Sitting of 15 March 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
The House observed two minutes' silence in memory of those who died as a result of the bombings in Madrid on 11 March.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
As amended in Standing Committee, considered.

FIRE AND RESCUE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK—SCRUTINY
(1) The Framework referred to in section 21 as first prepared shall not have effect until an order providing that it shall have effect for the purposes of section 21 has been made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Any revisions to the Framework which the Secretary of State wishes to make shall not have effect until an order providing that they shall have effect as amendments to the Framework has been made by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Hammond.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.31 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Intervention Code—

The Secretary of State shall publish a Code specifying the circumstances and the manner in which:

he may make an order under section 22; or

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

The Code shall include, in particular, details of:

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

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

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

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

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

any other persons he considers appropriate.

New clause 11—Setting of fire, death and arson targets and reporting on performance—

The Secretary of State shall for each Fire and Rescue Authority set a target for—

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

the reduction in the number of deliberate fires.

22

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

The Secretary of State shall place before parliament at least once in every session a report specifying

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 20, in clause 21, page 10, line 8, after 'functions', insert
'the decision on which cannot be reasonably devolved to a fire and rescue authority.
Amendment No. 17, in page 10 line 9, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
"(b) must set out minimum standards of response to specified categories of incidents from fire and rescue authorities in connection with the discharge of their functions under sections 7, 8, 9.
Amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. Hammond: New clause 1 deals with issues surrounding the fire and rescue national framework—a detailed document, which sets out what amounts to a blueprint for the organisation, operation and management of fire and rescue services across the country. Let me give hon. Members a flavour of the document. It states:
"by 1 April 2004 Fire and Rescue Authorities must establish Regional Management Boards with … delegated powers that are appropriate to"
their
"aims and objectives; plans for meeting the requirements in each of the six key areas listed at paragraph 2.9 of this document; and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the capacity—both resources and expertise—to deliver those plans."
In turn, regional management boards must
"introduce regional personnel and human resource functions … develop a regional approach to training … establish regional control rooms … and introduce regional procurement"
strategies. Later, the document states that
"Fire and Rescue Authorities, through the Regional Management Boards, must: ensure the phased transition from existing control rooms"
and ensure compliance
"with national protocols on staff roles and training"—
whatever they are. In short, the framework document tells fire and rescue authorities how to organise the discharge of the functions conferred on them by the Bill. It sets out what they are and are not allowed to do, when and how they are required to devolve their functions upward to higher bodies, and the guidance that they should accept from Secretaries of State. The document even lays down detailed human resources policies and strips several functions from the democratically accountable authorities, transferring them up to the regional management board.
For the purposes of this debate, it is not necessary to argue whether having some sort of framework to deal with such matters is right or wrong. The concern that new clause 1 is designed to address is the democratic

23
deficit—the lack of scrutiny of the framework document, which in many ways is meatier than the Bill itself. The framework is given statutory status by virtue of clause 21, and clauses 22 and 23 create a regime whereby the Secretary of State can intervene and penalise authorities if they do not comply with its requirements. The framework is extraordinarily centralising, and it will come into force without having undergone any proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State determines what is in the framework, he issues the framework—after consultation, of course—and he can amend it at any time that he feels it is appropriate to do so.
Without making any comment at this stage about the precise content of the framework, I should explain that the purpose of new clause 1 is to subject the framework to parliamentary approval. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State has only to lay the finished document before Parliament, whereas new clause 1(1) provides that the initial framework shall have effect only once the Secretary of State has made an order by statutory instrument, giving Parliament an opportunity—albeit an inadequate one—to exercise some measure of scrutiny over what, as I have already suggested, will be by far the most important part of the collection of documents that will determine the way that our fire and rescue services operate in future: a document that will be at least of equal standing to the Bill itself.
Subsection (2) provides for similar arrangements in the case of any amendments to the framework that the Secretary of State may wish to make. Amendment No. 1 is a consequential provision that would remove from clause 21 the current provision for laying the framework before Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to our request for a simple measure of parliamentary scrutiny of what will be an extremely important document. If, as he repeatedly assured us in Committee, the framework will not amount to a micro-management plan for every nominally independent fire and rescue authority, he has nothing to fear from allowing parliamentarians—who represent the populations of communities throughout the country—an opportunity to consider the framework in its final form after he has completed his consultation, and to approve it so that it is incorporated in statute via the provisions of clause 21.
New clause 3 addresses a slightly different issue. It is designed to qualify the Secretary of State's power to intervene in the operation of a fire and rescue authority under the powers granted to him in clause 22. Under that clause, the Secretary of State may direct a fire and rescue authority precisely how to act or not to act if he believes that it is failing or likely to fail—not failing or likely fail to discharge its statutory functions but failing or likely to fail to comply with the national fire and rescue framework.
These are intervention powers that are over and above the sanctions under the best-value regime enshrined in the Local Government Act 1999, which also apply to fire and rescue authorities by virtue of clause 23. As drafted, these are wide-ranging powers of intervention. In our view, the ability to intervene gives the Secretary of State far too much power vis-à-vis what
24
are supposed to be local community-based services that are delivering a service that is accountable to the local community.
New clause 3 simply requires the Secretary of State to provide some codification of the circumstances and the manner in which he will make orders under clause 22, and the circumstances and the manner in which he will issue directions under any of the many provisions allowing him to do so in a Bill that places huge powers in his hands.
Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to specify who he will consult. It does not require him to provide an exhaustive list of individuals or organisations. In Committee, the Minister made clear his objection to the listing approach. The subsection requires the Secretary of State instead to define the classes of persons, and critically to specify any other codes or agreements to which he will have regard before intervening.
It is no secret—I am sure the Minister will readily have divined the intention—that I have in mind the Local Government Association's code on intervention. It is a code that was agreed between the LGA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, defining how the Secretary of State will use his intervention powers after a comprehensive performance assessment where an authority is deemed to be failing. The code includes extensive provisions on support for failing organisations, notice to be given and opportunities for authorities to rectify their deficiencies. Generally, it governs the Secretary of State's approach and ensures that intervention follows a clear scheme that everybody understands and is not arbitrary in any way. I should be grateful for assurance that the regime, which will apply to interventions under clause 23, which deals with best value, will also apply to interventions under clause 22. A loophole will otherwise be created, as the Secretary of State will invariably have the opportunity to intervene under either clause, and it is not appropriate that one intervention route is bound by the provisions of the LGA code and the other is not.
Finally, new clause 3(3) specifies the authorities and recognised organisations representing employees who must be consulted on the code before it is issued by the Secretary of State.
The new clause proposes a modest limitation on a wide power of intervention, and seeks to ensure that it is used as expected by fire and rescue authorities, is not arbitrary and does not become an alternative or loophole for avoiding established intervention procedures. If the Minister can confirm that the LGA code will be applied to any intervention under the provisions of the Bill, we will not seek to press new clause 3 further—[Interruption.] He is saying from a sedentary position that he has already done so, but that had not penetrated my consciousness. He will be glad of an opportunity to put that on record on the Floor of the House so that all local government bodies are aware of it.
New clause 11 requires that, as part of the framework arrangements, the Secretary of State set out annually, on a five-year forward basis, targets for a reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home and of incidents of arson. It requires him to report to Parliament annually on progress in achieving those

25
targets, which is not a terribly onerous burden. After all, the Government have said that reducing accidental fire deaths is the raison d'être of modernisation, so surely they will not object to putting that objective at the centre of the framework structure with clear targets that are updated regularly, thus enabling them to measure the progress of the reforms. The problem is that the Government have reduced the targets. Until last summer the target for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home was a cut in the average for 1994 to 1999 of 20 per cent. by March 2004. Gosh, March 2004 is now! The reduction should have been achieved already, but last summer, the Government put the date for the achievement of that important target back by six years, to March 2010. While they have been telling us that modernisation will save lives, and while fire authorities, required to reconfigure their deployments under integrated risk management plans, have closed fire stations, changed manning and crewing arrangements or, as in the case of my own constituency, removed fire appliances from fire stations, and have been busy with their integrated risk management plans, the Government have demonstrated a lack of confidence in the saving lives agenda by reducing the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home.
3.45 pm
I should like to quote from the report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published in January. With regard to downgrading, it states:
"we are disappointed that the Government has relaxed its target to cut down the number of deliberate fires and extended the time available to meet the targets on accidental fire-related deaths. We are concerned that Government did not consult sufficiently with relevant parties before relaxing targets."
It is hardly surprising that the public are increasingly sceptical about the integrated risk management plan cuts that are beginning to filter through locally—they are certainly beginning to do so in my area—when the Government are simultaneously downgrading the very target whose fulfilment is the justification for much of the modernisation programme. The foreword to the framework document, which is signed by the Minister for Local and Regional Government, talks of

"a better service that saves more lives".
Whether the service saves more lives depends on the base line, however, and the Government have simply moved the goalposts—[Interruption.] The Government have moved the goalposts over the past 12 months by downgrading the target for reducing accidental fire deaths in the home.
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he has misled the House in suggesting that a change in the actual targets—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should perhaps rephrase his remarks. I do not think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) would mislead the House.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to reducing fire deaths. The fact that there may be a change in the target does not in any way change the commitment to a reduction in the number of deaths, and neither does it indicate that there will be no change or reduction. A change has been made in the light of circumstances which, as he knows only too well, could not have been foreseen when the target was set. That is the result of the collapse in the scrap metal price, which we debated at length. He knows perfectly well that that is the case. Will he accept that, if a target becomes ineffective because of outside circumstances, sticking to it rather than realistically trying to ensure an appropriate response in the changed circumstances is folly? I hope that he will accept that we are doing the most sensible thing.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister referred to the reduced target for deliberate fires or arson, but he has ignored the reduced target for accidental fire deaths in the home. If he would like to explain to the House what unforeseen circumstances have made that target impossible to achieve, I would be very happy to give way to him again. The only suggestion that I have heard from him is that an increasingly elderly population has made it difficult to achieve the targets. I hardly think that that circumstance was impossible to foresee at the time when the targets were set.
I will accept what he says about the arson targets and scrap metal, although I shall have something else to say about them in a moment, but in relation to accidental fire deaths in the home, the Government have reduced the target.[Interruption.] In my book, it is a reduction in the target; other hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction from a given base line by March 2004 has been pushed out to a target of achieving the same reduction from the same base line by March 2010. To my very simple mind, that is a reduction in the target—
Mr. Raynsford: It is an extension.
Mr. Hammond: I shall leave other hon. Members and members of the public to reach their own conclusions.
On the reduction in arson targets, as the Minister rightly says, the number of vehicles being subjected to deliberately set fires has increased dramatically, partly as a result of a collapse of the scrap metal market and the cost now involved in disposing of vehicles. What are the Government proposing to do about that, apart from downgrading the targets? They are proposing a methodology for the implementation of the EU end-of-life vehicle directive that will by general consent make the problem worse by creating an additional disincentive to the owners of old vehicles to take them to authorised dismantlers.
The Minister of State clearly disagrees, but I had lengthy debates on this in a previous incarnation with a then Industry Minister, and I would be fascinated to

27
hear how the current proposals for implementing the directive will not lead to an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles deliberately set on fire.
Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how free disposal of end-of-life vehicles from 2007 will not have the effect that he wishes. We think it will.
Mr. Hammond: The right hon . Gentleman misrepresents what the Government are proposing. There will be a gap during which people with existing vehicles will be required to take them to an authorised dismantler, who at current scrap metal prices is likely to charge a fee.
The Government's performance on targets has been rather shabby. The dropping of the fire deaths target undermines the high moral stance that Ministers have sought to attach to the modernisation programme, and reinforces an already sceptical public in the suspicion that modernisation is a cover for some old-fashioned cuts. Frankly, that suggests to us that the setting, monitoring and performance in achievement of the targets must be watched closely. That is why new clause 11 would force the Government regularly to publish, update and explain any changes to the targets, and to give Parliament an assessment of progress in achieving them. That would allow us to measure the real impact of modernisation on these important public safety objectives.
Amendment No. 20 would limit the guidance that the Secretary of State can give in the framework—guidance allowing the Secretary of State to intervene under clause 22 if there is a failure to act in accordance with it—to areas in which decisions could not reasonably be left to fire and rescue authorities. We concur with the sentiments behind that amendment. We see a real danger that the Government's instinct to try to micro-manage from the centre will find expression through the national framework. That is one of our two principal concerns about the shape of the Bill as it stands.
Through amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) seeks to include a requirement for a specified minimum standard of response to specified categories of incident. I will be interested to hear what he intends, because it seems to us that the amendment would undermine the local discretion that the integrated risk management plan process is intended to introduce for local authorities. I will also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, on the new clauses, and in particular on the Government's reduced targets.
John McDonnell: I want to speak about amendment No. 17, which I tabled specifically to allow the Minister to elaborate on some of the questions that have just been posed and thus overcome some of the arguments that have been advanced in previous debates to the effect that the exercise is simply about cuts to service. It is important to clarify exactly how the new system of integrated risk management proposals will be implemented.
We should celebrate the work that has already been done. In March, we celebrated another 5 per cent. reduction in fatalities in the past year. We should
28
congratulate the service on that. I tabled the amendment because of the dilemma that runs not only through our debates but through the Select Committee report—a dilemma in relation to the need to ensure some consistency in standards throughout the country. The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to negate the contention that the new system may introduce flexibility to the extent of creating a postcode lottery in local fire services' response to specific incidents.
In moving away from the traditional national minimum standards system, we need clarity about local discretion. Of course, everyone—including the fire authorities and the Fire Brigades Union—has argued that we need to tailor the modern service response to specific needs. However, there are anxieties. We need to put on record again the fact that we are not considering an overall reduction in investment in the service or a cuts exercise for any individual fire authority. We are considering a long-term, consistent pattern of investment that will improve service provision and the resources on which individual firefighters and authorities can draw.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, during the industrial dispute in 2002 and early 2003, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both said that the firefighters' pay settlement over and above inflation had to he self-financing out of the savings from modernisation? Does that not suggest that it will be difficult to achieve the objective that he has outlined?
John McDonnell: I do recall that, but I also remember the subsequent debate in which the Government identified a sum of money for transitional investment in the fire service to cover the interim period when the savings could be identified. I am confident that, if the new system is implemented properly, we can overcome the allegations that it is a cuts exercise. I seek clear reassurance, on the record, from the Minister that we are considering increasing not reducing investment.
How far will the integrated risk management plans go to establish a consistent approach throughout the country? If we are moving from minimum standards, how can we achieve consistency of approach? I would welcome the Minister's elaborating on that today so that the Government's intentions can be put on record. I would welcome in particular an outline of what happens if inconsistencies break out in individual fire authorities. What powers of intervention would the Minister have if he believed that a specific fire authority's inconsistent approach would increase risk?
I am anxious about some of the statements that have been made about local approaches, especially responses to automatic fire alarms. How will individual fire authorities identify the level of risk and therefore the appropriate response? Some fire authorities have made statements that have not helped the argument for the need for a flexible approach. For example, the firemaster, as he is called, for Lothian and the borders said:
"Where we get a call from an automatic detector which isn't confirmed by someone as being a fire, we intend to send out one fire engine instead of the two to four we send at the moment."
There has been some suggestion that authorities will invite the general public to investigate whether a fire is associated with an automatic fire alarm. Clearly, that is

29
unacceptable. We need clearer national guidance to ensure that such an inconsistent approach does not break out. It is estimated that there are 1.500 calls through automatic fire alarms when, although it is not confirmed, there is a fire. Clearer guidance on minimum standards would help.
4 pm
How will the integrated risk management ensure consistency? How will the Minister's national guidance and national framework ensure that we do not take a step backwards leading to increased risk or a need for more investment in local provision? What powers of intervention will he have if an inconsistent approach is shown to be putting lives at risk and reducing resources?
I should like to hear from the Minister yet again that this is not a cutting exercise, and that it involves investment and flexibility. I should also like to hear about any consultation on initiatives to measure the need for response. Will it be possible for some to be piloted, so that fire authorities can learn from others what response is most appropriate, what lessons can be learned from a change from existing minimum standards to a more flexible approach, and how mistakes can be identified and rectified. I want to hear the Minister's comments on the overall approach, so that we can reassure individual firefighters in our communities that the Bill will result in a general improvement rather than a reduction in services.
Richard Younger-Ross: Two themes ran through the Committee stage?lack of scrutiny and centralisation of power. Our amendments and those of the Conservatives tried to deal with both. I compliment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge ( Mr. Hammond), who clearly worked hard on the amendments tabled in Committee and on those we shall discuss today. We support in principle his new clauses in this group, and some that we shall deal with later—although, as he would probably expect, I shall ask him a couple of questions about one of them.
A national framework always has potential for good and potential for bad, or for unintended consequences. The same applies to powers taken by the Secretary of State, and we want to ensure that these powers are used only to improve fire services and to increase local accountability and democracy. In Committee, the Minister would smile angelically and tell us that, of course, he had no intention of misusing the powers; they were there "just in case". If that is true, I do not think he should have too much difficulty in accepting some of the Conservative amendments, or accepting the principles enshrined in our amendments to clause 20.
New clause I confers a level of scrutiny that, in our view, is missing from the Bill. It demands a statutory instrument enabling consideration of various clauses and, in particular, amendments to the framework. I disagreed slightly with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when he said that a statutory instrument was the weakest of options, although I know that they are not the best way of testing the Government. I do not know whether he was implying that all these matters should be dealt with on the Floor of the House; certainly, debating all the
30
regulations here would take up rather a lot of time. With that proviso, however, I am happy to support what he said about new clause 1.
In a sense, new clause 3 tackles the same issue that we are tackling through amendment No. 20: constraining the Secretary of State's powers by establishing codes. My only concern, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge probably shares, is that although we might be able to scrutinise those codes, the Minister will ultimately be able to set them as he wishes. An element of trust is involved. and I would like to go a little further, so I was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports our amendment.
I turn to new clause 11. Targets are like shifting sands: they are there one minute, and then they are not. The Minister seemed to protest a little too much about the extension of a target date. If one expects a target to end on a set date, it ought to be possible to review it to see whether a tougher one can be fixed, or whether one has gone as far as possible. Extending the target date by several years clearly stops the review process, thereby reducing one's ability to set a lower target.
Mr. Hammond: The original target defined a maximum number of fire deaths in the coming year—beginning in March 2004—that would meet the target. But because of the change, a higher number of fire deaths will still meet the target, as that figure does not have to be achieved until 2010. Is that not the problem?
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, and I need not comment further.
The targets set by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge are somewhat broad, and we should remember that targets do get adjusted. I have been informed that the target for death by fire has been tweaked slightly to remove death resulting from arson; perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so. The removal of arson attacks would automatically lead to a reduction in fire deaths, because the target would have been shifted slightly. Such information will doubtless be winging its way to the Minister very shortly.
Mr. Hammond: Is not the point the use of the word "accidental"? We are talking about a target for accidental fire deaths in the home, so it does not include deaths by deliberately set fires. However, to be fair it never has.
Richard Younger-Ross: My understanding was different, but I am happy to be corrected. Targets have been adjusted slightly in other cases. My concern is that we could become too wrapped up in targets, although having a certain number is a good thing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why he chose these targets in preference to other, slightly more prescriptive ones.
Amendment No. 20 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). In our view, decisions should be taken at a local level where that can reasonably be done. We must have trust in fire and rescue authorities that have been democratically elected; otherwise, we will undermine them, and the fact of their election will become pointless. As a result, they will become managers rather than decision makers. We

