect workers and victims when those people qualify for reprimand. The short answer is no, I do not believe it to be unsatisfactory. Neither do I believe it will create the confusion the noble Lord fears.
Let me state, very shortly, why I believe that is so. I understand what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do. It is crafted so that the circumstances under which the code of practice is admissible as evidence are very restricted. Following our exchanges in Committee, I am grateful for the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to clarify the circumstances in which the court code may be admissible. Although I remain unpersuaded that it is necessary to restrict the code in this way, I commend the noble Lord for his efforts.
The amendment contains three subsections. Subsections (1) and (2) do not alter the content of Clause 15, and we feel that they are unnecessary. Subsection (3), however, significantly alters the content of the clause; it would allow the code to be admissible as evidence only in very limited circumstances, in which the proceedings are civil and relate to dismissal, suspension or reprimand on grounds of failure to comply with the code and on judicial review of any such decisions. However, even the judicial review is limited to those very narrow provisions set out in it.
We believe that it is far too limiting, and that the code of practice should be admissible as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings where it is relevant. The main use of the code will undoubtedly be in civil cases, and I do not perceive that it is necessary or even helpful to clarify specific circumstances. There may, inevitably, be circumstances that we would miss if we sought to define them all within this section.
The amendment effectively limits the admissibility of the code to proceedings relating to employment law. However, it is our intention that the code should be admissible in other civil proceedings, such as judicial review of the actions of one of the bodies which provides services under the code. The code will be relevant to determining whether or not a body has acted reasonably under general public law principles or has breached a person's human rights. An example might be where an offender claimed that disclosure of information about him breached his right of privacy under Article 8 of the European convention. The fact that a body had or had not complied with the code would be relevant to deciding whether it had acted proportionately.
It is also important that the code can be used in criminal cases if the need arises, however few those occasions may be. In most cases, Clause 15(2) will have no impact on criminal proceedings. The code will not create new defences or change the shape of the criminal law in any other way. If a defendant wanted to argue, as a defence or in mitigation, that he had committed an offence because he had not received services to which he was entitled under the code, he could do so regardless of whether or not the code was admissible in evidence.

1441
There are other circumstances in which compliance with the code might be of relevance. For example, it could be a factor in determining whether a person has committed a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act 1998. I must therefore resist this amendment, as I prefer to keep a broad definition of proceedings where the code can be used in evidence, in order to cover these exceptional cases.
The noble Lord raised the issue of negligence action. Your Lordships will know that in order to bring a negligence action, the claimant must establish a duty of care. The courts normally impose a duty of care only where it is in the public interest. On the whole, the courts have not found that criminal justice agencies owe a duty of care within the current framework to victims in the type of situations covered by the code. However, if there were a duty of care, it might be that the code should be taken into account in determining whether there is negligence. It does not change things but it may be a tool that the court would want to take into account when making its decision whether someone had or had not complied. We think that that would be proper—it does not, of itself, create new responsibilities or difficulties in a way that would be improper.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for the way in which she has dealt with this. It was entirely my fault, inevitably, that she gave a highly technical response to my highly technical opening.
This is a highly technical matter. I am afraid, with deference and much respect, that I do not think that our minds are engaging on this at all. This is not the occasion to try repetition or persuasion. I think that I mentioned that I may have the privilege of meeting the Minister to discuss this matter to see if there is any possibility of making an arrangement that seems sensible to both of us. However, I think not, because she wants to keep the liability very wide and I want to keep it very small for these voluntary people. Therefore, I do not think that it is likely that we can, on this occasion, make much accommodation. Obviously, this is an important matter and I would like to read what has been said and, in any event, deal with the matter with a fairly full House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 70A, 71 and 71A:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
MODIFICATION OF SECTIONS 9 TO 12 FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
1 For section 10 substitute—
"10 PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 9
(1) An application under section 9 must be determined—

(a) at a preparatory hearing (witnin the meaning of the 1988 Order), or

1442

(b) at a hearing specified in. or for which provision is made by, Crown Court rules.