31
welcome the national framework in principle, but certain decisions must be taken locally. The Minister could achieve that in a number of ways, but I hope that he accepts the broad principle that the elected members of fire and rescue authorities should have decision-making powers, rather than simply managerial ones, and that he will ensure that that happens.
Mr. David Drew: I shall be brief because I took part in the Committee stage, which gave us plenty of opportunities to discuss how integrated risk management plans would function. I have just a couple of points, which relate to how Gloucestershire fire authority envisages its way forward and, more particularly, how local firefighters, through the Fire Brigades Union, are seeking to move the debate forward.
One issue is how IRMPs will fit with other aspects of evolving county and wider arrangements. In particular, we have the community safety plan in Gloucestershire, which is quite an extensive attempt by the county council to draw together different services working in the emergency field. I should be interested to know how my right hon. Friend the Minister envisages the plans working, at least in the short term. The view seems to be that where there have been pathfinder projects, services are further forward than in some other areas, such as Gloucestershire, where there has not been such an opportunity. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on that. How do we move those brigades forward?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that Gloucestershire has not had the opportunity of pathfinder projects, but it has pioneered the use of tri-service control facilities. How does he understand their fitting into the Government's stated agenda of reducing the number of control rooms throughout England to only nine?
Mr. Drew: We rehearsed that point in Committee, if somewhat vaguely, and I am sure that we shall come to it in the next-but-one group of amendments. We in the county of Gloucestershire have some misgivings because a fine service has evolved there, and it is good to see the three emergency services working together. It is fair to say that we are talking to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the opportunities for what that tri-service may become, but we will no doubt refer to that under the appropriate group of amendments.
To return to the immediate group, I should be interested to hear from the Minister how areas where there have not been the same opportunities for trialling and testing the new procedures can catch up, and how those procedures will fit with other proposals that have emerged through county councils and other parts of the emergency services. How will those sit together with the new set of IRMPs? Much of that is outwith the Bill's scope, because practical, detailed considerations are involved. However, the Government need to show good faith and that there is not a cuts package behind the
32
proposals, and they need to demonstrate how they will modernise services, using the best forms of consultation to ensure that all elements are involved.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I take issue with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who said that he had much time in Committee to make contributions on this matter. When we came to discuss clause 21, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said:
"we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 231.]
As that was at 5 o'clock, we did not have quite the necessary time to discuss the issues involved, particularly those relating to new clauses 1 and 3. The House may appreciate the brevity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud, but they could have been longer, because the Committee felt at that point that we were not scrutinising the matter closely enough.
Mr. Raynsford: Nonsense.
Mr. Hook: The Minister may call that nonsense, but I have here the comment made in Committee on 24 February, clear as the light of day.
Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the comments of his Front-Bench colleague at the end of the Committee about the adequacy of time for full consideration of the Bill?
4.15 pm
Mr. Flook: I might well be able to, if I had those comments in front of me. None the less, the point about scrutiny is as plain as the light of day at column 231.
Three fears are particularly relevant to new clause 1. The first is that the national framework is too rigid and will undermine localness. Secondly, there is a fear of gold-plating. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that the Minister had described this as a just-in-case set-up. I can see exactly what will happen in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will take on board more and more responsibilities, and the document will become a gold-plated version that undermines localness. Thirdly, the entire emphasis of the national framework involves the ultimate aim of cutting costs. The Government have not been particularly open about that in the framework document, and it will be interesting to know how many respondents to the consultation process, which I believe has now finished, referred to the Government's aim of cutting costs.
The Government have said that they see the framework document as a strategic one. The Minister hides behind the fact that the Bain report called for it. I am sure that it did—it called for a lot—but I am not sure that the Government have responded to everything in that report with provisions in the Bill. The framework sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in a huge number of respects, including human resources, training, control rooms and procurement. It goes so far as to talk about the swapping of personnel between various authorities and even between different branches of the emergency services. It talks at some length about

33
effectively discharging those responsibilities at regional level. In fact, the word "regional" occurs throughout the document. The Government are looking closely at making regional management boards omnipotent over a large number of fire authorities. That might easily undermine the basis for the working of, for example, Somerset fire authority. That might be the Government's aim.
There is definitely an irony here. The Minister has been keen at every twist and turn, both in the framework document and in Committee, to talk about local accountability, and I am sure that he is going to wax lyrical about it now. The irony is that Somerset county council will no doubt be able to see a nudge and a wink when they are offered. When human resources, training, control rooms and procurement are subsumed into a regional body, a cash-strapped Somerset county council will no doubt welcome the chance of a capital receipt and the chance to release the beautiful Hestercombe house on to the open market. The control room may well end up somewhere else in the south-west, whereas, if these changes were to happen in the fullness of time. it might move to the centre of Taunton, which would make far more sense for any tie-up with, say, Devon, Dorset or Cornwall.
The basis for all those changes is this large framework document, which is 49 pages long; the Bill is only 26 pages. The framework needs to he subject to much more regular scrutiny, and that is why new clause 1 is so important. I hope that Conservative Members will call for a Division on it. At the very least, we need scrutiny, and there are effective ways of carrying that out without clogging up the machinery of government. Parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. It is impossible to deliver what we need in local terms from the framework as it has been drafted.
Mr. Raynsford: New clause 1 seeks to introduce a requirement for a statutory instrument before the national framework can take effect. This requirement, unlike that in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee, would not alter the status of the framework as guidance. I suspect that the change in the amendment reflects the point that we made in Committee that wording the framework as a statutory instrument would probably not help comprehension and implementation by those engaged in the fire service.
Our intention with the national framework is to provide a comprehensive document that will act as a "manual" for fire and rescue authorities. That is reflected by its status as guidance to which authorities must "have regard". By its nature, a national framework should provide strategic leadership—hence the inclusion of subsection (2)(a) in clause 21, stating that the fire and rescue national framework
"must set out clear service priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities".
That provision is very much in accordance with the thinking not only of the Bain report, but of the Select Committee, whose first recommendation is worth repeating. Its report was very good, and I am very happy to cite its first recommendation, which says:
"The Committee broadly welcomes the reforms outlined in the White Paper and is hopeful that the Fire and Rescue Services Bill will bring about real reform in the Service. The Service needs
34
strong political leadership to ensure successful implementation and management of change during a potentially very turbulent period. Government must lead by example, and must provide support at local level to ensure implementation of reform, even in the face of confrontation."
That is exactly what we are doing and the framework has been produced within that remit.
Providing strategic direction is not the only purpose of the fire and rescue framework. To be effective as a manual, the framework should include guidance on all aspects of Government fire and rescue policy and reference to good practice as it develops. There is an enormous amount of good practice in the fire and rescue service; the problem is often that it is not universal. We believe that the good practice of individual fire authorities, if adopted by others, could make a real difference. Spreading good practice is fundamental.
The framework should also help to deal with the capacity support measures that the Government will provide to fire and rescue authorities, making it clear what help is available—an important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), to which I shall return. It will also help to deal with the independent performance assessment measures that the Audit Commission is implementing. I shall also say more about that later.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge accused us of producing a centralising document, but I have to say that it is not. We have repealed—or are in the process of repealing—a highly centralised statutory framework dating back to the Fire Services Act 1947, which prescribed in considerable detail exactly what was required in every part of the country. In its place, we are giving greater discretion and responsibility to fire and rescue authorities to develop their own integrated risk management plans, reflecting local needs and priorities. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly explained, there must be an overarching national framework to ensure that there is both coherence and consistency and that standards are not allowed to fall below acceptable levels. That is precisely the purpose of the framework.
My hon. Friend was concerned about whether there might be a fall away from decent standards as a result of changing the 1947 Act framework, and I hope to reassure him on that point. We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, to improving the effectiveness of the fire and rescue service and to ensuring more effective prevention of fire, which is the key to reducing the number of deaths. All our measures are designed to achieve that purpose.
There is no question of a cuts package: no cuts whatever are envisaged. We are continuing to provide real grant increases to fire and rescue authorities, and we are investing heavily in new equipment for the fire and rescue service—and we are committed to carrying on doing so. That is in marked contrast to Conservative Members, who choose to criticise us opportunistically but who, significantly, did not include the fire and rescue service among those that would be exempt from the shadow Chancellor's pledge for no further growth. When we hear Conservative Members criticise us, we should remember that the Conservative party is committed to cuts in the fire service that will jeopardise the ability of fire and rescue authorities to implement the modernisation programme that we are introducing. Of

35
course, it would be a risk only if—heaven help us—the Conservatives were elected again. I repeat my reassurance to my hon. Friend.
We have been closely monitoring and supporting the development and implementation of IRMPs through the provision of guidance and risk assessment, with support teams working directly with fire and rescue authorities, and through our role as a consultee. The Bill re-enacts the existing statutory duty for a fire and rescue authority to plan and provide arrangements for fighting fires and protecting life and property from fires within its area. Authorities will be required to secure sufficient equipment and training to discharge their duty in normal circumstances and implement effective arrangements for receiving and responding to calls for help.
The published guidance on IRMPs makes it clear that fire and rescue authorities should set their own locally determined standards, which should be expressed in easily understood terms, to measure performance on intervention and prevention. The framework will be closely monitored and will allow us to see whether we are making the progress that we are committed to making, and, if we are not, it will allow intervention to tackle any failures.
Mr. Hugo Swire: On prevention, will the Minister return to the points that we discussed earlier about the targets being moved? It is difficult for the layman to comprehend why the targets are being reduced. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction in accidental fire deaths in homes by March 2004 has been pushed back to 2010, and the target of reducing deliberately started fires by 30 per cent. by 2009 has been cut to 10 per cent. Those reductions occur at a time when a country such as New Zealand has managed to halve such deaths in four years, so it must be possible to meet the targets. If the Bill is about prevention, why have the targets been moved?
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been following proceedings, he would know that we are discussing new clause 1 and that targets are covered by a different new clause, which I shall deal with in due course. I was responding to issues raised properly in the context of new clause 1 and intend to continue to do so.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that a working group set up by the practitioners forum is examining the issue of automatic fire alarms, which raises important considerations. We know that automated fire alarms produce a substantial number of malfunctions and that if appliances are called out to deal with a malfunctioning AFA when a real fire occurs, it could prejudice the response of the fire service to the other incident. It is therefore important to implement robust procedures to ensure that those incidents that cause genuine concern are responded to in the normal way, and that fire and rescue authority resources are not indiscriminately allocated where there is actually no risk. Finding the means to do that without creating greater risk is difficult, but it is a proper challenge that a number of fire authorities have already begun to address, and I hope that we can make considerable progress through the practitioners forum working group.
36
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised a number of issues about how the community safety plan, which draws together different services, links with IRMPs. I reassure him that IRMPs allow fire and rescue authorities to provide extra resources for prevention work, which may be undertaken by them or in partnership with other bodies. There are many examples of good practice in partnership work, which may involve engaging with teachers and others who are in a position to assist with effective fire prevention activity in particular sections of the community. We want to see continuing work of that nature and will give further guidance through the support team that I have alluded to, which is in place to help authorities establish the new arrangements introduced by IRMPs.
The fire and rescue national framework will play a significant role in driving forward the modernisation agenda, which is required to ensure that we have an effective fire and rescue service that saves more lives, and it is imperative that there are no unnecessary obstacles to delivering that agenda. The requirement for a statutory instrument to be agreed by this House before the national framework or amendments to the national framework can take effect could mean unnecessary delay and uncertainty.
Before the Bill has received its Third Reading in this House, let alone consideration by another place or Royal Assent, we are already well advanced with the first draft of the national framework, which has been out for consultation, and we hope to publish the first definitive version this spring. Thereafter, we will update the framework and, in order to help authorities with their planning processes, we intend to publish the framework in time for the start of their budget setting and business planning rounds each year. Unnecessary delay and uncertainty before the framework takes effect would be entirely unhelpful.
Furthermore, any guidance that updated policy would be issued as a revision to the framework, so that authorities and the Audit Commission were clear about our expectations. For example, we will provide guidance to ensure that medical criteria for firefighter appointment and retention are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under new clause 1, all such guidance would require a statutory instrument before having effect. The delay and uncertainty that would result from the requirement for a statutory instrument for each new piece of guidance would again be to the detriment of the smooth and efficient running of the service.
4.30 pm
We do not accept new clause 1, but we accept that Parliament has an important role in scrutinising decisions relating to fire and rescue policy. The Government will continue to be accountable to Parliament in the normal way. Clause 21(6) requires that we lay the plan, and any significant revisions to it, before Parliament and we have ensured in the legislation that, if the Secretary of State proposes to enforce a measure in the framework by exercising the intervention powers in clause 22, the order-making process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is already a good example of how that would work in the national plan for the police. The Police Reform Act 2002 requires the Secretary of State to prepare a national policing

37
plan, but there is no requirement for a statutory instrument before the plan takes effect. The Secretary of State must lay the plan before Parliament in the same way that would be required for the framework.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have included in the legislation a requirement to consult in preparing the framework, or significant revisions to it. We have consulted widely, and we will continue to do so on future revisions. Members of both Houses have had the opportunity to comment during that process. Amendment No. 1 is consequential to new clause 1 and seeks to remove the requirement to lay the framework before Parliament. However, it is absolutely appropriate that Parliament is kept informed of the contents of the framework.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to limit the priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities that the Secretary of State would be able to set out in the national framework to those that authorities could not "reasonably decide" for themselves. As I have already stressed, the Government have devolved much more responsibility to fire and rescue authorities. We have repealed section 19 of the 1947 Act, which required that any reduction in the number of fire appliances or firefighting posts, or the closure of any fire station, required the Secretary of State's consent.
We have also replaced the outdated national standards of fire cover with local integrated risk management planning, thereby allowing more local discretion for fire and rescue authorities to deploy their resources in line with their assessment of present local needs and risks. However, we must get the balance right. The independent review of the fire service said:
"successive Governments have not provided the leadership required".
It also said:
"it is for central government to set the Fire Service's strategic priorities and to provide a clear lead on policy development".
The national framework will play a crucial role in providing that leadership and driving reform and improvement in the service. That includes setting priorities and objectives where appropriate, but we will not use the national framework unnecessarily to interfere with local decisions. That would run counter to our overall programme of reform, not least to the principle of local risk management.
We see the national framework as a contract, embodying our partnership approach to reforming the service. It was first issued as a draft for consultation with plenty of time for people to comment before it became a statutory document. Clause 21(5) sets out a requirement for a full consultation process. However, the amendment would create unnecessary uncertainty about what can and cannot be "reasonably devolved" to a fire and rescue authority. That is obviously a subjective issue. The amendment would therefore inevitably lead to ambiguity and could in theory lead to expensive and time-consuming legal challenge. That is the last thing we need at a time when we are embarking on a major reform programme to deliver a better service that saves more lives.
On new clause 3, I have previously referred to the existing protocol covering the use of existing intervention powers across all local authority services that has already been agreed with local government
38
stakeholders and published. The protocol was developed through the framework for partnership, signed in November 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Government and by the chairman of the Local Government Association on behalf of local authorities. It has worked well and directions have had to be issued to local authorities on only two occasions.
The protocol provides for a sufficient evidence base before any action is taken and for the form and extent of intervention to reflect the type and seriousness of failure and the need for effective improvement. It provides that, other than in cases of urgency, there should he a process of agreement with the authority on how it will address any service failure in the first instance. It provides for the use of intervention powers only if that process fails to deliver the required improvement. It also provides for consultation with the authority concerned on any proposed directions.
In exercising the powers that we seek under clause 22 and elsewhere, we are committed, as I have already made clear, to following the principles set out in the protocol, which already covers the existing powers to intervene in fire and rescue authorities contained in the Local Government Act 1999. I do not believe that it would be sensible to produce a separate protocol for the powers in the Bill; the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has implied as much and, in the light of my reassurances, I am sure that he will want to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Amendment No. 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, would require the national framework to set out minimum standards of response to incidents for fire and rescue authorities. I remind him that the independent review of the fire service stated:
"there is a compelling case to move to a risk-based approach and to do so now … it should be for fire authorities to identify the risks and the best means of handling them".
Following the recommendations of the independent review, we acknowledged in our White Paper last summer that national standards of fire cover that set out the speed and weight of response to incidents are no longer appropriate and that they would be replaced by integrated risk management plans, produced by each fire and rescue authority. Each IRMP should set out the authority's own standards for both prevention and intervention purposes, based on its assessment of risk to life in the local community. All fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales have published their draft plans, are consulting their communities and work forces on their proposals and will formally adopt their IRMPs from 1 April 2004.
To require the inclusion of minimum standards of response in the framework would limit the flexibility that we intend to devolve to a local level to ensure that emergency cover and response is determined locally and provided on a risk to life, not a risk to property, basis. The inclusion of minimum standards could skew authorities' decisions on the allocation of resources.
Let me provide a few statistics from the old national fire cover standards. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 2,600 fatalities and 76,300 injuries as a result of fires in England and Wales. Throughout that period, there were recommended minimum attendance standards.

39
Specified attendance time to industrial and commercial—A and B risk locations—was between five and eight minutes, but a breakdown of the figures shows that 80 per cent. of fatalities occurred in C and D risk locations where attendance times were between eight and 20 minutes. That makes the point that if we base the whole approach on risk to life, it is important to move away from the old property-based standards, so that the approach reflects more effectively the risk to life.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that there is no scope for local fire authorities simply to abandon the principle of action designed to save lives, but if we stuck with the old arrangements, there would equally be no scope for local fire and rescue authorities to vary the standards in the light of local circumstances to ensure a quicker and more effective response where people's lives were at risk. I am thinking particularly of night-time fires in houses containing families in residential areas where, under the old standards, the response requirement would have been slower than that for empty commercial property in a city centre. Such an arrangement cannot be right. The focus must be on threat to life and I hope that the IRMPs will allow a more sensitive implementation of what we are all committed to: measures to safeguard lives.
New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to set targets for each fire and rescue authority in relation to the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and of deliberate fires, and to report to Parliament on progress in each Session. I am intrigued that the Opposition have moved that provision, as during most of our debates, not only on this Bill but on the Local Government Act 2003, they constantly attacked the Government for what they described as the unnecessary proliferation of centrally set performance targets. However, when it suits them politically, they are only too happy to try to impose targets.
We remain absolutely committed to new national targets, which were announced in the fire White Paper, for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and for the reduction of deliberate fires. As before, progress will be reported in the ODPM annual report, which is deposited in the Library. I should make it clear that there is no question of reducing the targets. We are committed to real reductions in the number of lives lost and the number of non-accidental fires. However, we recognise that since the targets were first set, changes in circumstance and a greater understanding of context have made it impossible for the original aspirational targets—that is what they were—to be achieved realistically. We need targets that can be delivered, rather than notional targets that would generate disappointment if they could not be met.
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: No. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this earlier. I noted his comments and I am now responding to them, so I hope that he will listen.
I completely reject any implication that the present targets are insufficiently challenging. If we were to take no action, we could expect an additional 200 accidental
40
fire deaths over the period up to 2010. Instead, the target on accidental fire deaths commits us to saving more than 1,000 lives throughout that period. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress because accidental fire deaths in the home are at an all-time low of 292 for England and Wales. I wholly reject the completely incorrect assumption put forward by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that, as a result of changes to the targets, there will be more deaths and more deliberate fires than would otherwise occur. That is not the case because the numbers are reducing. We are committed to reducing them and we are committed to saving lives, but we are also committed to realism, rather than to targets that are simply not achievable for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister cites the number of lives that his target will apparently save. Will he tell the House how many additional lives would already have been saved if the original date for achieving the target of March 2004 had been adhered to?
Mr. Raynsford: As I have just told the hon. Gentleman, the latest figures show that we have made significant progress yet again on reducing the number of lives lost. I am surprised that he does not welcome the fact that accidental fire deaths in the home resulted in only 292 losses of life in 2002–03—the lowest level on record. We are reducing the number of lives lost. If people set an unrealistic target, they could in theory claim to be capable of achieving more. However, the original target was not achievable. We realised that, so we set a realistic and extremely challenging target for reducing the number of fire deaths.
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I need to make progress.
Mr. Swire rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and answered his question. I am sorry that he is not in a mood to listen.
We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, injuries and unnecessary fires. That requires real commitment and continued investment, and it ill behoves Conservative Members to try to make cheap points when we know that their spending commitments would not protect the fire service. The service would thus be starved of funds and unable to achieve the commitments towards which we are working. We are hearing a lot of synthetic and unconvincing rhetoric from the Conservative party on the matter.
Clause 21(2)(a) will require the Secretary of State to set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities in the national framework. The national targets on accidental fire deaths and deliberate fires are already in the first paragraph of the draft framework. The performance of fire and rescue authorities will be assessed by the Audit Commission, and the performance expectations set out in the national framework, which includes an explicit reference to the national targets, will be a key yardstick for the Audit

41
Commission when assessing performance. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Hammond: May I first deal with the Minister's remarks on new clauses 3 and 11? Let us get the pleasantries out of the way. On new clause 3, I am grateful to him for confirming that the Local Government Association code will apply to section 23 interventions. I know that many people outside the Chamber who were not entirely sure about the situation will be grateful that he has put his clarification on record.
Any discussion of targets seems to evoke a strange response from this usually mild-mannered and reasonable Minister because he goes berserk whenever we draw attention to the targets that were set as part of the public service agreement several years ago. The targets were set by his Government, not by us, someone from outside or civil servants. I hope that he will not try to tell us that that was not the case. He now tells us that those targets were unachievable and unrealistic. I wonder what the Treasury thinks about being told that the targets, which were offered in exchange for Treasury funding in a previous spending review, are unachievable and unrealistic. The Minister does not have a leg to stand on. One moment he tells us that he has not relaxed the targets for accidental fire deaths, but a moment later he tells us that he has and is justified in doing so because unforeseen circumstances have intervened.
4.45 pm
Mr. Raynsford: What targets for reducing fire deaths is the hon. Gentleman's party committed to and what discussions has he held with his shadow Treasury colleagues on the resources necessary to deliver them?
Mr. Hammond: We are in a situation in which the Government have set targets in the national framework that are lower than those agreed in a previous public service agreement. We are trying to ensure that the Government are held to account for future changes that they are minded to make to the targets set out in the national framework in the way that they made changes to the existing targets last summer.
Mr. Swire: Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the answer that the Minister was clearly unwilling to do. We learned from the Minister that the original targets were aspirational. In that case, why was New Zealand able to halve the number of accidental fire deaths in its homes over four years? The Government's extension must be a de facto reduction in targets.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the New Zealand example. That country has been much quoted over the past 18 months in relation to fire, and for good reasons. Many people outside and inside the House might think that the Government, as a natural corollary of their modernisation programme, based as it is around redirecting resources to save lives, would not want to relax the targets for reducing accidental fire deaths, but to tighten them so that they are tougher and more
42
demanding. The purpose of new clause 11 is not to change the targets, but to ensure proper scrutiny of them so that the Government cannot do what they did last summer and simply sneak in a reduced and relaxed target.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) asked why I selected those two targets. It was because they are the two targets that the Government set out in the fire and rescue draft national framework. Although reduced, they are the same targets qualitatively as the two targets included in the previous public service agreement.
The debate on new clause 11 has been useful. Members of the public and Members of the House will draw their own conclusions on what is or is not a reduced target. Members of the public and the media are used to looking carefully at the spin that the Government put on any numbers, figures or targets.
The Minister addressed several of the detailed points raised on new clause 1, but he did not address the principal concern. The national framework is above all a strategic framework for the delivery of fire services. It is right and proper that such a framework should be fully scrutinised by Parliament. It is simply not good enough that Parliament will be kept informed, as he put it, as the framework evolves and is eventually introduced and modified. Parliament needs scrutiny and control of the process. His protestation that a negative resolution would be too time-consuming and in some way too costly for such an important measure, which is key to the modernisation of our fire and rescue services, is unacceptable. The Government have not made a case for rejecting new clause 1.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 254.

Division No. 86]

[4:50 PM

AYES

Allan, Richard

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Curry, rh David

Bacon, Richard

Davies, Quentin(Grantham &

Baker. Norman

Stamford)

Baldry, Tony

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice &

Barker, Gregory

Howden)

Baron, John(Billericay)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Field, Mark(Cities of London &

Brady, Graham

Westminster)

Brazier, Julian

Flight, Howard

Breed, Colin

Flook, Adrian

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Forth, rh Eric

Browning, Mrs Angela

Foster, Don(Bath)

Burnett, John

Fox, Dr. Liam

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Burstow, Paul

Gamier, Edward

Burt, Alistair

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Butterfill, Sir John

Gidley, Sandra

Cameron, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE

Fife)

Goodman, Paul

Cash, William

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Barnet)

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John

Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

Grieve, Dominic

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gummer, rh John

Collins, Tim

Hammond, Philip

43

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W &

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

Abingdon)

Dinefwr)

Harvey, Nick

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Hawkins, Nick

Randall, John

Heald, Oliver

Redwood, rh John

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Rendel, David

Hendry, Charles

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Holmes, Paul

Rosindell, Andrew

Horam, John(Orpington)

Ruffley, David

Howard, rh Michael

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Sanders, Adrian

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Selous, Andrew

Jack, rh Michael

Shepherd, Richard

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Jenkin, Bernard

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Spring, Richard

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Stanley, rh Sir John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Steen, Anthony

Lamb, Norman

Streeter, Gary

Lansley, Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Lidington, David

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Teather, Sarah

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Tredinnick, David

Mackay, rh Andrew

Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Maclean, rh David

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tyrie, Andrew

Maples, John

Viggers, Peter

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Walter, Robert

May, Mrs Theresa

Waterson, Nigel

Mercer, Patrick

Watkinson, Angela

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Coldfield)

Whittingdale, John

Moore, Michael

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Bill

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Willetts, David

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Willis, Phil

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Wilshire, David

O'Hara, Edward

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

&#x00D6;pik, Lembit

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Young, rh Sir George

Ottaway, Richard

Younger-Ross, Richard

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pickles, Eric

Mr. Mark Francois and

Portillo, rh Michael

Hugh Robertson

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Borrow, David

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

Brennan, Kevin

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E

Allen, Graham

Wallsend)

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Browne. Desmond

Atkins, Charlotte

Bryant, Chris

Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Baird, Vera

Burnham, Andy

Banks, Tony

Byers, rh Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Cairns, David

Battle, John

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Bennett. Andrew

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Best, Harold

Caplin, Ivor

Betts, Clive

Casale, Roger

Blackman, Liz

Caton, Martin

Blizzard, Bob

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

44

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Chaytor, David

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Hodge, Margaret

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh

Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

Pentlands)

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge &

Howarth, George(Knowsley N &

Chryston)

Sefton F)

Clelland, David

Howells, Dr. Kim

Coaker, Vernon

Humble, Mrs Joan

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Coleman, lain

Hutton, rh John

Colman, Tony

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Connarty, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Cooper, Yvette

Ingram, rh Adam

Corston, Jean

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead &

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Highgate)

Crausby, David

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Cruddas, Jon

Jamieson, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Jenkins, Brian

(Copeland)

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Hatfield)

Darling, rh Alistair

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

David, Wayne

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dawson, Hilton

Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Khabra, Piara S.

Denham, rh John

Kidney, David

Dhanda, Parmjit

King, Andy(Rugby)

Dismore, Andrew

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green &

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Bow)

Dobson, rh Frank

Knight Jim(S Dorset)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Doran, Frank

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Lammy, David

Drew, David(Stroud)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Efford, Clive

Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Etherington, Bill

Linton, Martin

Farrelly, Paul

Love, Andrew

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Fisher, Mark

McCabe, Stephen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Follett, Barbara

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

McFall, John

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings

Mclsaac, Shona

& Rye)

McKenna, Rosemary

Foulkes, rh George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McNulty, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gerrard, Neil

McWalter, Tony

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McWilliam, John

Gilroy, Linda

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Godsiff, Roger

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Goggins, Paul

Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Marshall, David(Glasgow

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Shettleston)

Grogan, John

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David

Merron, Gillian

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil &

Michael, rh Alun

Rhymney)

Miliband, David

Healey, John

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn, Stephen

Mole, Chris

Heppell, John

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hesford, Stephen

Moran, Margaret

Heyes, David

Mountford, Kali

45

Mudie, George

Smith, rh Chris(Islington S &

Mullin, Chris

Finsbury)

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe &

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Lunesdale)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

O'Hara, Edward

Soley, Clive

Olner, Bill

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Organ, Diana

Steinberg, Gerry

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Stewart, David(Inverness E &

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Lochaber)

Pickthall, Colin

Stinchcombe, Paul

Plaskitt, James

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Pollard, Kerry

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Taylor, Dan(Stockton S)

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

E)

Tipping, Paddy

Prosser, Gwyn

Touhig, Don(IsIwyn)

Purnell, James

Trickett, Jon

Quinn, Lawrie

Truswell, Paul

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Kemptown)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N &

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Bellshill)

Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

NW)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wareing, Robert N.

Rooney, Terry

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Watts, David

Ruance, Chris

White, Brain

Russell, Ms Christine(City of

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Chester

Wicks, Malcolm

Rayan, Joan(Enfield N)

Winnick, David

Salter, Martin

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster

Salter, Martin

C)

Sawford, Phil

Woolas, Phil

Sedgemore, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

Sheerman, Barry

Yarmouth)

Short, rh Clare

Wyatt, Derek

Simon, Si&#x00F4;n(B'ham Erdington)

&nbsp;

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Derek Twigg

Question accordingly negatived.

RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS
"The Secretary of State shall by order, within six months of the coming into effect of any part of this Act, establish a body to be known as the Advisory Panel on the Recruitment and Retention of Retained Firefighters.

The body shall be made up of such people as the Secretary of State shall appoint to include&#x2014;

at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities;

at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of retained firefighters or organisations representing retained firefighters;

at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers;

at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of public sector employers or organisations representing public sector employers.

46

The body shall meet as the Secretary of State shall direct to advise the Secretary of State and fire and rescue authorities on all matters relating to the recruitment and retention of retained duty firefighters.&#x2014;[Mr. Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause relates to retained firefighters, and I think that it is common ground on both sides of the House that they play a crucial part in the modernisation agenda. All too often the focus or the spotlight falls on the large metropolitan brigades, with their need occasionally to respond to major disasters and to think about the response to the new agenda of anti-terrorist preparedness. However, in many brigades throughout the country, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service.
In many ways the challenges of modernisation are greater for those brigades that depend largely on retained firefighters. By and large, they will not see the same savings from changed work practices as those brigades that employ mainly whole-time firefighters. Almost by definition, those brigades with retained firefighters do not already have available a pool of full-time employed personnel to deal with the service's new emphasis on fire prevention. They are faced with some particular challenges as we move forward with this agenda. On the whole, the brigades in question are the smaller ones, with lighter management structures, which in turn pose further difficulties in addressing the issues.
As I look round the Chamber, I am certain that every Member here would be happy to record the huge debt that is owed to retained firefighters for their sterling support of the community when they continued to provide cover during the brief but potentially dangerous fire strikes at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. I regret to say that in some cases that was done in the face of intimidation and harassment from colleagues. By way of belated but well-deserved reward, those retained firefighters will be included in the new negotiating machinery, and the Minister made it clear in Committee that he intends that they should have proper representation, along with other groups of firefighters and employees of fire and rescue services.
In the new clause, I have sought to address the overarching problem of the recruitment and retention of sufficient retained firefighters to allow the modernisation agenda to proceed successfully. It is increasingly difficult to find the kind of people who traditionally have worked as retained firefighters. I do not want to digress too far into anecdote, but when I was a boy I remember being terribly excited about the fact that the greengrocer was a retained firefighter. Every now and then, to great excitement in the greengrocer's shop, he would tear off in his car to fight a fire. In traditional communities, the small self-employed shopkeeper or business man could undertake that vital community role and provide himself with a worthwhile additional income. As our lives have become more complicated and as pressure on the self-employed has increased—people generally have to spend more time on running a business now—it has become less easy to persuade such people that they can afford the time and potential disruption to their business that being a retained firefighter entails.

47

According to figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the retained firefighting force across the country is about 3,000 firefighters or 20 per cent. short of its intended strength, which represents a considerable gap in its ability to deliver what is required of the current structure and set-up. The Minister may wish to comment on this, but my understanding is that as we proceed with things such as integrated personal development strategies both retained firefighters and full-time firefighters will participate in in-job training and personal development programmes, which are extremely worth while but which, almost by definition, require a greater number of personnel to provide cover while people are undertaking training and personal development activities. We are 20 per cent. short now, but once the integrated risk management plans have been put in place, the modernisation agenda has been implemented more fully and the new human resources arrangements are up and running, we will have an even greater need for retained firefighters.
The key to finding such people is recognising the role of employers. Some retained firefighters, of course, will be self-employed, but the great majority will be employees, and it is important that the House should acknowledge the need to focus on persuading employers of the benefit to the community and perhaps to themselves of releasing employees for retained duty. Various proposals were made in Committee. It was suggested, for example, that formal recognition should be bestowed on employers who release employees for retained duty and even that cash rewards or compensation should be made available to employers who sacrifice the efficiency of their business by allowing employees to play a role as retained firefighters.
New clause 2 would introduce a formal recognition of the importance of retained firefighters and of the problem of recruiting and retaining them by establishing an advisory panel to the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), referred to a comprehensive review that he had established on 15 December 2003 looking at issues relating to retained firefighting and the need to recruit more retained firefighters. Why have I tabled the new clause, given that he told the Committee about that? I want to be clear that the Government recognise the need to involve employers from both the public and private sectors in the initiative.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the review would include
"members from a variety of stakeholder groups, including the Local Government Association, CACFOA and the RFU".
When I intervened to ask him whether the employer community was also engaged in the process, he replied:
"The employers will be fully engaged in the process."
However, it turned out that we were speaking at cross purposes, as he clarified his remarks by saying:
"The LGA is in the review team."&#x2014;[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 March 2004; c. 386&#x2013;387.]
The Local Government Association is a representative of employers of retained firefighters, but I had intended to convey to him the need to engage the employers of potential retained firefighters—the businesses and
48
public bodies that employ such people in their everyday jobs, which need to be persuaded of the community's need for them to be released for retained firefighting duties. As far as I understood it, he confirmed in the Committee that representatives of employer organisations other than the LGA were not engaged in the review process. I would like the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and various other bodies that represent private sector employers to be included. I would also like representatives of the big public sector employers to be engaged in the process. Of course, the public sector must lead by example. In many parts of the country, large proportions of the population are engaged in public sector employment; indeed, the proportion is as much as a third in some areas.
The point of tabling the new clause was to seek to formalise the advisory panel as an ongoing body that would advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to retained firefighters and also to formalise the membership of the panel so that it included representatives not only of the fire and rescue authorities and the retained firefighters, but of employers from both the public and private sectors. The problem should be put on the table—we are 3,000 retained firefighters short today, and the number may be 4,000 by the time that the IRMP process is completed—and we need to work together to ensure that additional retained firefighters are delivered in the places where they are needed.
In my fire authority, Surrey, there are proposals in the integrated risk management plan to change the manning of a fire station from whole time to retained service. Of course, that will be possible and the saving will be harnessed only if and when it is possible to recruit the additional retained firefighters. The provision of 24-hour retained cover at a single-appliance fire station will take a considerable number of retained firefighters. I have not done the maths, but I suspect that about 20 or 24 individuals are required to provide 24-hour retained cover in a single-appliance fire station, although the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong.
I tabled the new clause to draw attention to the point and to get the Under-Secretary to focus on the role of employers and—I hope—to give some commitment about the engagement of employers in the process. I shall certainly not press the new clause to a Division if he can assure us that employers in the public and private sector will be properly engaged. Furthermore, I tabled the new clause because I know that some hon. Members—not least those from the Devon contingent, which featured strongly in Committee—will have a lot to say about retained firefighters. Devon is a fire authority that depends almost entirely on retained firefighters.
5.15 pm
Having tabled the new clause, I did some further digging. On Friday, the Retained Firefighters Union told me that it had done a quick survey of eight fire authorities picked at random and discovered, shockingly, that not one had a budget for recruiting retained firefighters. That is a serious situation, when we are already facing a shortfall of 3,000, and the shortfall is likely to increase.
It is imperative that we act. Retained firefighters are arguably the most cost-effective part of the fire service. Failing to recruit and retain enough of them will