(2) The parties to a hearing mentioned in subsection (1) at which an application under section 9 is to be determined must be given an opportunity to make representations with respect to the application.
(3) Article 6(1) of the 1988 Order (which sets out the purposes of preparatory hearings) is to have effect as if the purposes there mentioned included the purpose of determining an application under section 9.
(4) Article 8(11) of the 1988 Order (appeal to Court of Appeal) is to have effect as if it also provided for an appeal to the Court of Appeal to lie from the determination by a judge of an application under section 9.
(5) In this section "the 1988 Order" means the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
10A APPEALS IN RESPECT OF HEARINGS UNDER SECTION 10(1)(B)
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from the refusal by a judge at a hearing mentioned in section 10(1)(b) of an application under section 9 or from an order of a judge at such a hearing under section 9(2) which is made on the determination of such an application.
(2) Such an appeal may be brought only with the leave of the judge or the Court of Appeal.
(3) An order or a refusal of an application from which an appeal under this section lies is not to take effect—

(a) before the expiration of the period for bringing an appeal under this section, or

(b) if such an appeal is brought, before the appeal is finally disposed of or abandoned.

(4) On the termination of the hearing of an appeal under this section, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) where the appeal is from an order, confirm or revoke the order, or

(b) where the appeal is from a refusal of an application, confirm the refusal or make the order which is the subject of the application.

(5) In section 31(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) (right of appeal to House of Lords) for "Act or" substitute "Act, section 10A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004,".
(6) In section 35 of that Act (bail) after "appeal under" insert "section 10A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004,".
(7) The Secretary of State may make an order containing provision, in relation to proceedings before the Court of Appeal under this section, which corresponds to any provision, in relation to appeals or other proceedings before that court, which is contained in the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (subject to any specified modifications).
(8) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
10B REPORTING RESTRICTIONS
(1) Sections 41 and 42 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25) are to apply in relation to—

(a) a hearing of the kind mentioned in section 10(1)(b), and

(b) any appeal or application for leave to appeal relating to such a hearing, as they apply in relation to a ruling under section 40 of that Act, but subject to the following modifications.

1443
(2) Section 41(2) of that Act is to have effect as if for paragraphs (a) to (d) there were substituted—

"(a) a hearing of the kind mentioned in section 10(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004;

(b) any appeal or application for leave to appeal relating to such a hearing."

(3) Section 41(3) of that Act is to have effect as if—

(a) for "(2)" there were substituted "(2)(a) or an application to that judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal", and

(b) after "matter", in the second place where it occurs, there were inserted "or application".

(4) Section 41 of that Act is to have effect as if after subsection (3) there were inserted—
"(3A) The Court of Appeal may order that subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to that Court, or

(b) an application to that Court for leave to appeal.

(3B) The House of Lords may order that subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to that House, or

(b) an application to that House for leave to appeal."

(5) Section 41(4) of that Act is to have effect as if for "(3) the judge" there were substituted "(3), (3A) or (3B), the judge, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords".
(6) Section 41(5) of that Act is to have effect as if for "(3) the judge" there were substituted "(3), (3A) or (3B), the judge, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords"."
2 In section 11(3) after "enactment" insert "(including any provision of Northern Ireland legislation)".
3 In section 11(4)(b) for the words from "section" to "etc)" substitute "section 16(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (notice of appeal or application for leave)".
4 In section 11(5) for "section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968" substitute "section 16(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980".
5 For section 11(6) substitute—
"(6) Nothing in this section or section 9, 10, 10A, 10B or 12 affects—

(a) the requirement under Article 49 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 that a question of fitness to be tried be determined by a jury, or

(b) the requirement under Article 49A of that Order that any question, finding or verdict mentioned in that Article be determined, made or returned by a jury."

6 For section 12(2) substitute—
"(2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules of court may in particular make provision—

(a) for time limits within which applications under section 9 must be made or within which other things in connection with that section or sections 10 to 11 must be done;

(b) in relation to hearings of the kind mentioned in section 10(1)(b)."

7 In section 12(3)—

(a) after "section" insert "or section 10(1)(b)";

(b) after "enactment" insert "(including any provision of Northern Ireland legislation)"."

1444
Before Schedule I, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
SUPERVISION ORDERS ON FINDING OF INSANITY OR UNFITNESS TO PLEAD ETC
The following is the Schedule inserted before Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)—

SCHEDULE 1 A
Section 5A
SUPERVISION ORDERS PRELIMINARY
1 (1) In this Schedule "supervision order" means an order which requires the person in respect of whom it is made ("the supervised person") to be under the supervision of a social worker or an officer of a local probation board ("the supervising officer") for a period specified in the order of not more than two years.
(2) A supervision order may, in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 below, require the supervised person to submit, during the whole of that period or such part of it as may be specified in the order, to treatment by or under the direction of a registered medical practitioner.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subparagraph (1) above shall be amended by substituting, for the period for the time being specified there, such period as may be specified in the order.
(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3) above may make in paragraph 11(2) below any amendment which the Secretary of State thinks necessary in consequence of any substitution made by the order.
(5) The power of the Secretary of State to make orders under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

PART 2
MAKING AND EFFECT OF ORDERS
Circumstances in which orders may be made
2 (1) The court shall not make a supervision order unless it is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the making of such an order is the most suitable means of dealing with the accused or appellant.
(2) The court shall not make a supervision order unless it is also satisfied—

(a) that the supervising officer intended to be specified in the order is willing to undertake the supervision; and

(b) that arrangements have been made for the treatment intended to be specified in the order.

Making of orders and general requirements
3 (1) A supervision order shall either—

(a) specify the local social services authority area in which the supervised person resides or will reside, and require him to be under the supervision of a social worker of the local social services authority for that area; or

(b) specify the local justice area in which that person resides or will reside, and require him to be under the supervision of an officer of a local probation board appointed for or assigned to that area.

(2) Before making such an order, the court shall explain to the supervised person in ordinary language—

(a) the effect of the order (including any requirements proposed to be included in the order in accordance with paragraph 4, 5 or 8 below); and

(b) that a magistrates' court has power under paragraphs 9 to 11 below to review the order on the application either of the supervised person or of the supervising officer.

(3) After making such an order, the court shall forthwith give copies of the order to an officer of a local probation board assigned to the court, and he shall give a copy—

(a) to the supervised person; and

(b) to the supervising officer.

(4) After making such an order, the court shall also send to the designated officer for the local justice area in which the supervised person resides or will reside ("the local justice area concerned")—

(a) a copy of the order; and

(b) such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to a court acting for that area in the exercise of its functions in relation to the order.

(5) Where such an order is made, the supervised person shall keep in touch with the supervising officer in accordance with such instructions as he may from time to time be given by that officer and shall notify him of any change of address.

Requirements as to medical treatment
4 (1) A supervision order may, if the court is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, include a requirement that the supervised person shall submit, during the whole of the period specified in the order or during such part of that period as may be so specified, to treatment by or under the direction of a registered medical practitioner with a view to the improvement of his mental condition.
(2) The court may impose such a requirement only if satisfied on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners, at least one or whom is duly registered, that the mental condition of the supervised person—

(a) is such as requires and may be susceptible to treatment; but

(b) is not such as to warrant the making of a hospital order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(3) The treatment required under this paragraph by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order, that is to say—

(a) treatment as a non-resident patient at such institution or place as may be specified in the order; and

(b) treatment by or under the direction of such registered medical practitioner as may be so specified; but the nature of the treatment shall not be specified in the order except as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above.

5 (1) This paragraph applies where the court is satisfied on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners that—

(a) because of his medical condition, other than his mental condition, the supervised person is likely to pose a risk to himself or others; and

(b) the condition may be susceptible to treatment.

(2) The supervision order may (whether or not it includes a requirement under paragraph 4 above) include a requirement that the supervised person shall submit, during the whole of the period specified in the order or during such part of that period as may be so specified, to treatment by or under the direction of a registered medical practitioner with a view to the improvement of the condition.
(3) The treatment required under this paragraph by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order, that is to say—

(a) treatment as a non-resident patient at such institution or place as may be specified in the order; and

(b) treatment by or under the direction of such registered medical practitioner as may be so specified; but the nature of the treatment shall not be specified in the order except as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above.

6 (1) Where the medical practitioner by whom or under whose direction the supervised person is being treated in pursuance of a requirement under paragraph 4 or 5 above is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

(a) is not specified in the order, and

(b) is one in or at which the treatment of the supervised person will be given by or under the direction of a registered medical practitioner, he may, with the consent of the supervised person, make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.

(2) Such arrangements may provide for the supervised person to receive part of his treatment as a resident patient in an institution or place of any description.
(3) Where any such arrangements are made for the treatment of a supervised person—

(a) the medical practitioner by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the supervising officer, specifying the institution or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and

(b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the supervision order.

7 While the supervised person is under treatment as a resident patient in pursuance of arrangements under paragraph 6 above, the supervising officer shall carry out the supervision to such extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.