49
undermine the modernisation process and will certainly slow down the harvesting of its financial savings. The authorities with the largest number of retained firefighters are almost invariably those with the least scope for modernisation savings and the smallest slice of the transitional funding that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made available.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be a mechanism whereby employers, both public and private, will be included in the process in a way that fully recognises their key role. I look forward to his response and to the contributions that I confidently anticipate from the aforementioned Devon contingent.
Richard Younger-Ross: Devon was indeed extremely well represented in Committee, with three members, but the south-west generally did not do too badly either, with five. However, that did not mean that we always got our points across to the Minister.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about employer representation on the review body. He thinks that he was at cross purposes with the Minister, but I understood exactly what he meant in Committee, so I am surprised that it was not so clear to the Government.
We debated this at length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned our probing amendments on encouraging employers to release people to serve as retained firefighters. We suggested cash rewards, which will perhaps not prove to be the way forward, as a way of recognising what employers do. The Minister responded positively and said that retained firefighters were a vital resource, so I am horrified to hear that there are eight fire authorities with no money to recruit them. That is a scandal.
Mr. Hammond: In fact, it is worse than that. The Retained Firefighters Union polled the eight authorities at random, so the statistical suggestion must be that many more will prove to have no budget.
Richard Younger-Ross: That is an appalling situation. It could be that the authorities that rely heavily on retained crew are having problems with their budget. The Government are quite rightly seeking parity of salaries for retained firefighters, so they have recognised the need in words, but they have not recognised it in cash terms. Let us consider the example of the combined authority in Devon, which relies heavily on retained firefighters. The 16 per cent. pay increase over three years translates into a 23 per cent. increase in the budget of the Devon fire authority. That authority is finding it hard to make ends meet and says that it would require a further £2 million to achieve the same sort of funding as other fire authorities. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising if recruitment campaigns are cut in the attempt to ensure that resources are put into essential services such as firefighting, the response to road traffic accidents and so on.
The problem will get worse. As work patterns change and our countryside has fewer people working in it and more people commuting longer distances, those available on the ground will become few and far between. It is therefore imperative that greater effort
50
are made to recruit those few people who reside close enough to the station. The Government accept that a genuine problem needs to be tackled. I hope that they also accept that it is not simply a matter of an advertising campaign or a review but of considering the way in which fire authorities are funded to recruit and retain those firefighters. Parity is good as far as it goes but it falls apart if the fire service is left short of cash.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned local authorities. We do not need a review in that case because Ministers are responsible for local authorities. I therefore urge the Minister to write a letter to himself to spur himself to write to local authorities telling them to be more responsive and to encourage their members of staff to become retained firefighters. Many authorities resist that, which is a great shame because a potential resource is not being used. In rural areas, its use is essential.
Mr. Drew: I wish to make a couple of brief observations. Like other constituencies, Gloucestershire relies heavily on retained firefighters. However, those firefighters can function only if they have a close relationship with full-time firefighters. Sometimes we talk about retained firefighters as though they work in isolation and provide cover to an area on their own, but, in order to provide effective fire cover, the full-time firefighters in a sizeable market town must have a relationship with the retained firefighters in the smaller market towns. Whatever the Government devise, a structure that recognises that relationship is vital.
I do not want to get hung up on the idea of an advertising budget. I accept that advertising might attract some individuals, but the main problem is that the retained fire service operates restrictively. If we had an arrangement under which people would be off call far more often, we could recruit them more easily. However, the system is predicated on the belief that people live and work locally. If either does not pertain, the opportunity to become a retained firefighter is precluded. We may have to consider a system whereby people who work locally but live some distance away are on call when they are at work and those who live locally and are willing to be retained firefighters and on call at times of greatest danger in the evenings and at night are not on call during the day, when they work away from home.
I do not think that this is a matter for statute. I think we should ask ourselves whether we have a service that is fit for the 21st century, and it is clear that the service is not currently working very well. The only way in which the three retained fire stations in my neck of the woods—Painswick, Nailsworth and Dursley—can recruit is by word of mouth. Nepotism often occurs: the sons and daughters of existing retained firefighters often become retained firefighters themselves, because they have been targeted directly. I do not think that is a terribly good thing, because we want the service to be open and accessible, and in any case it is a pretty ad hoc method.
Mr. Hammond: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned an advertising budget. I do not think that a responsible fire authority would limit a ring-fenced budget to advertising for recruitment purposes. There is much more to

51
recruitment than advertising. I wonder how many people are aware of the retained fire service, of how it works and of the opportunities it provides.
Mr. Drew: That is certainly true. I am merely saying that I think any advertising should be aimed at employers rather than attempting to recruit directly. Employers may encourage staff to think about becoming retained firefighters, but those who are interested will have probably taken that route already. It is more a question of securing release from employers.
I think we need a set of proposals from the Government, rather than legislation for the statute book.
Mr. Swire: The Minister will have to resist the temptation to use the Labour party buzzword of the last fortnight—"opportunistic", as applied to everything that the Opposition do—because I think that there is a commonality of interest in this case. The new clause is eminently sensible, and deals with an issue about which we in the west country feel strongly. As we have heard, Devon in particular relies very much on its retained firefighters.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that retained firefighters should not be regarded in an individual way, in that they are part and parcel of the deal. In our part of the world, however, they are perhaps more significant than they are in other areas. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned the costs to Devon fire and rescue service of the increase in retained firemen's salaries—above 16 per cent. over three years, representing a total increase of 23 per cent. in the authority's budget. That means that a £2 million increase is needed for the service just to stand still.
The Bill does not address the issue of rural sparsity, which has an impact on the question of retained firemen. Nowadays we look increasingly to employers in the private sector, and elements of the public sector, to release employees so that they can do community jobs. We have community support police, for instance, as well as established voluntary bodies such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Sidmouth inshore lifeboat service—if I may give a plug to an excellent service in my area.
We seem to be asking businesses, particularly those in the private sector, to do more and more, while penalising them through higher national insurance contributions and more and more socially based legislation. All that deters them from taking on more people in order to expand. Now we are telling them that, having taken on more people despite all the penalties, they should release those people to do community jobs. We have to be very careful in terms of how much we ask these hard-pressed businesses to do.
However, I take the point that we need to raise awareness of the existence of the retained fire service and the opportunities within it—not only among employers but among the employees themselves. However, I am not convinced that an advertising campaign per se is the answer. It might go some way towards alleviating the problem in the short term, but we need to articulate a
52
career structure in the retained service to show people that there is a career progression, that the terms of employment have been improved, and that the service is a viable alternative for those who cannot become full-time firemen, or for those for whom the fire service has not provided the opportunity to become full-time firemen.
5.30 pm
I do not know the latest figures for retained firefighters in Devon—whether there is a problem, or whether one is likely to arise—but the genuine feeling exists that this legislation is based on the desire to create larger units, which it surely will, and that at some point our service will be subsumed and we will come off worse. Ours is a very good fire authority that works extremely well, using a lot of local knowledge; frankly, it cannot be improved upon. A merger and no increase in the number of retained firemen could result in one of two things: a loss of cover or a cut in services. As we all know, for a rural area the insurance implications of a loss of cover could be very profound indeed. That issue has not been touched on at all.
I take the point, made by the hon. Member for Stroud, about increasing the number of off-call retained firemen, but to go down that road would require increasing the number of retained firemen on call at any given time. I do not see how having more off-call firemen would deal with the problem of a lack of retained firemen. Yet more would be needed, and such a problem cannot be solved in that way.
I should be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about new clause 2. We Conservatives are generally against increasing the amount of legislation, but the creation of such an advisory panel would mean that our retained firemen were being properly represented. The new clause is well constructed. It refers to
"representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities",
and to
"representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers".
I suspect that there are lessons to be learned, particularly in the light of the mobilisation—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary would do me the courtesy of listening, he might be in a better position to answer this point. Indeed, when I asked the Minister for Local and Regional Government a direct question earlier, I was not granted the courtesy of a direct reply.
I shall re-run what I said to allow the Under-Secretary to take it on board. In terms of releasing private sector and public sector employees, there are probably lessons to be learned from the recent Iraq war. There was a significant mobilisation of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but to be honest some employers were more compliant and encouraging to their employees than others. It would be very interesting if representatives of those self-same employers were included on a advisory panel, which might well be able to answer some of our questions about retained firemen.
Mr. John Redwood: Given that the Under-Secretary is not even extending to my hon. Friend the courtesy of listening to his argument, is he not a little worried that such an advisory body would be ignored by a Government who are not interested in the employer's view, and who do not look after retained firemen?
Mr. Swire: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Having sat through our deliberations in Committee, I know that neither the Under-Secretary nor the Minister is interested in any of our arguments. So far as they are concerned, they are going to implement this measure, in keeping with their attempt to regionalise everything and in line with the artificial regions that they are seeking to create throughout the country. It is part of their regionalisation programme, and anything that stands in the way of that is dismissed.
The Government say that we are little Englanders and that we are not keen on modernisation, but as we know, that is all baloney.[Interruption.] The Minister says "Correct" from a sedentary position, but many of the people who will shortly be invited to vote on whether to have regional assemblies will probably show that it is we who are correct. We leave that, however, to the electorate—something that the Minister is apparently not prepared to do, given that he is prejudging the result of a democratic vote. Historically, that has been shown to be a dangerous thing to do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that the Minister might not be listening to employers. There is no real evidence that anything that this Government have ever done has involved listening to employers, particularly in the private sector. They are seen as the bogey men, the people who must pay more each time there is a tax rise. As we look forward to a third term of Labour tax rises, if there is to be one—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members are clearly not listening. As we look forward to a possible third term of Labour tax rises, those employers will be invited to pay more and more tax, but we are asking the self-same people to release employees to act as retained firefighters.
It is incumbent on the Minister for Local and Regional Government to consider having a platform, such as that suggested in new clause 2, to enable representatives of the retained fire services and employers to get round a table and solve a problem that he has to admit exists—we have not invented it. I shall be interested to know the answer, if either the Minister or the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of answering the question.
Mr. Flook: If we are to protect the fire service in our rural counties, we need an advisory panel on the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters. That would make eminent sense. As we have already heard, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service, especially in rural areas. That is certainly the case in Somerset, where only three of the 27 firefighting stations are full time: Taunton, Bridgwater and Yeovil; the other 24 stations operate on a retained basis. In my constituency, that involves some very brave men and women in Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton. By definition, they are drawn closely from the local community, which is vital in rural areas because many
54
addresses are not tabulated in the way in which we should like them to be, and local knowledge is needed to discover exactly where fires are, and where firefighters must go.
The future is worrying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, the recruitment and consequent retention of firefighters in the retained stations is dropping considerably. There is already a 20 per cent. shortfall, which is no surprise in rural areas. My hon. Friend mentioned greengrocers, and many farmers and farm workers are also involved, of whom there are now far fewer. As we all know, there are also fewer farms—no doubt because other Government policy undermines them. There are therefore fewer and fewer people who are willing and physically able to be retained firefighters.
It is important to address that issue, and one way of doing so would be better and more fully to understand why employers might be willing to release individual employees to be retained firefighters. It is therefore helpful and sensible to suggest that an advisory panel be set up. It would be even more helpful if there were greater representation of private sector employers. I presume that the 20 per cent. shortfall is increasing rather than decreasing, and although the Government may not agree with the precise wording of new clause 2, I should be interested to learn how the Minister for Local and Regional Government intends to remove that serious impediment to the modernisation of the fire service. Somerset, a rural county that is delivering its firefighting capability very cost effectively, is not receiving its fair share of the transitional funding needed to move to a modernised firefighting service. That is also the case in Devon. If the shortfall is increasing, one solution would be to set up an advisory panel, as proposed in new clause 2, to enable the Government to understand the reasons behind the shortfall and work towards lessening it.
Richard Younger-Ross: I am not too sure of the situation in Somerset, but Devon requires £2 million in transitional funding and has been loaned £500,000. The important word is "loaned"; the money must be paid back.
Mr. Flook: I am grateful for that intervention. Only a quarter of the contribution is being made in the short term—rather than in the long term—because it has to be paid back.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made an excellent point about the need to raise awareness. In communities that have retained firefighters, the firefighters' neighbours will probably know what they do part time, at weekends and at night, but the majority of people in communities such as Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton will not be aware of that. It would help if the Government and local firefighters did more to raise that awareness.
I welcome the announcement that the Minister made on 15 December of a review of the retained firefighting service. It will be interesting, some weeks on, to see whether he is able to inform the House of any progress. In Committee, he alluded to the involvement of the CBI, and I would be interested to hear whether he would consider it appropriate for the Federation of Small

55
Businesses or the Institute of Directors to become involved, and whether they could be asked why they believe there is a shortfall and how they could help to shore up the gap, which seems to be getting larger rather than smaller.
Phil Hope: I appreciate the concerns about the recruitment and retention challenges that face the retained section of the fire and rescue service, which have prompted the proposal of this new clause, but I believe that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is misguided in suggesting that a new statutory standing body would be an effective method of tackling these issues. I hope that I will be able to satisfy his concerns about engagement with the public and private sector employers, for example. I note that he has recruited two whole-time Back Benchers—if I may call them that—from the Committee, and one retained Back Bencher, who seems to have slipped in, and who will possibly slip out again later—[Interruption.] I also appreciate that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to have taken the whole Committee stage through single-handedly.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall that the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council also acted as a statutory consultee for the majority of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under the Fire Services Act 1947. That body has already been criticised for its increasing inability to provide any strategic direction on the future of the fire and rescue service. Indeed, Professor Bain's report recommended a new advisory and consultative structure that would widen engagement with stakeholders and ensure a focus on strategic advice rather than on executive functions. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we have already put this new, more flexible structure in place. The practitioners forum and the business and community safety forum are up and running to ensure that both the providers and the users of the service can inform the process of modernisation.
Mr. Hammond: Which business representative organisations are engaged in the business and community safety forum?
Phil Hope: I can confirm that the CBI, for example, is a member of the forum. The hon. Gentleman mentioned other business organisations, and I shall describe in a moment how they are being consulted in the review of the retained fire service.
It was not just the existing advisory and consultative structure that Professor Bain considered to be ineffective. The independent review of the fire service found the existing negotiating machinery also to be ineffective. The Bain report recommended that it be replaced with
"a smaller body, with executive authority to negotiate and the experience and skills to do so".
The new body should have an independent chair and clear links to Ministers and the policy-making process. Significantly, Bain also made it clear that membership of the body should include the Retained Firefighters Union, whose members, like those of the other unions,
56
have a keen interest in the new clause and a very strong interest in effective negotiating machinery. I include in that the National Association of Fire Officers, the Association of Principal Fire Officers and Unison, as well as the Fire Brigades Union.
5.45 pm
In the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", we made it clear that we agreed with much of Bain's thinking on the negotiating machinery. Our objective was—and still is—to see three negotiating bodies for uniformed fire and rescue service staff. We want one for chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; one for middle managers; and one for fire fighters and control room staff. Like Bain, we also want the new negotiating bodies extended to include a wider range of employee representative bodies. That will benefit all fire service employees and will ensure that issues relating to the pay terms and conditions of retained staff can be tackled effectively.
Members will know that, under the pay agreement for the fire and rescue service 2003, the current negotiating machinery is being reviewed. I hope that that review will result in the improvements that both the independent review of the fire service and the recent White Paper articulated—a matter that later amendments touch on—but, if it does not, the Bill will enable the Government to take the powers needed to bring about those improvements themselves. I still hope that that will not be necessary.
Hon. Members will be aware that, both in the White Paper and the draft national framework, the Government have recognised the vital contribution of the retained section of the service and have acknowledged the need to find solutions to the long-recognised problems of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned this afternoon. That is why I announced on 15 December that there would be a review of issues affecting the retained section of the service. Under the more flexible arrangements afforded by the new consultative structure, a team has now been formed to take forward that review.
The review team's key remit is to examine the factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. That will include issues surrounding equality and diversity, public awareness, engagement with the business community, deployment, community participation, and the role, reward and conditions of service as they relate to recruitment and retention issues.
The retained review team met for the first time on 21 January. Its membership is drawn from across the fire and rescue service community and includes representatives from the Local Government Association, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish Executive justice department.
Although the focus of the review will be the fire and rescue services of England and Wales, the Scottish Executive justice department's participation has been invited because the issues that the retained review team will be investigating also have relevance to the Scottish fire service. ODPM will also liaise with the Northern Ireland fire service about the work of the review team.

57
Only the key service stakeholder groups will be directly involved on the review team. However, other organisations—including public and private employers' organisations—will be involved in helping to identify a range of options for tackling the recruitment and retention challenges. I made it very clear in Committee that employers would be fully engaged in the process. It is essential that we understand the motives, and the reluctance, of private and public employers whom we wish to attract into releasing staff to become retained firefighters. The review team is therefore seeking advice from a wide range of public and private sector employers and the national bodies that represent them.
Let me go further to provide more reassurance to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. A workshop has been arranged for the end of April, which will involve the review team, other representatives from the fire and rescue service, organisations that rely on volunteers in order to provide a service, Government Departments, employers' organisations in the public and private sectors and bodies that promote opportunities for voluntary work both to individuals and to employers. We anticipate that the workshop will provide the review with valuable insight into how the challenges of recruitment, retention and business community engagement can be effectively overcome.
The business community will include the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, which will bring a welcome nod from Conservative Members, and Business in the Community. I might add that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, along with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, will also be invited. We would like to invite those bodies, along with others that I shall not read out, to participate in the workshop, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
On recruitment budgets for retained firefighters, I am sure that the review will want to take into account the survey, which has been mentioned this afternoon. The retained review must examine recruitment budgets, which are matters for individual fire and rescue authorities, because we do not know whether they separately identify whole-time and retained firefighters. When we make judgments about budgets, we must know the detail, which is exactly what a review team and a workshop can identify. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing centrally produced recruitment literature for use by all fire and rescue authorities.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister will know, because it has been in all the papers, that there is a massive campaign to recruit special constables. Does he envisage that the Government might lead or encourage such a recruitment campaign for retained firefighters?
Phil Hope: The retained review is all about examining what works and what does not. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the ODPM is producing a video that includes information on retained firefighters, which can be issued to raise awareness in the local community about the wider role of retained firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out that the issue is about not only adverts but
58
understanding the wider contribution that retained firefighters make and that we want them to continue to make in future.
Mr. Swire: Can the workshop's remit be extended to discuss with the Institute of Directors and other employers' organisations what incentives can be offered to employers who regularly release their employees as retained firemen?
Phil Hope: The problem with identifying one or two organisations is that the list tends to grow. I cannot say whether the workshop will examine that point, but it is the exactly the kind of issue that the review team must examine to ensure that we are getting things right.
A number of hon. Members have raised questions about different things that the review might do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked whether greater flexibility in the times when retained firefighters are required to be on call might help recruitment, and the review team will certainly examine that issue. Individual fire services are already examining the requirement to be on call, with flexibility in mind, and they are offering differing contracts depending on what times retained firefighters can offer. My hon. Friend's contribution was helpful and it addresses the issue of the availability of retained firefighters in terms of their living or working close to a fire station.
The hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) discussed funding. I do not want to get diverted into a debate about funding, but when they bid for extra cash for Devon, which is understandable, they might like to have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who has just announced a policy to freeze funds for local government—I do know how he will square that with his Back Benchers. Conservative Front Benchers often say that they will clamp down on public spending, but Conservative Back Benchers keep standing up and asking for more cash. I do not want to introduce discord into the debate; I simply point out some of the contradictions in the position adopted by Conservative Members.
The physical hard work undertaken by retained firefighters in their firefighting activities has been pointed out, but the Bill's purpose is to broaden the role that the fire service plays, which includes promoting community fire safety. We will attract many more people into the fire service, whether they are whole-time or retained firefighters, who will undertake a variety of roles. The extra numbers mean that firefighters can focus on prevention, which is important in reducing fire death.
Mr. Hammond: That is interesting. Does the Minister envisage fire authorities engaging retained personnel to carry out routine, non-emergency response duties? As far as I know, the bulk of the retained work is responsive, and the nature of the role will change slightly if retained firefighters report by pre-planned arrangements to do preventive work.
Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the bulk of the work is responsive. When I described the fire service's wider role in prevention at the Retained Firefighters Union conference, a retained firefighter said