Requirements as to residence
8 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a supervision order may include requirements as to the residence of the supervised person.
(2) Before making such an order containing any such requirement, the court shall consider the home surroundings of the supervised person.

PART 3
REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT OF ORDERS
Revocation of order
9 (1) Where a supervision order is in force in respect of any person and, on the application of the supervised person or the supervising officer, it appears to a magistrates' court acting for the local justice area concerned that, having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, it would be in the interests of the health or welfare of the supervised person that the order should be revoked, the court may revoke the order.
(2) The court by which a supervision order was made may of its own motion revoke the order if, having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, it considers that it would be inappropriate for the order to continue.

Amendment of order hr reason of change of residence
10 (1) This paragraph applies where, at any time while a supervision order is in force in respect of any person, a magistrates' court acting for the local justice area concerned is satisfied that the supervised person proposes to change, or has changed, his residence from the area specified in the order to another local social services authority area or local justice area.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the court may, and on the application of the supervising officer shall, amend the supervision order by substituting the other area for the area specified in the order.
(3) The court shall not amend under this paragraph a supervision order which contains requirements which, in the opinion of the court, cannot be complied with unless the supervised person continues to reside in the area specified in the order unless, in accordance with paragraph 11 below, it either—

(a) cancels those requirements; or

(b) substitutes for those requirements other requirements which can be complied with if the supervised person ceases to reside in that area.

Amendment of requirements of order
11 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 10 above, but subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a magistrates' court for the local justice area concerned may, on the application of the supervised person or the supervising officer, by order amend a supervision order—

(a) by cancelling any of the requirements of the order; or

(b) by inserting in the order (either in addition to or in substitution for any such requirement) any requirement which the court could include if it were the court by which the order was made and were then making it.

(2) The power of a magistrates' court under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not include power to amend an order by extending the period specified in it beyond the end of two years from the day of the original order.

Amendment of requirements in pursuance of medical report
12 (1) Where the medical practitioner by whom or under whose direction the supervised person is being treated for his mental condition in pursuance of any requirement of a supervision order—

(a) is of the opinion mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, or

(b) is for any reason unwilling to continue to treat or direct the treatment of the supervised person,
he shall make a report in writing to that effect to the supervising officer and that officer shall apply under paragraph 11 above to a magistrates' court for the local justice area concerned for the variation or cancellation of the requirement.

(2) The opinion referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above is—

(a) that the treatment of the supervised person should be continued beyond the period specified in the supervision order;

(b) that the supervised person needs different treatment, being treatment of a kind to which he could be required to submit in pursuance of such an order;

(c) that the supervised person is not susceptible to treatment; or

(d) that the supervised person does not require further treatment.

Supplemental
13 (1) On the making under paragraph 9 above of an order revoking a supervision order, the designated officer for the local justice area concerned, or (as the case may be) the Crown Court, shall forthwith give copies of the revoking order to the supervising officer.
(2) A supervising officer to whom in accordance with subparagraph (1) above copies of a revoking order are given shall give a copy to the supervised person and to the person in charge of any institution in which the supervised person is residing.
14 (1) On the making under paragraph 10 or 11 above of any order amending a supervision order, the designated officer for the local justice area concerned shall forthwith—

(a) if the order amends the supervision order otherwise than by substituting a new area or a new place for the one specified in the supervision order, give copies of the amending order to the supervising officer;

(b) if the order amends the supervision order in the manner excepted by paragraph (a) above, send to the designated officer for the new local justice area concerned—

(i) copies of the amending order; and

(ii) such documents and information relating to the case as he considers likely to be of assistance to a court acting for that area in exercising its functions in relation to the order;
1448
and in a case falling within paragraph (b) above, the designated officer for that area shall give copies of the amending order to the supervising officer.

(2) Where the designated officer for the court making the order is also the designated officer for the new local justice area—

(a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) above does not apply; but

(b) the designated officers shall give copies of the amending order to the supervising officer.

(3) Where in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above copies of an order are given to the supervising officer, he shall give a copy to the supervised person and to the person in charge of any institution in which the supervised person is or was residing.""
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
INTERMITTENT CUSTODY: AMENDMENTS OF PART 12 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003
1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
2 In section 244 (duty to release prisoners), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (c), for the words from "which is not" to "section 183(3)" substitute "which for the purposes of section 183 (as read with section 263(2) or 264A(2) in the case of concurrent or consecutive sentences) is not a licence period";

(b) in paragraph (d), after "consecutive sentences" insert "none of which falls within paragraph (c)".