59
that retained firefighters could not do that. Before I could respond, a Welsh retained firefighters' representative stood up and gave an excellent account of how retained firefighters are doing precisely that in Wales. The flexibility and diversity of the role provides many opportunities for retained firefighters to contribute to the overall targets that we are endeavouring to achieve.
I have answered in full the questions about how we will consult on the future of retained firefighters, and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he requires. The review team will, we hope, submit its report to the practitioners forum in July, and its report will contain its recommendations, its implementation and communications strategies and its programme for delivery. Given today's debate and the consultation, which will take place not only through the workshop but in other ways, I hope that we have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that new clause 2 is not necessary and that he will see fit to withdraw it.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I detect a touch of complacency. He does not recognise the crisis that the retained service currently faces—the retained service is short of 20 per cent. of its personnel and as the role expands that shortfall is likely to get considerably worse.
I am interested in the workshop that the Minister is holding. As he anticipates, I shall write to him to suggest some other organisations that might appropriately be invited to participate in order to ensure that the business community bodies represent the employers found in the areas where the retained service operates—on the whole, that is not city centres or even large towns but rural and semi-rural areas. If the Minister has an observer ticket for that workshop, perhaps he will write to me. I promise to keep my mouth closed, but I would be interested to see what goes on.
It is disappointing that the Minister has not made a commitment to add business membership to the review team, which is the ongoing body that will report to the practitioners forum in the summer. Despite everything that Ministers say about changing the culture of the fire service, which I am sure that they genuinely want to achieve, their approach is still exclusive. The review team is made up entirely of insiders—employers, civil servants, expert advisers and union officials—who will listen to what people in the real world have to say, but those slightly awkward people from the real world have not been risked on the inside of the deliberation. I would feel more comfortable if the Minister had said that he would put representatives of the business community on to the review team, which might then achieve rapid progress in the direction that we all want to go.
Perhaps the best way to make progress would be if the Minister were to have a quite word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, preferably before Wednesday, to suggest that when he is thinking about incentives to business to do various worthwhile things for the good of the economy, he might spare a thought for those businesses that could be persuaded to release employees for retained firefighting duties, which might make a rapid difference to the available pool of retained firefighters.
60
I do not intend to press new clause 2; I simply wanted to raise the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and hope that we can regard the debate as ongoing, because it is in everybody's interests that we address the retained firefighter crisis.
I have one final point. The Minister said that he was not sure whether fire authorities had separate budgets for recruitment of retained firefighters or whether that was subsumed within a larger budget. Given the scale of the crisis and the significance of retained firefighter recruitment in some fire authorities, appropriate fire authorities should identify separate budgets for that purpose. When the Bill reaches the statute book, the Minister will have various powers to ensure that that happens and I hope that he will consider doing so as a means of making progress on the issue.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
6 pm

LIMITATION ON POWER TO AUTHORISE CHARGING
An order under section 19 may not authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for:

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

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

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

An order under section 19 may authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for the provision of emergency medical assistance only in circumstances where a National Health Service Ambulance Trust is authorised to charge for such provision.&#x2014;[ Mr. Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 19, page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Government amendment No. 13.
Mr. Hammond: The new clause deals with the scope of the power of the Secretary of State to authorise charging under clause 19. The current regime, under the 1947 Act, confers only one statutory function on fire authorities—that of extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire—and prohibits charging for the discharge of that activity, but by omission it allows charging for all other areas of fire service activity. The practice is that few authorities charge for emergency work. I shall focus in this short debate on road traffic accidents.

61
We should not confuse this issue with the power that exists, and could specifically be granted to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill, to charge for non-emergency functions, such as the use of equipment and manpower, or the establishment of the authority to carry out everyday functions such as pumping water out of a basement or filling a swimming pool. Those are useful functions, but they are not central to the emergency role of the service.
An essential part of the purpose of the Bill is to put road traffic accidents and other emergency work—for example, chemical and nuclear decontamination in the event of a terrorist attack, or rescue from floodwater—at the heart of what the fire and rescue services do. All those roles will have the same essential statutory basis as the current requirement to extinguish fires and protect life and property in the event of fire. The Minister has argued repeatedly—somewhat disingenuously—that because the Bill has a continuing prohibition on charging for fire-related activities, it reflects the 1947 Act. However, as I see it, that Act bans charging for the statutory function of the fire authority. There is only one statutory function at present. To retain the status quo, we would need to extend that ban on charging to all statutory functions, including attending at road traffic accidents and other emergencies. New clause 4 does not go that far. It does not suggest that the ban on charging should extend to the statutory functions of fire prevention and fire education work under clause 6. It simply suggests a prohibition on charging for the emergency statutory functions of the fire and rescue authorities under clauses 7, 8 and 9.
On the one hand, the Bill extends a clear additional statutory function, but on the other it seeks to keep open the ability to charge for the discharge of that function in an emergency. That is not an acceptable proposition, and it is not what our constituents expect us to legislate for. The Bill also provides for the charging of third parties, which is a thinly disguised reference to insurers. Charging motor insurers would represent another stealth tax on the Government's favourite victim, the motorist. What about the uninsured—the millions of people who drive on our roads every day without insurance? They are an increasing problem. Would they pay? How would the Government collect charges from people who do not have an insurer to pay up on their behalf, when they cannot collect two thirds of the fines imposed by courts on similar people? Will not this be simply another example of an additional charge or tax on the law-abiding, insured majority, while the public purse continues to support the antisocial minority?
Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend worried that if a fire authority was particularly keen to recoup its costs in the way that he describes, there might be an argument about payment before someone received the service that they deserved in an emergency situation?
Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend raises an important point, but it is not a question of "might". At least one fire authority—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—is keen to charge in that way and has made it clear that it would like powers to charge for road traffic accident rescue work. Another practical problem might arise if fire authorities were allowed to charge for attending road traffic accidents.
62
What if someone were involved in a road traffic accident and was trapped in his vehicle but physically uninjured? Such a person might tell the fire brigade, which has raced to the scene with lights flashing and sirens blaring, that he does not want to be cut out of his car and receive a bill for £250. He would rather wait while his friendly local mechanic or a chap he knows from down the pub, whom he has just phoned on his mobile phone, comes along to cut him out.[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is central to our relationship with the emergency services that it never crosses our minds to ask whether we will be charged for the services delivered. When we pick up the phone and dial 999 because we see smoke, we do not wonder first whether there will be a charge for calling the fire brigade.
I am against charging for emergency services that are part of a statutory function, although I am not necessarily against charging for non-emergency work. I am also against discriminating against the law-abiding majority by limiting charging to those with insurers able to pay. That is the Government's idea of the way to make such charges a painless tax. I made the same point when I was health spokesman in 1998 during the passage of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. I sought an assurance in Committee on behalf of motorists, but all I got was a lecture from the Minister about bad landlords causing people to be trapped in lifts. Any hon. Members who have offices in Portcullis House will know that it has the eight lifts most likely to break down nearby, but they are not maintained by someone whom I would regard as a particularly bad landlord. I hope that the Minister will deal with motorists involved in road traffic accidents, instead of trying to refocus the discussion on people trapped in lifts.
Amendment No. 2 would leave out clause 19(2), which prevents charging for extinguishing fires, and replace it with new clause 4, which would prevent charging for fires, road traffic accidents and any emergency functions conferred on fire and rescue authorities by clause 19. That is an enabling clause that will give the Secretary of State power to confer functions by statutory instrument. We have the benefit of the Secretary of State's preliminary thinking, in the form of a draft statutory instrument that was circulated in Committee. To broaden the House's understanding of what is involved in clause 19 functions, the draft statutory instrument includes chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incidents; search and rescue in cases in which there is a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped in the area as a result of a landslide or the collapse of a building; major flooding; and major rail, water and air accidents. It would be unthinkable to charge people for interventions in such emergencies, so why on earth cannot the Government rule out doing so?
Subsection (2) of new clause 4 addresses a different issue: charging for emergency medical assistance. The background to the provision is the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which authorises charging, via insurers, for the costs of national health service treatment provided after a road traffic accident. Our position during the progress of that measure was—as it remains—that we resist unfair discrimination against the motorist, who should not be seen as a soft target simply because, if he is a law-abiding individual, he will generally have insurance.

63
A programme is currently under way to promote coresponse and, indeed, first response by fire and rescue authorities, whereby if a fire and rescue authority is the first on the scene of an incident, it will increasingly—I shall come to that point later—be able to deliver emergency medical assistance. Furthermore, especially in rural areas, fire services could in future be the first responder to other types of medical emergency—for example, cardiac arrests—if the fire station was significantly nearer to the patient than the nearest ambulance station. We simply cannot have a situation in which people pay according to whether the fire engine or the ambulance gets there first. That would be outrageous and our proposal attempts to deal with it.
The Minister has obviously understood our concern, which we debated in Committee, and I am delighted that he responded with Government amendment No. 12, especially subsection (2A), which bans all charging for emergency medical assistance by fire authorities. However, I find myself in the curious position of having to tell him that I think he has given too much. We risk the opposite scenario, in which the victim lying at the roadside would no longer have to listen to the ambulance approaching from one side and the fire engine approaching from the other, hoping that the ambulance got there first so that he would not be charged by the fire service. As a result of amendment No. 12, he could be hoping that the fire engine got there first, because under the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, if the ambulance arrived first, he might be charged by the NHS.
I anticipate the Minister's defence to my objection. A patient treated at the scene by a fire brigade will not always be taken away in an ambulance to an NHS hospital. Often, people at the roadside with minor injuries decline, for all sorts of reasons, to get into an ambulance and go to hospital; a plaster is stuck on the injury and they go off about their business. However, I hope that the Minister can give us a pragmatic answer to avoid creating a new injustice in resolving the one that we identified in the Standing Committee.
Amendment No. 12 limits the prohibition on charging for fires, so that fire authorities will be able to charge for fires under the sea—that is, in tunnels—or fires and rescues at sea. Can the Minister give us some information about that proposal? I understand that, at present, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has lead responsibility for rescue from fires at sea, which includes extinguishing them. What is the current practice on charging? From discussions with the Kent and Medway Towns fire authority, I know that the current interpretation of the 1947 Act is that it prevents charging for work carried out in relation to fires in the channel tunnel. None the less, there is an elaborate mechanism to allow the Kent and Medway combined authority to extract a substantial annual sum from the operators of the channel tunnel for providing cover for the tunnel. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify what the situation will be for the channel tunnel and other subsea structures, as well as how the amendment will affect rescue at sea? Government amendment No. 13 makes amendment No. 12
64
consistent with other parts of the Bill, by making it clear that references to "sea" are not restricted to sea within the territorial limits of the United Kingdom.
6.15 pm
I cannot believe that the British public want charges for emergency responses from our fire and rescue services. If we introduce charges for the attendance of the fire service at a major road accident, what will come next? Will we charge for the police to go to the scene of a burglary? Will we charge for cutting people out of a train wreck or plane crash, or for decontaminating them after a terrorist attack? I do not think so. That cannot be what the Government have in mind. So what is their refusal to limit the scope of charging all about? It is clear that it is about a desire to double charge motorists and to make them pay for a service for which they pay already through their council tax. I have asked the Minister once, and I ask him again, for a categorical undertaking that, if the Government will not accept our new clause, Britain's 27 million motorists and their insurers will not be charged by the fire and rescue services for emergency attendance at road traffic accidents. Anything less than such an undertaking will leave Britain's motorists in no doubt about what the Government have in mind for them: yet another stealth tax on law-abiding, insured drivers.
Mr. Drew: Some of us on the Labour Benches thoroughly concur with some of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, so we look forward to our right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government allaying our worst fears about what could happen. Of course, there is always the difficulty that we worry more about what might happen rather than what is likely to happen. In Standing Committee, we probably spent more time on clause 19 than on any other part of the Bill, although there was only one Division, despite the fact that several amendments were discussed.
The problem for some of us is that the consultation paper is somewhat opaque. Some of us do not understand all the nuances of every last dot and comma of the Bill, and the consultation paper should have gone some way towards clarifying how the charging policy would work in practice. I may be alone, but I am not much the wiser about that, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assuage our fears about several things.
We are concerned that the proposals would make the current ad hoc arrangements worse. Currently, some fire and rescue authorities can make a charge if they feel that a person's behaviour has resulted in gratuitous waste of their time and resources. However, we need some explanation of the proposals. Given that all three emergency services spend most of their time actually dealing with emergencies, I am not clear how there can be a process that settles in advance whether an incident is such that a charge should be levied on a motorist or a person who has the misfortune to be stuck in a lift. The proposals are a recipe for disaster unless we can lay the ghost of those fears and ensure that charges would not lead to problems in the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lay the ghosts completely so that we can

65
move on. Charging must be put in its proper context—as a very small part of a much more important piece of legislation.
Richard Younger-Ross: I support much of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, but I disagree with what he said about new clause 4—we disagreed on that in Committee. He has a great future in a Treasury team because he has the ability to double count figures in the same way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does whenever there is an announcement on new Government spending—that is not meant as a compliment.
The hon. Gentleman talks about double charging as if there will be two sets of charges, but that is blatantly not the case. If there is a system of charging in specific instances, the running costs of the relevant authority are reduced. If those costs are reduced, the charge to the taxpayer is thus reduced—the taxpayer does not pay in that instance. Double charging would occur only if the money raised disappeared or were wasted, and I do not believe that that will be the case.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how far the Liberal Democrats extend that thinking? Will they introduce charging throughout such areas as the national health service and the education sector?
Richard Younger-Ross: No. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman hypothesised that there would be a great roll-out of a programme through which the Government would charge for this, that and the other, but that is not the case. In the case of road traffic accidents, one can say that someone is to blame, so charges can be recovered from whoever is at fault. There was no one who could be said to be at fault or to blame in the other cases that he mentioned. He cited an aeroplane crash, but it would be difficult to determine with whom the fault lay in such a case. If terrorists blew up a plane, it would be almost impossible to recoup costs from those individuals. However, in the specific case of a road traffic accident, it is more than possible to recoup costs.
Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman thus saying that if people smoke too much against advice, they should have to pay for their lung cancer treatment?
Richard Younger-Ross: I am not saying that, but as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, people who smoke too much sometimes find it difficult to get certain forms of treatment because doctors are reluctant to treat them.
We are considering a specific case in which someone is at fault. I understood that when the Conservative party was in power. it accepted the established principle that ambulances have always been able to charge for attending a road traffic accident. It is not unreasonable to extend the call-out charge for attending an RTA to firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to be trying to create a new category of people whom he can support, and he seems to be creating a new category of victims.
Mr. Hammond: Motorists—27 million of them.
Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, all of a sudden there is a concept that motorists are victims. Motorists sometimes
66
do get a raw deal, and most of them feel that they are victims if they get parking or speeding tickets. However, it is not unreasonable for the person who was at fault for a road traffic accident to be expected to pay a charge for an emergency service to attend.
I accept several of the concerns that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised. If a charging regime is to exist, we must be clear about what it is. Will the Minister define the limits of such a regime so that the fears—the irrational fears, I hope—that a great charging regime will suddenly exist can be laid to rest?
Mr. Hammond: What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about the increasingly large number of motorists who do not have insurance? The way in which the Government word the provisions suggests that they envisage avoiding that difficult problem by levying charges only on insurers, thus letting uninsured motorists—those who are breaking the law—get away scot-free.
Richard Younger-Ross: I accept that that is a valid point. Uninsured people should be expected to pay the charges, but a problem would arise if they were not able to afford them. We need a new system to stop people driving without insurance. I would need to talk to our transport spokesman to find out what our exact policy is on that, but other systems, such as displaying evidence of insurance in car windscreens, might be a way of dealing with the problem. It is of course wrong for people not to be insured and to get away with it, but that is not what we are debating. The hon. Gentleman cites the example of people escaping payment, but that argument is rather like saying that as some people avoid paying tax, we should not pay tax. That argument is nonsense, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Redwood: I support new clause 4, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) argued his case powerfully. I was shocked when I read the Bill and realised that it would enable the Minister or his successors to authorise charges for rescuing people caught up in terrible accidents. The mind boggles as to how that might take place. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that when the fire service arrived on the scene, there would have to be negotiation with victims on how they would pay? Would they have to show a credit card or carry cash, or would they be allowed to defer payment? Would they be able to argue over the price? Would they get a quote in advance, or would they have to pay whatever bill was sent to them and their insurers after the rescue?
My hon. Friend made a powerful point in response to an intervention that I made. I was thinking of a poor victim who desperately needed to be rescued from his or her vehicle and perhaps needed to be taken to the local hospital. Such victims would be in no condition to think through such matters and would agree to any charge that might be made thereafter. However, my hon. Friend cited the even more difficult case of a person who needed to get out of his or her vehicle, but was in no immediate pain or danger. Such people might well want to shop around and use a mobile phone to find out whether a private sector contractor could arrive in a reasonable time and do the job more cheaply. The fire service would presumably have to give them a quote, so the whole situation would become laughable.