3 In section 246 (power to release prisoners on licence before required to do so), in the definition of "the required custodial days" in subsection(6)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after "custody" insert "which are consecutive";

(b) at the end of that paragraph insert ", or

(c) in the case of two or more sentences of intermittent custody which are wholly or partly concurrent, the aggregate of the numbers so specified less the number of days that are to be served concurrently;".

4 In section 249 (duration of licence), at the end of subsection (3) insert "and subsection (2) has effect subject to section 264A(3) (consecutive terms: intermittent custody)".
5 In section 250 (licence conditions), in subsection (7), for "and section 264(3) and (4) (consecutive terms)" substitute ", section 264(3) and (4) (consecutive terms) and section 264A(3) (consecutive terms: intermittent custody)".
6 In section 264 (consecutive terms), in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert ", and

(c) none of those terms is a term to which an intermittent custody order relates."

7 After that section insert—
"264A CONSECUTIVE TERMS: INTERMITTENT CUSTODY
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person ("the offender") has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment which are to be served consecutively on each other,

(b) the sentences were passed on the same occasion or. where they were passed on different occasions, the person has not been released under this Chapter at any time during the period beginning with the first and ending with the last of those occasions, and

(c) each of the terms is a term to which an intermittent custody order relates.

(2) The offender is not to be treated as having served all the required custodial days in relation to any of the terms of imprisonment until he has served the aggregate of all the required custodial days in relation to each of them.
(3) After the number of days served by the offender in prison is equal to the aggregate of the required custodial days in relation to each of the terms of imprisonment, the offender is to be on licence until the relevant time and subject to such conditions as are required by this Chapter in respect of any of the terms of imprisonment, and none of the terms is to be regarded for any purpose as continuing after the relevant time.
(4) In subsection (2) "the relevant time" means the time when the offender would, but for his release, have served a term equal in length to the aggregate of—

(a) all the required custodial days in relation to the terms of imprisonment, and

(b) the longest of the total licence periods in relation to those terms.

(5) In this section—
"total licence period". in relation to a term of imprisonment to which an intermittent custody order relates, means a period equal in length to the aggregate of all the licence periods as defined by section 183 in relation to that term;
"the required custodial days", in relation to such a term, means the number of days specified under that section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [General functions of Commissioner]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 13, after "practice" insert ", including not causing further distress,"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
The code of practice aims to ensure effective delivery of services to victims, witnesses and those who experience the negative effects of crime. We believe that agencies have a positive duty not to cause further distress to such people. The commissioner should therefore have a vital role to play in preventing organisations from causing further distress to victims and witnesses. A term is used by organisations working to help victims and witnesses when statutory, voluntary and private sector organisations inadvertently cause further distress to victims. It is known as secondary victimisation. I shall quote an excerpt from the European Forum for Victim Services publication, The Social Rights of Victims of Crime published in 1998. It states:
"Research and professional experience shows that secondary victimisation, generated either by institutions or individuals, is often experienced by victims in the aftermath crime. Secondary victimisation involves a lack of understanding of the suffering of victims which can leave them feeling both isolated and insecure, losing faith in the help available from their communities and the professional agencies. The experience of secondary victimisation intensifies the immediate consequences of crime by prolonging or aggravating victim's trauma; attitudes, behaviour and acts or omissions can leave victims feeling alienated from society as a whole".
Victim Support suggests that the following case study is an example of secondary victimisation. I know that the hour is late, but I hope that your Lordships will permit me to mention this, because it is pertinent to this amendment. A woman who happened upon a street fight and intervened to stop the perpetrators of violence and protect the victim was herself attacked by the perpetrators. After the attack she went to the police to report her injuries and the attack. The police
1450
explained that there was nothing they could do because they believed that they would not be able to apprehend the perpetrators of the crime.
The police failed to take a statement, record the time, refer the victim to the health service or victim support services or to explain that under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme she may be entitled to be compensated for her injuries. The victim felt dissatisfied with the service provided. She also felt very hurt and confused by the agency's offhand response. That aggravated the effects of the crime on her. It is suggested that the commissioner should also have a role in preventing this type of secondary victimisation.
We believe that including the duty to work towards "preventing further distress" goes hand in hand with the commissioner's Clause 18(1)(a) duty to promote the interests of victims and witnesses. The amendment seeks to ensure that the commissioner plays an effective role in preventing organisations committing acts or making omissions that aggravate the effects of the crime on victims and witnesses.
The objective of Amendment No. 73 is to probe further the role and remit of the commissioner and his status. It would ensure that one of the duties of the commissioner would be to pay particular regard to the sufferers of domestic abuse and their children. We have remarked in earlier debates about the nature of domestic violence—that definitions sometimes erroneously miss out a reference to children. The amendment also raises questions about how the commissioner will work with the other commissioners, particularly with the Children's Commissioner in this case. We referred to that point in the previous group of amendments.
So far, we have only the Children's Commissioner in Wales, but the Government propose to extend the work of commissioners for children to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a danger that the bureaucracy will get out of hand. One sign of good practice in such matters is a good liaison between the commissioners, who have similar powers and objectives. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 73 requires the victims' commissioner to liaise with the children's commissioner about the needs of children who may be witnesses or victims. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government anticipate that the Children's Commissioner will liaise closely with the Victims' Commissioner.
Amendment No. 74 concerns the general function of the commissioner to keep legislation under review. Again, it refers to the joined-up role that the commissioner will have. Since some victims' rights are already enshrined in legislation elsewhere and the commissioner's remit goes beyond both the current code of practice and the criminal justice system, we hope that the commissioner is also able to ensure delivery of victims' rights in accordance with legislation currently in effect.
A particular example has just been handed us by Victim Support, in relation to the current legislation that enshrines victim's rights between the Housing Act

1451
1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002. The Homelessness Act extended the duty on local authorities to accept people made homeless through violence as being in priority need. That is an example of Parliament legislating to enhance victims' rights, where Victim Support has voiced concern that implementation is currently lagging behind statute. The commissioner will be well placed to draw attention to areas such as that, where legislation has not been fully implemented and victims' rights are not being fully observed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although the amendments introduced by my noble friend at first sight look rather technical, they are worthy of acceptance by the Government, especially Amendment No. 73. I sometimes feel that when legislating, we should pay particular attention to the need for the protection and treatment of children. That is what Amendment No. 73 aims at. It is really rather important.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am inspired to intervene simply because the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench rang a bell regarding an experience that I had. I hope that it is reasonably relevant to the amendments under consideration, although I realise that it does not trespass upon matters dealing with the commissioner.
In the light of the story that my noble friend told about a person who went to the aid of the victim of an assault and was in turn assaulted, I emphasise that attention must be given, particularly in court proceedings, to the position of the victim who testifies at the trial of the accused. I went through a similar experience, so I can tell noble Lords that it can be very confusing if a victim turns up to give evidence at a trial, having been invited to do so by the prosecution, only to find himself or herself subjected to fairly heavy cross-examination. Certainly, in my case, that cross-examination made me feel that I was almost in the position of being the accused.
Where a victim goes forward to give evidence describing the circumstances of the incident—in this case, an assault had taken place—that person should not be treated as a hostile witness in the court. Touching obliquely on my own case, although I believe that the accused had been correctly identified in a video parade, and despite the fact that the detailed circumstances of the assault had been given very carefully under cross-examination, on two separate occasions the jury was not able to come to any conclusion.
There is also the case where the accused advises lawyers who are able to protract proceedings, extending them over more than one trial—at considerable inconvenience to the victim who is ready to give evidence. All those matters must be borne in
1452
mind when considering the position of victims of crime. Courts would be well advised to take that into account.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we very much understand that. Regrettably, a victim is a victim not only when the incident occurs; he or she can sometimes feel victimised by the process, if it is not handled appropriately and well. For that reason, the Government have made strenuous efforts to ensure that victims are given the sort of support and preparation that may assist them to deal with the process. From the noble Lord's description, often the worry is that the victim does not know what will happen or what might happen.
We have created a website that victims and witnesses can access to look at the process. We are also providing, with the help of voluntary agencies including Victim Support, a support system that will take people through the system, from the very beginning when they report and afterwards. Sometimes the effect on the victim will last long after the case is over, sometimes well after the offender has served the sentence. I reassure the noble Lord that we very much understand that.
I welcome the opportunity provided by this amendment to state categorically that we too believe that the prevention of or, at the very least, the reduction of, secondary victimisation is likely to be high on the list of the commissioner's priorities. Too often—it is a matter of regret—agencies are insensitive to the needs of victims. We believe that we are tackling this through the terms of the code of practice with its key themes of information, advice, protection and support. But there are other areas, such as those highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, where clearly more still needs need to be done, and the commissioner will have an important role in promoting and spreading good practice and, quite frankly, rooting out bad practice.
However, we take the view that we do not need to specify this on the face of the Bill. Clauses 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(b) already refer to the commissioner's general duty to promote the interests of victims and witnesses and to take appropriate steps to encourage good practice. We believe that this is sufficient to enable the commissioner to address this issue actively.
I hope that this will be sufficient reassurance for the noble Viscount, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 73, also spoken to by the noble Viscount, regarding the specific mention of victims of domestic abuse, child victims and witnesses. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to say that matters regarding children will always excite the keenest attention among us all. I need to be clear that the intention of this legislation is to introduce rights for all victims of crime. We are not looking to create a hierarchy of victims, attaching greater importance to some types of victims than others. There is no doubt that victims of domestic violence and child victims are especially vulnerable but victims of sexual assault or