67
I speak as someone who wants less government, lower taxes, far fewer quangos, officials and regulations, and far less intervention in daily life than currently exists under the Government. However, there must be a core of public services that we, the taxpayers, get free in return for our massive taxes. If I had to set out a shortlist—it would be a much shorter list than that which the Government produce for us against our will—of things that should be supplied free at the point of use and paid for by the enormous tax revenues that are collected, the service that we are discussing would be high up the list. I would want good defence, criminal justice and emergency services that worked when we were in need of emergency service provision. I cannot believe that a Labour Government, who raise so much money from us all and mug the motorist every day with their massive fuel taxes, licence fees, hidden taxation on motoring and congestion charges, can have the audacity to come to the House with the measure and to take it through Committee without understanding just how much people will hate the proposal and how wrong people would think it to have to pay a fee at the point of accidents such as those that I described. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) speaks up for good, honest Labour Back Benchers who are as shocked as I am to see the Minister coming before the House, without any shame on his face, to demand payment in such dreadful circumstances.
When the Minister responds to the debate, he may well argue that he does not wish to impose charges on all people in the dreadful circumstances that I described. Of course, he could point out that, under the Bill, he would have to authorise a charge before one could be imposed, but I am worried about not only the Minister, but his possible successor before the election. I am not sure who that might be if he is replaced in a reshuffle. I think that he should be promoted to the Cabinet, but he is far too competent for that. We know that competence is not valued in gaining promotion to this Government, so he may be moved sideways. The next Minister—
(Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make his remarks germane to the amendment rather than to people's promotion prospects.
6.30 pm
Mr. Redwood: I stand suitably corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The amendment addresses the charging regime. I am worried that, if we leave the Bill unamended and do not listen to the common sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, we could have a Minister who authorises charges in the awful circumstances that I described.
Richard Younger-Ross: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his statements, given that his party's policies resulted in charging people for eye and dental check-ups?
Mr. Redwood: All parties have gone along with that policy, and this Government have gone further than the
68
previous Government in privatising dentistry. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would regard that as way wide of the amendment, which relates to the idea that a Minister could impose charges in the difficult circumstances that we are discussing.
The Minister will also argue that he aims to charge insurance companies rather than the victims of the accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that the people most likely to get into accidents are those who steal cars or drive without proper licences and insurance, and they will not be covered by the proposal. That is grossly unfair, especially if the innocent victim of such an accident is on the road legally and has insurance. Would the innocent victim's insurance company end up paying for that accident and would his no-claims bonus disappear?
Mr. Hammond: Equally bad is the Government's plan to extend the levy that insurers have to pay to meet the costs of uninsured drivers to cover this scheme, imposing a still greater burden on law-abiding drivers. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will contemplate that.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to say that the burden will undoubtedly fall, as it always does, on the law-abiding decent motorist, who will pay the bill one way or another.
The Minister will know of the proposals before the European Union, which will doubtless come into effect, that will force up the price of insurance for younger women and middle-aged men, who have better driving records than others, in the false name of equality. He is asking us to approve another proposal that will sandbag and increase insurance costs for all motorists on top of the dangerous legislation that is about to come into effect that will tackle two groups that, on average tend, to drive rather better than others—something that should be reflected in their premiums. I hope that he understands just how badly motorists will view a further major increase in their premium cost, which will be a direct result of the Bill if he is foolish enough to reject my hon. Friend's excellent amendment.
Motorists have had enough of this Government. They have been sandbagged, taxed and treated extremely badly by them. This is yet another measure in that campaign. If the Minister wishes to win the votes of motorists at the election, he should back off tonight and support my hon. Friend.
John McDonnell: I take up where my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) left off and seek clarity on the document circulated by my right hon. Friend the Minister. The letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), the co-Chairman of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. includes the consultation paper on secondary legislation. Item 8 of the annexe on page 13 deals with a critical issue that will cause consternation across the country. It could make or break a Government, let alone an individual Minister. It is the issue of cats up trees.
On the rescue of animals, it is current practice in the majority of authorities for the rescue of animals to be effected free of charge. Item 8 states:
"Current practice in the majority of authorities that do charge for animal rescues"

69
is that
"some draw a distinction between domestic animals and livestock but as this is not universal practice we do not propose to include such a distinction in the Order."
So the person to be charged is the owner or keeper of the animal concerned. That introduces a charging policy for fire brigades that, altruistically and with clear commitment to animal rights and good husbandry, turn up to remove a cat from a tree. What happens if the cat does not have a collar? Do we impound the cat? If we impound it, at what point does it become dispensable—
Mr. Drew: Disposable.
John McDonnell: Indeed. When does the cat become disposable? What happens when we cannot identify who has called the fire brigade? What if there is no owner or keeper? Does the onus fall on the person who made the emergency call-out for that fire service?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. What if the cat did not need or want rescuing? The cat may not be able to explain that to the fire brigade in attendance. The owner might be traced later and he could take exception to paying to rescue a cat that was perfectly happy up a tree.
John McDonnell: The proposal clearly contradicts the new line of policy of choice developed at the Labour party spring conference over the weekend and completely contradicts the policies pursued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need clarity on the matter. It is one of the anomalies on charging policy that will cause consternation and political reaction across the land.
Mr. Raynsford: I shall try to bring us back to a calm environment after the flights of fantasy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took us into a distant land. I noted his kind remarks about my position. I am grateful for them. On the day that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has, for whatever reason, sadly resigned from the shadow Cabinet, taking a great chunk of expertise, skill and decency from that body, I suspect a touch of frustration on the part of the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he has not been offered a promotion as part of the consequent reshuffle. He must feel very unloved by his party.
Amendment No. 2 would remove the prohibition on charging for extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire. The Fire Services Act 1947 prohibits fire authorities from charging for their response to fires. We have sought to continue such a prohibition in clause 19(2). To do otherwise would be to extend significantly the scope of the charging arrangements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) intends that his amendment should be read with new clause 4, in which he seeks to extend the range of services for which a charge cannot be levied.
New clause 4 would extend the restrictions on the services for which a charge might be made. Subsection (1)(a) replicates the restriction that the Government included in the Bill when it was introduced. However,
70
subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) would also apply to road traffic accidents at which there was no incidence of fire and to a variety of other emergency situations.
The new clause would not cover the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned relating to animal welfare. We debated those in Committee, but the amendments do not cover that subject. We propose to make no change to existing arrangements under which some fire and rescue authorities make charges for animal rescue. We do not think that it is right to make arbitrary changes without full consultation and discussion. I assure him that we are essentially preserving the status quo.
With the passage of time, from the position that existed under the 1947 Act, the fire and rescue service has acquired a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with the effects of road traffic accidents, even though there has been no obligation on the service to render rescue assistance. We have introduced a new duty for the service to respond to such incidents in clause 8, recognising the reality and putting on a proper statutory footing the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service.
At the same time, we have recognised that fire authorities already have a power to charge for dealing with the non-fire assistance rendered at such an incident, although to the best of our knowledge they have not made use of it. The order-making provision in clause 19 will allow us to ensure that there is no move towards charging for road traffic accidents or other incidents without further detailed consultation, while preserving the principle of being able to charge for such incidents if it is appropriate. That is entirely consistent with my explanation that we are simply preserving the status quo.
It is pure scaremongering on the part of the Opposition to imply that we intend to sting motorists. We have no such intention. As I have emphasised, we are simply preserving the status quo. What we will not do is rule out any arrangements similar to those operated by ambulance trusts to recover some costs in some circumstances—generally, of course, from insurers. That policy might come forward as a result of further consideration. We certainly would not want to rule it out if there were strong, sensible reasons for adopting it. We have no plans to do so; it is not part of our agenda, but we will not rule out arrangements that might command support in the wider fire community.
I am not clear why the Opposition believe that, in all cases, including those where there is clear fault, the cost of dealing with such incidents should always be borne by the taxpayer rather than the responsible party. That is a recipe for increasing the costs to be met by council tax payers. People thinking about factors behind rising council tax will draw conclusions from the Opposition's stance on the issue. Conservatives Members may complain about council tax levels, but in trying to make it impossible for fire and rescue services to recover the costs of certain incidents, some of which I shall explore in a moment, they are essentially proposing the transfer of costs in some circumstances from the polluters, insurers or parties responsible for those costs to the general taxpayer. I should not have thought that such a principle would be easy for Conservatives to defend in the wider debate about keeping down council tax. I look forward to engaging with them in that debate.

71
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may claim that we are proposing changes that could result in considerable increases in insurance premiums for 27 million motorists, but I must tell him, as I did in Committee, that Transport 2000 has estimated that the impact on the average premium of arrangements to mirror those operated by the NHS would be around £3 a year. He is really wide of the mark in scaremongering on that.
The recent Select Committee report on the fire service noted the potential for authorities to recover from compensators the costs of dealing with traffic accidents in a manner similar to that in the NHS. We believe that further work is needed on how any such scheme might operate for the fire and rescue service, and on the impact that it would have on authorities, the insurance industry and the public. Those further investigations should be conducted before any proposal is made, let alone introduced. In the light of that, we do not think that it would be appropriate to close off the possibility of charging, as countenanced in new clause 4. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) the reassurance that he is seeking. We certainly have no plans to extend charging for services delivered by fire and rescue authorities, but we are aware that some authorities currently levy charges for certain activities and we are certainly not going to cut off those options arbitrarily, as the new clause proposes.
We are equally aware that some fire and rescue authorities have given thought to when they might wish to charge for various activities. The independent report on the fire service—the Bain report—gave some impetus to that thinking. Any such proposal should be very carefully evaluated from an operational and a financial point of view, and we should consider taking it forward only if its introduction could be carried through without in any way compromising public safety. Public safety will always remain our absolute priority and the overriding consideration. Nevertheless, we certainly would not want to close off options entirely.
Mr. Drew: I am largely reassured, but let me give the Minister one example of how we could get into difficulty. On nice summer afternoons, at the many fêtes and bazaars that we all attend and open, there is often a fire engine, which is usually popular with children. We will surely never get into the realms of charging for the presence of such appliances, which is often the most effective education about the fire service. That is the danger if we consider charging for things that are not deemed emergencies. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?
Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that we would want fire and rescue authorities to continue precisely such activities free of charge for public education purposes, but my hon. Friend will know that fire and rescue services might be asked to provide water-pumping facilities for some commercial activity, for which it is entirely reasonable to recover a charge. We would not want to rule that out. If authorities are not promoting public safety but providing a useful ancillary service, recovering costs would be entirely proper and reasonable.
72
6.45 pm
I put it to the non. member tor Runnymede and Weybridge that the range of incidents that may fall within the provisions of clause 9 is not confined simply to the new terrorist threat. It can include major incidents of flooding or damage caused by accidental or negligent discharge by a company of a large volume of harmful chemicals. New clause (1)(c) would exclude such incidents from the scope of charging. Is it right that a major commercial undertaking that is responsible for massive pollution and consequent disruption should escape any possibility of being charged for the work of the fire and rescue service in dealing with such an incident? What message would such a prohibition on cost recovery give to potential polluters and to council tax payers? Is the hon. Gentleman so confident that, as he said, it is unthinkable for charges to be levied in such circumstances? If so, would the Opposition spokesman for environmental protection agree?
The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the possibility of charging in an emergency. There is absolutely no intention of charging to extract payment before taking emergency action to save life or prevent serious harm. On the possibility raised by the hon. Gentleman that, owing to the Government amendment, a road traffic accident victim would hope that the fire service would attend first, neither the fire and rescue service nor the ambulance service charges for medical assistance. The ambulance service charges for conveyance to hospital. That is its appropriate role, and not one for the fire and rescue service.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister write that assurance into the Bill so that all can see that authorities will never charge in such circumstances?
Mr. Raynsford: That assurance has been given on the Floor of the House and previously, and will remain the case. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as he referred to it, that the Bill contains powers under which the Secretary of State must authorise any extension of charging, so if there were any question of varying from that principle, we would be open immediately to scrutiny of whether we were upholding it.
I understand that Conservative Members may fear that every person unfortunate enough to suffer a tidal surge may find themselves confronted with a bill for pumping out, but in many cases such people will have building and contents insurance. If it is felt appropriate to charge for such activity, clause 19(3) might be used to allow authorities to recover from insurers the costs of responding to flooding incidents.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister is talking about pumping out. Is he giving a categorical assurance that the powers will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from flooded buildings?
Mr. Raynsford: Yes.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give a similar categorical assurance that the provisions will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from cars after a road accident?
Mr. Raynsford: I have already made that absolutely clear and I am happy to do so again. As I have

73
repeatedly said, all that we are doing is preserving the status quo under which, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has studied the matter carefully, the 1947 Act, which prohibits charges, applies only to the extinguishment of fires. As he rightly pointed out, there is scope for charging for other services. In general, fire and rescue authorities have not levied charges—some have for certain activities—and we are not intending to cut across those arrangements. We are implementing a framework that will ensure that, if there are to be charges for any service, they should be determined by the Secretary of State and subject to the Secretary of State's agreement by order, which can be considered by this House. That is the proper and necessary safeguard.
Mr. Hammondrose—
Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me and to listen. It has always been our intention that there should be no question of charging for rescuing people from road traffic accidents or, indeed, from life-threatening situations, including flooding.
New clause 4(2) is designed to ensure that fire and rescue authorities are not empowered to charge for providing emergency medical assistance where there is no corresponding power for an NHS ambulance trust to impose such a charge. I agree with the sentiment behind the provision. In Committee, I offered to table an amendment to that effect if the hon. Gentleman would accept that there were situations in which it was right for fire authorities to levy charges. He declined my offer. I think that he is wrong, but I have tabled the amendment none the less and in terms that offer greater reassurance to the public than would his own, which I ask him to withdraw.
Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 correct an omission from the Bill. The 1947 Act was amended, with effect from September 2003, to allow fire and rescue authorities to charge for firefighting activities at sea. The power of an authority to respond to such a request for assistance had been introduced under the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. The 1947 Act as originally enacted did not allow for a charge to be made for any firefighting purpose, but nor did it enable an authority to use its resources to assist in dealing with a fire offshore. There was considerable concern among salvage operators that such a power should exist and they and marine insurers were content to bear the cost. It is not surprising that they should prefer to pay for a service that an authority was not obliged to provide than risk the total loss of a vessel. It is right that the Bill should contain a similar provision and that the cost of such an intervention should not be expected to fall on the budget of an authority as a normal expense.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the channel tunnel. As I pointed out in Committee, the tunnel is in the happy position of being notionally part of Kent for firefighting purposes—it is not treated as a place under the sea. The Government amendment makes no change to that conceptually difficult position.
Government amendment No. 12 also fulfils an offer made in Committee and goes further than the amendment tabled there by the hon. Gentleman. It
74
prohibits charging for any emergency medical assistance and requires no linkage to NHS arrangements. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Mr. Hammond: I have sought to protect the interests of 27 million motorists in Britain, but must admit that I have been clearly trumped by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) defending the interests of animal lovers in Britain. God knows how many millions of those there are—certainly more than there are motorists.
I am not entirely clear about what the Minister just said. I sought a commitment that the powers under clause 19 would never be used to authorise charging for the discharge in an emergency of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that in the last few minutes of his speech. If he can now confirm that he will never, in any circumstances, use clause 19 to authorise charging in an emergency for the discharge of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Raynsford: No, I cannot do so. As I clearly explained, we can envisage emergencies, such as pollution incidents, arising in circumstances in which we believe it would be entirely appropriate to charge. My point, which I repeat, is that we do not in any circumstances envisage fire and rescue services failing to take action to rescue someone in an emergency, such as road traffic accident or flooding, simply because a charging regime has been introduced. That is unthinkable. The services will rescue people immediately—that will be their primary priority. If there were a charging regime, that would come into effect afterward, but it would certainly not affect the decision on whether to effect a rescue.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister has clearly been called to order by voices off. That is not what he said a few minutes ago, when I understood him to have given us the reassurance that we sought—that there would never be charges for emergency intervention. If he is saying only that the services will not ask for a credit card before carrying out the rescue, that is wholly inadequate.
On behalf of this country's 27 million motorists and all those who live in low-lying areas and have to worry about flooding, we seek an assurance that they will not be charged for the discharge in an emergency of the statutory functions of fire and rescue authorities. The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that it is difficult to square our insistence that emergency services be provided free with concerns about increasing council tax. I say to him that I suspect that most of our constituents would put emergency response in such situations very high on the list of things that they feel should be provided free of charge by a public service.
The Opposition believe that it is fundamentally wrong to introduce any possibility of charging for emergency response in the discharge of a statutory function. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause and to protect motorists throughout the country.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 317.

Division No.87]

[6.57 am

AYES

Amess, David

Lidington, David

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Lilley, rh Peter

Bacon, Richard

Llwyd, Elfyn

Barker, Gregory

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Beresford, Sir Paul

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Blunt, Crispin

Mackay, rh Andrew

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Maclean, rh David

Brady, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

Maples, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Maude, rh Francis

Burns, Simon

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Burnside, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Butterfill, Sir John

Mercer, Patrick

Cash, William

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Moss, Malcolm

Chope, Christopher

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Norman, Archie

Collins, Tim

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Conway, Derek

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Ottaway, Richard

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Pickles, Eric

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Randall, John

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Redwood, rh John

Fallon, Michael

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rosindell, Andrew

Flight, Howard

Ruffley, David

Flook, Adrian

Selous, Andrew

Forth, rh Eric

Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

Fox, Dr. Liam

Shepherd, Richard

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Simmonds, Mark

Garnier, Edward

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Goodman, Paul

Spring, Richard

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Steen, Anthony

Greenway, John

Streeter, Gary

Grieve, Dominic

Swayne, Desmond

Hammond, Philip

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Hawkins, Nick

Syms, Robert

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Hendry, Charles

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Tredinnick, David

Horam, John(Orpington)

Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Howard, rh Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Viggers, Peter

Jack, rh Michael

Walter, Robert

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Waterson, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard

Watkinson, Angela

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Whittingdale, John

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wiggin, Bill

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wilshire, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Lansley, Andrew

Young. rh Sir George

Leigh, Edward

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Hugh Robertson and

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Mr. Mark Francois

76

NOES

Alexander, Douglas

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Allan, Richard

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Allen, Graham

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Darling, rh Alistair

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Atkins, Charlotte

David, Wayne

Baird, Vera

Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

Baker, Norman

Dawson, Hilton

Banks, Tony

Dean, Mrs Janet

Barnes, Harry

Denham, rh John

Battle, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bayley, Hugh

Dismore, Andrew

Beard, Nigel

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Dobson, rh Frank

Bell, Sir Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H.

Benn, rh Hilary

Doran, Frank

Bennett, Andrew

Doughty, Sue

Best, Harold

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Betts, Clive

Drew, David(Stroud)

Blackman, Liz

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Blears, Ms Hazel

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Blizzard, Bob

Edwards, Huw

Borrow, David

Efford, Clive

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradshaw, Ben

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Breed, Colin

Etherington, Bill

Brennan, Kevin

Farrelly, Paul

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

Fisher, Mark

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Browne, Desmond

Follett, Barbara

Bryant, Chris

Foster, rh Derek

Buck, Ms Karen

Foster, Don(Bath)

Burnett, John

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

Burnham, Andy

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

Burstow, Paul

Byers, rh Stephen

Foulkes, rh George

Caborn, rh Richard

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Cairns, David

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gidley, Sandra

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Gilroy, Linda

Caplin, Ivor

Godsiff, Roger

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Caton, Martin

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Chidgey, David

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Grogan, John

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Hancock, Mike

Clarke, rh Torn(Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hanson, David

Harvey, Nick

Clelland, David

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Coleman, lain

Healey, John

Colman, Tony

Heath, David

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Hepburn, Stephen

Cooper, Yvette

Heppell, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hesford, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heyes, David

Cotter, Brian

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Cousins, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

Crausby, David

Holmes, Paul

Cruddas, Jon

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

Hopkins, Kelvin

77

Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Michael, rh Alun

Miliband, David

Howells, Dr. Kim

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

Moffatt, Laura

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Mole, Chris

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moran, Margaret

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Morley, Elliot

Hutton, rh John

Mountford, Kali

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Mullin, Chris

Illsley, Eric

Munn, Ms Meg

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Jamieson, David

Olner, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Opik, Lembit

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Organ, Diana

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Owen, Albert

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

Plaskitt, James

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pollard, Kerry

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Kemp, Fraser

Khabra, Piara S.

Prescott, rh John

Kidney, David

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Prosser, Gwyn

King, Andy(Rugby)

Purchase, Ken

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Purnell, James

Quinn, Lawrie

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Lamb, Norman

Lammy, David

Rendel, David

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lazarowicz, Mark

Rooney, Terry

Lepper, David

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Leslie, Christopher

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Ruane, Chris

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Linton, Martin

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

McCabe, Stephen

Salter, Martin

McCartney, rh Ian

Sanders, Adrian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sawford, Phil

McDonnell, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McFall, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McIsaac, Shona

Sheerman, Barry

McKenna, Rosemary

Short, rh Clare

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simon, Si&#x00F4;n(B'ham Erdington)

McNulty, Tony

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Singh, Marsha

McWalter, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Martlew, Eric

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Meacher, rh Michael

Stringer, Graham

Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Merron, Gillian

Stunell, Andrew

78

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Watts, David

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

White, Brian

Teather, Sarah

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Wicks, Malcolm

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Tipping, Paddy

Wills, Phil

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Wills, Michael

Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

Winnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Truswell, Paul

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Worthington, Tony

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Wyatt, Derek

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Wareing, Robert N.