1453
bereaved families can be seen as equally or, at times, more vulnerable. We see the commissioner's role as championing the cause of all victims. To introduce reference to victims of specific crimes is unnecessary and potentially divisive.
I agree, as I acknowledged when the matter was raised at Second Reading, that the commissioner should establish effective links with the planned new children's commissioner and that remains the policy intention. Given that the victims' commissioner is likely to liaise with a number of bodies, and on the same principle as not wishing to identify particular groups of victims, we do not think it is necessary to refer specifically to the children's commissioner in the legislation.
As for the victims' commissioner reviewing the operation of legislation affecting victims and witnesses, this is a role that we anticipate that he or she will carry out but, again. we consider it unnecessary to spell this out on the face of the Bill. The functions of the commissioner are broadly set out in Clause 18(1) and (2), and we believe that this is sufficient detail to enable the commissioner to draw up an effective work plan when he takes office. We think that that breadth is helpful. We would not wish improperly to impede the proper investigation and comment that the victims' commissioner may choose to make. I reassure noble Lords that we want the victims' commissioner to be active. I am sure that whoever is appointed is bound to be vocal. We want to be very careful to listen to everything that is said by such a commissioner on behalf of all victims.
On these grounds, I must resist these amendments, if I have not made that absolutely clear.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for specifically saying that the Government are aware of the duty of the victims' commissioner to liaise with the children's commissioner. I shall read what the Minister said very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Disclosure of information]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 13, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 75A and 76A seek to remove subsection (7) and amend subsection (8) of Clause 23, about the disclosure of information between criminal justice agencies for the purposes of compliance with the victims' code of practice and other duties listed in subsection (2).
Subsection (7) was originally included as its intention was to override any common law duties of confidence which criminal justice agencies might owe to defendants and others. However, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has criticised Clause 23 because it contains no explicit provision to state that the Human Rights Act 1998 is not being overridden. On the other hand, we have included subsection (8), which makes it clear that no exchange of information can take place which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.
Removing subsection (7) will prevent any ambiguity regarding the Human Rights Act. We have concluded that the existence of a statutory authority to disclose will be sufficient to override common law duties and we do not need to go as far as the provision in subsection (7), which also overrides statutory duties of confidence.
We think it best to retain the reference to the Data Protection Act because there is a good deal of confusion about its operation—we have spoken about that confusion in the past—and we want to make it clear that it continues to apply. The fact that information is disclosed in compliance with the code, and that Clause 23 provides a basis for the disclosure, will go a long way to meeting the requirements of the Data Protection Act. However, it is our policy that any future revisions of the code of practice should be compliant with the Data Protection Act, and that agencies should continue to comply with those of its requirements which are not met by virtue of disclosure taking place under a statutory authority.
I hope that noble Lords are content with that explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Remuneration
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan
  Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan
  Ulster Scots Future Search
  Ulster Scots Future Search
  European Elections: Post Office Deliveries
  European Elections: Post Office Deliveries
  Victims' Advisory Panel
  Victims' Advisory Panel
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  Prisoners: Dental Services
  Prisoners: Dental Services
  Sentencing
  Sentencing
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Offenders: Cost of Custodial and Community Sentences
  Offenders: Cost of Custodial and Community Sentences
  Health Professionals: Recruitment from EU Accession States
  Health Professionals: Recruitment from EU Accession States
  Undocumented Arrivals: Originating Airports
  Undocumented Arrivals: Originating Airports
  Child Pornography and Sexual Offences
  Child Pornography and Sexual Offences
  Abu Hanza
  Abu Hanza
  Passport Fees
  Passport Fees
  Customs Duties: UK Net Receipts from Non-EU Countries
  Customs Duties: UK Net Receipts from Non-EU Countries
  Agricultural Duties: UK Net Receipts from Non-EU Countries
  Agricultural Duties: UK Net Receipts from Non-EU Countries
  Imports: Agricultural and Fishing Produce from Non-EU Countries
  Imports: Agricultural and Fishing Produce from Non-EU Countries
  Imports with Zero Rate Customs Duty: Non-EU Countries
  Imports with Zero Rate Customs Duty: Non-EU Countries
  Sport: Government Funding
  Sport: Government Funding
  UK Sport: Modernisation Programme
  UK Sport: Modernisation Programme
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Haemophilia: Review of 1970s and 1980s Treatments
  Haemophilia: Review of 1970s and 1980s Treatments
  Obesity
  Obesity
  NHS Dentistry
  NHS Dentistry
  Surgical Practitioners
  Surgical Practitioners
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Mobile Phones: Possible Health Effects
  Mobile Phones: Possible Health Effects
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Osteoporosis
  Osteoporosis
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Single Farm Payment Scheme
  Single Farm Payment Scheme

  Television Licence Fees
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 11 November last year (Official Report, col. 11WS), the Government announced that, from 1 April 2004, the fee for a colour television licence would rise to £121 and the black and white licence fee to £40.50. I will today lay before the House the regulations necessary to bring these new fees into force.

  The new regulations also:

  Incorporate the 50 per cent licence fee concession for blind persons originally introduced by the Secretary of State's determination under Section 2(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, dated 31 March 2000.

  Incorporate provision for free television licences for persons aged 75 and over originally introduced by the Secretary of State's direction to the BBC under Section 1(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, dated 30 October 2000.

  Define "television receiver" for the purposes of the requirement to have a TV licence under Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003.

  Define "television dealer" and "television set" for the purposes of Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (which imposes on television dealers an obligation to notify the BBC, as the authority responsible for TV licensing, of the sale or hire of a television set).

  Amend the definition of "accommodation for residential care" for England, Wales and Scotland to reflect changes in the care homes legislation; clarify the definition of certain expressions relating to this concession and provide that a group of dwellings may be within the definition of "a group of specially provided dwellings" even if one of the dwellings is occupied by a caretaker.

  Clarify the operation of the easy payment schemes.

  Amend the definition of "hotel", for the purposes of television licence fees for hotels, to impose a maximum stay for guests of 28 days in any consecutive period.

  Paroxetine
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr Hutton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Following continuing interest in both Houses about the issues surrounding the safety of Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), including Seroxat (paroxetine), this Statement informs the House of further conclusions of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) based on the work of the Expert Working Group on SSRIs.

  In reviewing clinical trial data on the dosage of paroxetine and prescribing data suggesting that as many as 17,000 patients were started on doses above 20mg in the past year, the committee concluded that a reminder to prescribers was necessary in the following terms; that:

  (i) the starting dose of paroxetine in the treatment of depression should be 20mg, as per the current summary of products characteristics (SPC)

  (ii) there was no evidence from clinical trials of increased efficacy in the treatment of depressive illness above 20mg

  (iii) the adverse events that occur soon after starting therapy may be difficult to distinguish from the underlying condition. There is evidence that increasing the dose in this situation may be detrimental

  (iv) rapid upward titration may increase the risk of serious adverse events

  (v) those currently on a higher dose and responding well to treatment should remain on the same dose and be reviewed at their next regular treatment review.

  (vi) patients should not stop treatment suddenly. Any cessation of treatment should proceed by a gradual downward titration.

  Detailed communications to patients and prescribers are taking place today. These will include a summary of clinical trial data on which the conclusions of the CSM and its expert group are based. This has been placed in the Library, and is available on the MHRA website.

  The expert working group will continue its work to conclude its full review of the safety and efficacy of SSRIs and will examine what implications, if any, these latest findings have for the use of other SSRIs.

  Oil and Gas: Offshore Licence
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Statement.
  WS 74
  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering RWE Dea UK SNS Limited an oil and gas production licence on Seaward Block 43/20c in the southern North Sea.

  The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offer.