Vernon Coaker

Question accordingly negatived.

REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the coming into force of any part of this Act:

commission an independent study to establish the optimum geographical areas within England for the organisation of fire and rescue services; and

commission an independent study of the impact of any existing regional management structures on:

operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services, and

cost-effectiveness of fire and rescue services, and

management capability of fire and rescue authorities.

Upon receipt of the reports of the studies referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall cause those reports to be published.&#x2014;[Mr. Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Limitation on power of Secretary of State to appoint members of a combined fire and rescue authority&#x2014

Where a scheme made under section 2 provides for members of a combined fire and rescue authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State the provisions of this section shall apply.

Before making an appointment to a combined fire and rescue authority the Secretary of State shall invite each of the existing authorities with power to appoint members to the combined fire and rescue authority to submit to him a list of nominees for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists of nominees received those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority unless there are an insufficient number of persons on the lists appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitable for appointment.

79

If the Secretary of State considers that there are an insufficient number of suitable persons on the lists to make all the necessary appointments he shall advise each of the existing authorities of his reasons for considering each of their unsuccessful nominees as unsuitable for appointment and shall indicate the qualities, experience and other relevant factors required for appointment by the Secretary of State in the particular case.

Each of the existing authorities shall then be invited to submit a further list of nominees fulfilling the criteria set down in accordance with subsection (4) by the Secretary of State.

Upon receipt of the further lists referred to in subsection (5) the Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority.

If there are insufficient numbers of persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitably qualified for appointment on the lists submitted, the Secretary of State may appoint such other persons as he considers suitable to fill any remaining vacancy.

On the occurrance of any casual vacancy for membership of a fire and rescue authority which falls under the terms of the scheme to be filled by an appointment by the Secretary of State the procedure set out in subsections (2) to (7) shall apply.

Amendment No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, after 'Act', insert
'that one or more fire and rescue authorities are failing to discharge their duties and this Act and
Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 16, leave out from "area' to end of line 18.

Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 17, leave out from "constitutes' to end of line 18 and insert
'an area identified by the study published by the Secretary of State in accordance with section [regional management structures] as an optimum geographical area for the organisation of fire and rescue services.
Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

that a draft scheme has been submitted to him by two or more existing authorities and it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area.

Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Amendment No. 23, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out 'half' and insert 'one third
Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11.
Mr. Hammond: This wide-ranging group of amendments deals with combined fire authorities and much more besides. New clause 5 is drawn widely and touches on all fire authorities in England with the exception of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It addresses the compulsory and arbitrary regionalisation of fire and rescue services on the basis of the existing regional development agency or Government office regions. The Select Committee looked at the Government's proposals on regionalisation and said in paragraph 81 of its report:
"The draft Framework emphasises the importance of local solutions to local needs, and highlights that there is no national blueprint. Yet Fire Services and Authorities appear to have no choice about adopting a regional approach."
80
We have always accepted that there is a case for harvesting the efficiencies of co-operation by doing certain things at supra-brigade level, but that must be a bottom-up process that starts with individual fire authorities collaborating together, not a top-down process in which the Secretary of State directs fire authorities to work in certain ways. It must be driven, not by the Secretary of State's demands but by the accountability of fire and rescue authorities to local taxpayers and by their best-value obligations. That is already happening, but not necessarily on the geographical boundaries that Ministers seek.
We accept the case for common procurement to ensure interoperability and the need to co-ordinate the response to non-conventional threats at a higher level than that of the individual brigade. None of those arguments, however, points to the Government-dictated organisation of fire and rescue services along the geographical lines of Government office regions. Fire and rescue services are a local government function and, under modernisation, are charged with becoming more of a community service. They must be managed and run closer to, not further away, from the local community that they serve. We must never forget that even in the environment in which, sadly, we now find ourselves, at least 90 per cent. of a fire and rescue authority's work will continue to be performing community-based traditional roles as well as the new, important role of fire prevention and education.
The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to establish the benefit to public safety of choosing the structure of existing Government office regions as the basis for imposing regional management boards, the use of those regions as the basis for the combined fire authorities of the future or, indeed, the reduction of the 49 existing control rooms to just nine in England. The Select Committee report, with which the Minister will be familiar, makes that clear at paragraph 79, which states:
"The key argument in the White Paper for a regional approach appears to be cost efficiency".
It goes on to say at paragraph 80:
"The White Paper does not explain how a regional approach would improve public safety, and help Government achieve its Service Delivery Agreement targets. Nor does it provide evidence that a regional approach would reduce bureaucratic overheads."
We need convincing evidence that the regions chosen by the Government are the optimum regions for fire and rescue purposes and will not merely reduce costs but meet the Government's avowed criterion of improving public safety.
7.15 pm
The report on control rooms does not look at the possibility of any other configuration of those rooms. If a control room can handle adequately the entire southeast of England, with a population of 8 million, why has the Minister not considered combining the north-east region with Yorkshire and the Humber to create a region with a population of about 7.5 million? The Government have not explained why is it right and appropriate to have one control room in the north-east region with a population of 2.5 million spread over

81
8,000 sq km, and one control room in the south-east region with a population of 8 million spread over 19,500 sq km?
Resilience, which the Minister often talks about, will be achieved by common equipment and operating standards. The reduction of 49 control rooms to nine is about saving costs. There is nothing wrong with saving costs—I am not suggesting for a moment that that is not a good objective—but it is not the Secretary of State's role to deal with such matters in a locally based, locally accountable service. He should deal with resilience, but economy of operation should be dealt with under the best-value arrangements and through the accountability of democratically elected fire and rescue authorities to their local electorates. The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister has been scratching around to try to find some powers for his pet regional tier to counter the repeated accusation that it is a hollow promise or empty box. The fire and rescue services are being regionalised by stealth through the regional management boards, the inevitable withering of the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities and by the regional fire authorities that the Secretary of State will impose on any region that elects to have a regional assembly in a referendum. Incidentally, that demonstrates the untruth of the Government's repeated statement that any extra powers given to elected regional assemblies will be handed down from central Government, not drawn up from local government. Those extra powers will clearly come from a diminution of local government power and responsibility.
It is not appropriate to organise a vital, front-line emergency service around the political whim of a politician. We will never accept that public safety should be subordinated to the Government's regional agenda through the imposition of a sub-optimal regional structure. I emphasise again that we object not to the introduction of a supra-brigade level for certain purposes but to the transparently political use of existing Government office regions—[Interruption.] The Minister says that it is a lot of nonsense, but he has not produced a shred of evidence to support the argument that those are the optimum regions for the operational delivery of fire and rescue services.
Mr. Raynsford: I repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman in Committee—I am surprised that he did not hear—that in each of the Government office regions we have regional resilience forums, which ensure that we have the best possible resilience to cope with terrorist threats and other emergencies. How can he possibly suggest that it does not make strong operational sense to align the boundaries of the fire and rescue services' work in that regard with those of the regional resilience forums?
Mr. Hammond: What the Minister is seeking to do is reorganise the work of fire and rescue authorities, 90 per cent.-plus of which will be carrying out the community-based role that they have to perform along Government office region lines. He has never sought to evaluate—I stand to be corrected if he can produce some evidence, but I have never seen it—the most appropriate geographical arrangements for the delivery of a supra-brigade level.
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper, he would know that we spelled out very
82
clearly a definition of what responsibilities needed to be discharged at a national level, a regional level and a local level, including the community fire safety work. That underpins our proposals.
Mr. Hammond: That is very interesting, but it does not answer the accusation that the regions that have been selected for political purposes are self-evidently not the most appropriate ones for the delivery of fire and rescue services.
Mr. Raynsford rose—
Mr. Hammond: If the Minister wishes to intervene again, perhaps he will explain why the most appropriate unit for organisation of the fire and rescue service in the north-east has a population of 2.5 million spread over 8,000 sq km, while in the south-west, it is a unit with a geographical extent of 23,000 sq km, and in the southeast, it is a unit with a population of 8 million.
Mr. Raynsford: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that it is because it is essential for operational needs that there is clear contiguity between the regional resilience forums and the fire and rescue service. That is very much about public safety. Will he now please withdraw the entirely unjustified allegation that this is a political arrangement? It is not such an arrangement because it is about public safety and the best arrangements that we can make to guarantee us against the risk of terrorism and other serious incidents.
Mr. Hammond: I do not remember the Minister rushing to the Dispatch Box to withdraw the inappropriate accusation that he made against me earlier in the debate, and I did not press the point at the time. I shall not withdraw my concern that one of the driving forces for the Government in taking this route and using the organisational units is that that approach fits extremely well with another important political initiative by the Department—the promotion of the regional structure in Britain.
If the Minister were to commission from Mott MacDonald or whoever else an independent report of the sort suggested by new clause 5, asking what the optimal sub-national organisation of England would be—we are now talking only about England—for operational fire and rescue purposes, it is theoretically possible that the answer would be a structure of 8,000 sq km in the north-east and 23,000 sq km in the south-west, with 2.5 million people in the north-east and 8 million people in the south-east. However, I very much doubt that that would happen, as it flies in the face of all intuition and logic. In the absence of such a report, I am deeply sceptical. That is why new clause 5 seeks to require that an independent study be carried out on the optimal organisational units for fire and rescue purposes. If those units are the Government office regions, fine, but I am prepared to bet that an independent report would find otherwise.
The new clause would also require an independent study to be carried out on the impact of the existing regional structure. That will be a structure of regional management boards and any regional combined fire authorities that the Minister has created at the time when the study is conducted. That is the best that we can

83
do within the structure of the Bill, as the regional management boards are not created by the provisions, but are part of the national framework document.
If the proposed reports were carried out, they would show whether there is a better way of organising supra-brigade level activity and whether the Government office regions structure is really a cost-effective way of organising fire and rescue services, as well as what impact it is having on fire and rescue authority management capability, which appears likely inevitably to wither as a result of the transfer of responsibilities up to regional management boards.
That process would be entirely objective. If the Minister is confident that the best interests of public safety are served by the Government office regions and that they are the best and most appropriate units of organisation, he has nothing to fear in accepting the new clause and commissioning an independent report, so that we can all see some independent underpinning of the Government's position and some basis for his repeated assertion, which flies in the face of intuition, that this structure of organisation has not been adopted because it ties in with the ODPM's other agenda of regional government. The public would then be able to see for themselves whether the structure is designed primarily to enhance public safety rather than to advance the Deputy Prime Minister's regional agenda.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 14 address another frankly outrageous or preposterous—I shall put it that way, as that is the Minister's favourite word—provision: clause 2(2)(b). That provision allows the Secretary of State to create new combined fire and rescue authorities if efficiency, effectiveness and economy demand that he does so. That is fine, but it is not the case if the combined fire and rescue authority that he wishes to create is one whose boundaries coincide with those of a regional development agency region. In that case, he does not have to demonstrate that creating the authority will be in the interests of efficiency, effectiveness and economy; he can proceed with no hurdles and no best value criteria to be met. That seems a scandalous misuse of public responsibility, and amendment No. 3 would allow a combined fire authority for a region to be created without hurdles only if it was for a region identified in the report that would be required under new clause 5 as an optimum region—a region that, by definition, is the most appropriate one for the delivery of fire and rescue services.
If the Government reject new clause 5, amendment No. 14 offers an alternative route, as it seeks to delete all together the special treatment for a regional combined fire authority and to make all new combined fire authorities subject to the criteria set out in clause 2(2)(a).
New clause 9 addresses a different issue. It seeks to limit one of the extraordinary powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. The power to create a combined fire and rescue authority mirrors the power under the 1947 Act to create a combined fire authority, but the power to appoint 50 per cent. of the members of that authority, minus one, is new. While protesting that fire and rescue remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure, but displaying their usual centralising instinct by taking draconian powers to appoint the members. Deployment of the power will
84
fundamentally alter the nature of democratic accountability in these local services. If the Secretary of State can deploy the power to appoint 49 per cent. of members, the political balance in a combined fire authority, which might be an elected regional assembly area fire authority, will always be capable of being overturned by the Secretary of State's appointments. That seems a step too far in what is still supposed to be a democratically accountable service.
The Secretary of State will say that he needs the power to appoint as a reserve power in case fire and rescue authorities do not nominate people of what he considers high enough calibre.
Mr. Raynsford: Yes.
Mr. Hammond: Well, that is a hit of an arrogance. These are democratically elected local authorities.
7.30 pm
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose work the hon. Gentleman so frequently quotes, made very early the point that the calibre of members appointed to fire and rescue authorities was not always of the highest. Does he recognise that there may be some truth in that, and that if there is a problem, it is appropriate to think about how the calibre of fire authorities could be enhanced?
Mr. Hammond: The Minister puts his point in very reasonable terms, and if he listens, he will see that I recognise the possibility of his needing the reserve power. That does not alter the preposterousness of suggesting that whenever the electorate choose badly Ministers can intervene. Where will it end? If people choose duff councillors, does he want to be able to intervene and replace them? That is the clear implication. What about duff MPs? Those are not unknown. Does he want to intervene and appoint new Members of Parliament?
The Minister quoted the Select Committee Chairman on Second Reading and in Committee and said that he thought there was a problem, and I aired those concerns at the recent LGA fire conference—they did not go down very well with the local government members there.
New clause 9 sets out a procedure to ensure that any Secretary of State appointment is only a last resort, when no appropriate nominees are offered by the appointing authority. We may have an objection in principle to such a power of appointment, but the new clause is drafted in a spirit of compromise, recognising the argument that reserve powers may be needed. Combined fire authority members are appointed by the authorities that would be fire authorities if not for the existence of the combined fire authority. Under the new clause, in circumstances in which the scheme gives the Secretary of State powers to appoint, he has to exercise them by taking names from lists submitted to him by those underlying authorities. Furthermore, if he does not believe that there are sufficient suitable people on the list, he can specify reasons for rejecting any of the nominees and ask the authorities to submit a further list, reflecting criteria that he has set down in his rejection.

85
I honestly do not think that I could have been more accommodating in wording new clause 9. Only if the second set of lists that the Secretary of State receives from the appointing authorities contains insufficient numbers of what he believes to be suitable candidates can he use the reserve power to appoint someone who is not on a list. That introduces some objectivity, local input and transparency to the process, because he has to account for his rejections. As rejection can he made only on grounds of suitability, there is scope for a challenge to his decisions.
The Minister is no doubt preparing a defence that this is all impossibly complex and will take too long, but there is a good analogy with the arrangements in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, under which the Secretary of State selects a shortlist from a longlist submitted to him by local bodies, and then refers that shortlist back to the police authority to make the final appointment: a three-stage process that has not proved impossibly cumbersome but ensures proper interaction between the powers of the Secretary of State and the important role of local stakeholders.
The Minister has made it clear that if an elected regional assembly is set up in any region, he will appoint a combined fire authority for that region. I understood him to intend that it would be members of the elected regional assembly who would effectively make up the combined fire authority, but clause 3(3)(a) refers only to
"the appointment of members by the existing authorities"&#x2014;
that is, the existing fire and rescue authorities as defined in clause 1—
"or by the Secretary of State".
There is no reference to elected regional assemblies having the power to appoint. Will he clarify the mechanics? I hope that the idea is not that the Secretary of State will simply make the appointments on some informal consultation.
Government amendments Nos. 7 to 11 give effect to a concession that the Minister made in Committee. They impose a requirement for an inquiry prior to the creation of a new combined fire authority or the variation or revocation of an existing authority established under the 1947 Act, except where the underlying authorities are all in agreement, or the combined authority is created as a result of local government reorganisation, or the Minister considers that the need for reorganisation is urgent.
Of course we accept that things can be urgent and that circumstances can change quickly, but it is difficult to envisage a situation in which public safety would require a management restructuring without delay. The Secretary of State has many powers under the Bill to intervene in an emergency or where an authority is failing. He can direct them to do or not do things, to share equipment and to take responsibility for each other's functions. It is almost inconceivable that in a real emergency the solution would be to alter the management structure and change the shape of the authority. That cannot be done overnight, and frankly a new fire authority cannot be instantly effective just because a Minister says that it should be.
86
Does the Minister have examples that support the need for that final exemption from the requirement for a public inquiry? I should say, however, not to be churlish, that this concession is worth noting as one of the few positive changes that the Government have been prepared to accept, and we are grateful for what we consider a significant additional protection.
Amendment No. 21 would introduce a test of failure by a fire and rescue authority before the Secretary of State can create a combined authority. With the exception of the circumstances of local government reorganisation, which is a pretty big exception, I agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) is seeking to do through that amendment. 1 also agree that there is no such requirement in the Bill. However, the amendment does not address the fact that most if not all combined authorities to date have been created as a result of local government reorganisation, which clearly should be recognised.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a difference between failing in discharging statutory functions and the Secretary of State perceiving that there may be additional things that could be done differently or something that he does not like about how the authority operates. It is a difference of degree, and intervention by the Secretary of State is appropriate in the one case but not in the other. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 22 sets out the voluntary route to a combined fire authority. Let me put a difficult case to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. If an elected regional assembly were established in any of the English regions, some fire authorities in the region might try to create a combined authority as an alternative to a regional combined fire and rescue authority. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to such an initiative? Would he support it in the interests of localism or abandon Liberal Democrat principles of many years to support the party's more recent desire to snuggle up to the Government as they promote their regional agenda? Does he support local authorities' right to retain their independence if they choose to do that? Amendment No. 22 could be used to achieve that.
I hope that amendment No. 23 is not an attempt at compromise. If it is wrong for the Secretary of State to appoint half the members of an authority, it is wrong for the Secretary of State to appoint a third. Since I am feeling charitable, I shall interpret amendment No. 23 as being complementary to and not a substitute for new clause 9 so that when all its safety-net provisions were accepted, the hon. Gentleman would still like the Secretary of State to be limited to appointing a third of the members of a new combined fire authority. I hope that that interpretation is correct. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reassure hon. Members about that.
Richard Younger-Ross: First, let me emphasise that Liberal Democrats have a clear commitment to the regions. That is why we tabled an amendment in Committee to give broader powers to an elected regional assembly. We would give the powers for fire services to such an assembly. The Bill makes such provision for Wales but, sadly, the Government and Conservative Members decided to reject a measure to devolve power

87
from the centre to the regions in England. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out earlier, there is a tendency to take powers up to regional level rather than from the top down.
Mr. Hammond: We could not support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled in Committee partly because it would have given each region a responsibility for preparing a national framework.
Richard Younger-Ross: It dealt with a regional framework, but there may have been glitches in the parliamentary language. The hon. Gentleman was always quick to point out that the Government have far more resources to spend on drafting than Conservative Members do. I never complained in Committee about our lack of resources or the Short money that the Conservative party receives to help it. I simply stress that it is important that powers come downwards and do not necessarily go upwards.
In the context of new clause 5, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made some extremely good points about existing boundaries. The points that the Minister made in his interventions were not especially strong. Existing boundaries were established for entirely different purposes. Their use for constructing regional assemblies is a mistake. I shall not repeat previous arguments about the great variety of area sizes and populations.
When preparing for the Bill, I visited several fire authorities. One of the control centres emphasised to me why a single control room for a region the size of the south-west would be inappropriate. In one control room, a tape was played of a small boy who dialled 999 to say that he could smell smoke. His mother was asleep upstairs on the bed with the baby.
7.45 pm
The controller asked the child where he lived. He could give the house name and the street name, but not the name of the town. The controller spent approximately 15 minutes talking matters through with the child. When the child named his school, the control room was able eventually to determine where the town was. It would be far harder for a single regional control room to work out such detail—not street names or the location of the chippie, as we discussed in Committee, but basic knowledge about where schools are—and thus identify the location of the incident. In the case that I mentioned, the child, the mother and the baby were all saved. I am not sure that that would have happened if there had been a regional control room.
Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I have had to be absent from the Chamber for a little while, for which I apologise.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. When I visited the Devon fire rescue services centre, which he has visited often, I was impressed by its ability not only to locate a fire but to determine the equipment that was required to deal with it. For example, a specific number of vehicles and personnel would be sent to a burning
88
timber yard. Of course, information is held on a computer, but local knowledge is also built up over many years. Anything that undermines that will disadvantage both the service and local people.
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point well and I do not need to add to it. Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members accept that there does not necessarily have to be one control room to one authority, as currently happens. We accept that there might be some efficiency savings in combining some control rooms. However, the boundaries that the Government propose are fundamentally flawed. The Minister argued that there is currently a resilient regional network. That is a strong argument, but, if it is so strong, why will not he allow it to be tested? New clause 5 calls for a review—it states not that the boundaries should be changed but that they should be reviewed. If the review found that the Minister was correct, we would have to say, "Fair enough." However, he insists on forcing through inappropriate boundaries.
Let us consider amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his broad support and I shall answer his questions. The Bill causes concern to the general public and especially those in the fire services because it states that
"it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area".
People outside the Chamber may read into the phrase,
"greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness"
simply economy savings. Those conditions are not strong enough to force authorities to combine. An authority should be forced to combine only if it is negligent or failing. Amendment No. 21 would ensure that authorities that function well could continue to provide the service that the public require. Only if they are failing will the Minister be able to cast them aside and force them to combine.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about reorganisation. In my haste to redraft clause 2, I assumed that, under clause 22, a combined authority would follow a voluntary request, as long as there had been a reorganisation. Perhaps something should have been added, but I think that clause 22 would cover the situation.
Clause 23 is complementary to new clause 9 rather than being an alternative. I think that new clause 9 has failings, but they are minor and not worth discussing in detail. The principles are broadly right.
The proposal in amendment No. 23 for "one third" rather than "half" is intended simply to limit the Secretary of State's powers. Let us suppose that he has decided to combine the authorities, and to appoint up to 49 per cent. of members. How easy would it be for those so appointed to find one person elected from the authorities to take their side? I suspect that it would not be very difficult—and if they could do it, in effect the Government would control the committee. Reducing the Secretary of State's say to a third would allow the Government to have a say, but would prevent them

89
from controlling the authority. Local authorities must be trusted; if we cannot trust them, there is no point in having them. Democracy relies on that trust.
As for Government amendments 7 to 11, I too am thankful that there was something on which the Government were prepared to concede, and I am glad that it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, supported by the Conservatives. I am not sure whether they proposed the same amendment and it went in after ours, or whether they added their names to ours, but the fact remains that the need for change was accepted in principle.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a very good point about the meaning of the word "urgent". I need to do some things urgently, but some things need to be done more urgently than others. The definition of the word "urgent" is like a piece of elastic. The Minister must tell us in what circumstances he would need an urgent management arrangement. Management reorganisation, by its very nature, takes time. I am not certain that urgency is required in this case. We will not be churlish, though. We are thankful for the concessions that have been made, although they may be small pickings.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am going to be parochial, and talk about control rooms or call centres rather than the more general subject of regionalisation. Although the Bill does not refer to control rooms in depth, they are a constituency issue.
In some ways, Gloucestershire has been penalised for being somewhat ahead of the game. Not so many years ago, the thinking tended towards tri-service rather than regional arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know how difficult it was to get an arrangement up and running in Gloucestershire involving three services in one building, control rooms working together, and a level of integration that has not been achieved elsewhere in the country. I gather that as recently as last week there was an attempt to integrate the three services in Wiltshire, but so far it has not proved possible to integrate the fire service with the other two. In our case, members of the fire service said that the arrangement could prove difficult and dangerous, and there was even talk of loss of lives. I am pleased to say, however, that at local level all three services have been pragmatic enough not just to do this but to make it work, in a £6 million centre.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the threat of a loss of lives, but let us talk about loss of money for a moment. As far as he is aware, has anyone told the authorities in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire how they will cover their financial exposure to the tri-service control centres that they have set up, at the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortation, when the regional control rooms go ahead?
Mr. Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. I shall deal with his point shortly.
It would be helpful to know whether the Minister can give Gloucestershire certain assurances, not least an assurance that the —6 million tri-centre building and its facilities will survive.
In Gloucestershire, the extent of integration has gone beyond call centres. We now have a tri-service workshop. The three services work together to ensure
90
that their equipment, machinery and vehicles are worked on not by the same set of engineers but under the same roof. Much can be learnt from that model. We do not want the region to lose it. As the Minister knows, the services have also set up a "blue skies group", which thinks through problems and does what it can to bring about even more integration. I hope that before any decisions are made about regional control centres the Minister will visit that centre, and take a good look at it.
I am trying to be pragmatic, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has been, especially in Committee. I note that, whether deliberately or otherwise, he proposes in amendment No. 22 the insertion of paragraph (c) in clause 2 in addition to paragraphs (a) and (b) rather than their replacement by it. In other words, he is creating circumstances in which a more regional or consolidated structure would exist. That is certainly pragmatic.
If a regional structure is adopted for call centres and control rooms, I do not think there is a better example of best practice in the south-west than what we have managed to achieve in our tri-service centre. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on our chances of ensuring that it remains in Gloucestershire and that the three services can continue to learn from the three levels of integration. I think that Gloucestershire is an ideal location, given the way in which they have worked together and made things happen.
Mr. Drew: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) that there is no better place in which to continue the experiment than the Gloucester tri-service centre.
Let me repeat what I said on Second Reading. In many respects this has been seen as the most controversial part of the Bill, Although we had our differences in Committee and although there have been disagreements about emphasis, there has been a good deal of consensus. It is about evolving change, and the same is true outside of this place. Both management and those working in the service have to a large extent agreed on the best way to make progress.
8 pm
However, this issue gives rise to some controversy, and I reiterate what I said on Second Reading. I have no fear about the way in which regional management boards would operate, in terms of the degree of strategic thinking and the need, in these days of terrorism and counter-terrorism, to consider how best we can operate and deploy our forces, but if we are talking about the making of decisions at a local level, the provision is not appropriate. Given the Gloucestershire experience?as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the same attempt is being made elsewhere with varying degrees of success—it is somewhat short-sighted to throw everything away, in the hope that we can improve delivery by assuming that the regional structure is the only structure. There are all manner of problems in the south-west, but they are not just a south-west phenomenon; they are likely to arise elsewhere in the country. The strategic direction is right, but operational delivery, including the most important elements of call centre work, should remain as local as possible. We need also to consider how to improve the relationship between the three emergency services.

91
We must also consider the system of accountability. I make no apology for saying again that if we are to do the job properly, we must begin by considering the three emergency services with a blank sheet of paper. What is the best form of accountability? If the Opposition are arguing that accountability is best fulfilled through a modified police authority system, they can count me out because it does not work. We have too many authorities and in many respects we have the worst of all worlds. People are appointed as part of their county councillor functions, and magistrates are appointed through a system that anyone outside the political classes would find difficult to explain. Such authorities do not consist of happy people, and if Gloucestershire is anything to go by, the rate of inflation of police expenditure is far greater than that of any other authorities.
Mr. Hammond: All systems have their flaws, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a police authority-style approach would work better if the Secretary of State simply appointed members, rather than receiving a long list from the local area and sending back a shortlist for local appointment?
Mr. Drew: What I am saying is that the proposed system—be it the Government's version or the Opposition's—is deeply flawed and is antagonising local people. The previous Conservative Government thought that they were being clever in taking the police out of local authorities' remits, but that decision has rebounded. in that there seems now to be a total lack of accountability to the wider populous.
We have an opportunity to consider how to deal with the three emergency services. If the Gloucestershire trust is anything to go by, we should consider the dilemma of the ambulance service. The Gloucestershire trust is the smallest trust. It is undermanned and underfinanced and regarded as very vulnerable. I urge the Government to consider carefully the arrangement between the three services in the context of our strategic direction. It will not help if we simply assume that fire authorities will deliver better services, while allowing the other two emergency services to drift in the wind. That is not acceptable. It will not constitute good delivery or build good relationships, and it will lead to greater confusion.
Mr. Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate on an even more interesting group of new clauses and amendments, which deal with combined fire and rescue authorities.
In order to understand part of the overall intention of new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), it must be read in conjunction with amendment No. 3. It seeks to turn the clock back on the modernisation agenda, and to delay the action that both the Bain report and the White Paper argued were long overdue. I shall deal separately with two strands of the argument, the first of which is the impact of new clause 5(1)(a) in conjunction with amendment No. 3. The overall effect would be simple. First, it would remove clause 2(2)(b), which allows fire and rescue authorities to be combined so that their boundaries align with those of the English regions,
92
and replace it with a requirement that within 12 months of any part of the Bill being enacted, an independent study be commissioned into the "optimum geographical areas" for organisation of the fire and rescue service.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister is surely wrong about that. All that amendment No. 3 does is to remove the exemption for CFAs that constitute a region coterminous with regional development agency regions, in order to satisfy the criteria under clause 2(2)(a). If the Minister is proposing a CFA for an RDA region and it meets the criteria under clause 2(2)(a), he has no difficulty.
Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that amendment No. 3 would substitute the concept of a region as constituted for the purposes of regional development agencies legislation—in other words, a region as defined in terms of Government office regions—with a body that has emerged from the hon. Gentleman's review of the optimum geographical areas. If I am incorrect in that assumption I shall withdraw my remark, but that is my understanding of the affect of his amendment, and I shall proceed on that basis, assuming that he concurs.
There are a number of things wrong with the proposal, the most important of which is that it appears to take little account of the explanation and assurances that I gave to the hon. Gentleman in Committee. During those discussions. I made it clear that the only circumstances in which I envisaged using the provisions of clause 2(2)(b) were ones involving public safety, in which the fire and rescue authorities had failed successfully to work together to ensure resilience. The obvious example of that is a failure to agree on the siting of, or the operational arrangements necessary for the introduction of, a regional control room.
The context is important, because contrary to the claims made by the Opposition in Committee, we do not have an agenda of regionalisation through the back door. What we do have is an agenda of civil resilience, to ensure that the fire and rescue service is equipped to meet the challenges posed by the new dimensions of the terrorist threat and environmental disasters. To meet these challenges, the service must be closely integrated into the work of the regional resilience teams, which are based in the Government offices for the regions. These teams, in their turn, operate on a regional basis because it is a key principle within emergency planning that response structures should mirror emergency planning structures.
I should tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) that it is preposterous—to use the word that the former has used a lot today—to suggest that there should be separate regional structures for the fire and rescue service and for the regional resilience arrangements. That could not work. It would be neither effective nor sensible, and it would not give us the protection that we need.
We could no doubt debate at length whether the Government office boundaries established by the previous Administration, which underpin the whole infrastructure, were the right ones.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that it would be preposterous not to organise the fire and rescue services

93
on the same geographical basis as the resilience structure. According to that logic, will we have regional police management boards and regional health service management boards?
Mr. Raynsford: No, the logic is that in terms of the geographical arrangement for the discharge of the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service, it is absurd to suggest another regional alignment that is entirely separate from the existing one. That would create confusion rather than coterminosity. I accept entirely that police authorities do not operate on that basis at the moment, but they are closely engaged in the regional resilience arrangements, and are putting arrangements in place to ensure that they can discharge their regional resilience responsibilities. As I have said, those are organised through the Government regional offices on the basis of the existing administrative regions—which, incidentally, were introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
On Second Reading on 26 January, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) acknowledged that the existing Government office regions were
"a compromise that fitted most of the Departments that then had regional organisations".&#x2014;[Official Report, 26 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 92.]
If we had time, an independent study such as that which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggests in new clause 5 might be an interesting activity in which to engage although, as he knows only too well, boundary debates tend to be long drawn out, fractious and unproductive. It is usually the Liberal Democrats who suggest such arrangements, which are a recipe for constant talk and debate, and no action. That is the key to why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the new clause. He wants long, protracted talk and delay, with no action, to avoid anything ever happening, because he is obsessed with the view that we are somehow committed to imposing regions by the back door, which is all part of some kind of European plot.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Mr. Swire rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I see the lemmings rising as one to rush over the cliff in their Europhobia.
Mr. Hammond: I am stunned that the Minister has gone off at a tangent on a completely different subject. I was rising simply to ask him whether he would be good enough to acknowledge that the Government office regions were created for an entirely different purpose, and that no one ever asked whether they would be the most appropriate unit for the delivery of an operational fire and rescue service.
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Government office regions were established by the previous Government on the basis—as I have quoted his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal as recognising—that they were a compromise that fitted most of the Departments that then had regional organisations. Since then, they have developed considerably. They have taken on new functions, and
94
new institutions have been created, such as regional development agencies, that follow the same regional boundaries. We are seeing a consolidation of arrangements within those regional structures and, most importantly, regional resilience is being organised on that basis. We have had the regional resilience forums for almost a year now. They are based in the Government offices, and it would be wholly counterproductive now to suggest alternative boundaries for one element—one emergency service—with an important contribution to make to that overall resilience.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Richard Younger-Ross rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and then to the hon. Member for Teignbridge.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that we are seeing a consolidation of regional functions within those regional boundaries. A moment ago he denied that any regionalisation by stealth was taking place, but we see that consolidation as being precisely such regionalisation by stealth.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse two matters. He will recognise that there has been administrative regionalisation, which his party, when in government, introduced on a substantial scale and which this Government have consolidated. A separate issue is the introduction of elected regional assemblies to allow a democratic—
Mr. Hammond: What about RDAs?
Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that we introduced regional development agencies. which consolidated the arrangements operating on a regional basis that the Conservative party set up. The Conservatives seem absolutely hellbent on disowning their own legacy, the things they thought appropriate when in power. That is an interesting insight, but I tell the hon. Gentleman once again that there is no agenda to impose elected regional assemblies by stealth. If people vote for them, there will be elected regional assemblies; if they do not, there will not be. What a marked contrast that is—
Mr. Swire rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment, because I have already said that I will give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. I shall give way to him later, but I just want to make this point. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would do well to remember, his party did not give people any choice. It abolished regional tiers of government such as the Greater London council and some county councils, giving people absolutely no say. This Government are giving people choice. If they vote in favour of the regional assemblies, that will be their choice, and it is quite right that we should honour it.
Richard Younger-Ross: I shall not get drawn into the regional assembly argument at the moment. The Minister mentioned delay, and said that he opposed the Conservative new clause 5 and amendment No. 3 because they would cause a delay in forming combined fire authorities. Is there something that the Minister needs to tell us? If he is talking of a delay, that must mean that he is thinking of combining fire authorities now. Is that the case, and which fire authorities is he thinking of combining?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. I have already made it quite clear that the only circumstances in which we would use the clause 2(2)(b) powers—I said this about 10 minutes ago—would be in the interest of public safety where there had been a failure to put in place adequate arrangements to ensure regional resilience. That is an issue of public safety, and in those circumstances, we clearly could not delay while there was a long-drawn-out debate about the optimal regional boundaries. There would be an overriding priority to provide effective arrangements to ensure that the resilience that we have been talking about was in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
Richard Younger-Ross rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), but I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Teignbridge.
Richard Younger Ross: I am sorry, but the Minister has mentioned delay. New clause 5 calls for a review of the boundaries within 12 months. The Minister appears to be saying that he can envisage a circumstance in which the resilience is deemed not to be in place and, within 12 months, he will therefore be forcing a combination of authorities.
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister is shaking his head. If that is not the case, he cannot use the excuse that the proposal in new clause 5 would delay the process.
Mr. Raynsford: No, I am afraid to say that the hon. Gentleman is getting more confused. We have said clearly that we will use the powers in clause 2(2)(b) only in the interests of public safety where there has been a failure to put in place arrangements that guarantee resilience. Those are the only circumstances in which we will use those powers, and if we have to use them, it is important that we should do so reasonably swiftly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. The amendment and new clause, however, would essentially mean that no progress could be taken until the body that was carrying out the independent review had not only been set up but had reported. As the new clause allows only that that would be set up within 12 months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent, there could be years of delay during which there were inadequate public safety arrangements in a
96
particular region. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously advocating that we should tolerate that position.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for East Devon, but I shall then give way to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
Mr. Swire: I am grateful, and I shall try to be quick. The Minister is entirely right in saying that people will be consulted democratically on whether they want regional assemblies, and I do not take issue with that. However, he does not say whether, if people vote against having elected regional assemblies, the Government will give them the option of disbanding the existing unelected regional assemblies. Will he assure us that, should people not vote for elected regional assemblies, there will be an option of doing away with the unelected regional assemblies?
Mr. Raynsford: That question is very wide of what we are debating tonight, and I think that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I moved into that territory. We have already made it quite clear that we will follow the views of the electorate on elected regional assemblies and that there will not be an assembly if the electorate vote against it. There will then be a continuation of the status quo.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister has been very generous in giving way. Given that he has been prepared to state categorically that he will use the powers in clause 2(2)(b) only in the event of a failure of regional resilience, how has he been able to give an unequivocal undertaking that if an elected regional assembly is created in any region, he will create a combined fire authority for that region? He cannot know in advance that the hurdle set by clause 2(2)(a) will be cleared.
Mr. Raynsford: No, but as I was intending to say to the hon. Gentleman later, the power to create a regional fire and rescue authority in the event of an elected regional assembly coming into existence will be provided in the relevant legislation—in the elected regional assemblies Bill. He will recall that in just the same way, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—LFEPA—was established under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created the Greater London authority. That is the appropriate way of establishing such bodies, but it would not happen under these powers.
I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I realise that he is living in a realm of paranoia because of the word "region" and the effect that it has on his party, but I assure him that there is clear logic behind our proposals, and that they fit together consistently.
Mr. Hammond: It is not paranoia; it is just a concern about the propriety of the Government giving unequivocal commitments that they will do something

97
that, on the Minister's own admission, they do not even have the power to do. They are depending on some future legislation to give them that power.
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we have published a White Paper and given a commitment to publish draft legislation, which we hope to do in July this year. There will also be a vote in a referendum at some subsequent date, probably in October. That, of course, is dependent on good progress being made with the other matters that have to be dealt with before the referendums can take place.
We have strayed far from the provisions of the Bill, and I would like to come back to the matters in hand. I have given assurances about the use of clause 2(2)(b); they are on the record. If we need to act on grounds of public safety, it will by definition be something that has to be done quickly, so I cannot accept the constraint that subsection (1)(a) and amendment No. 3 would place on the ability of the Secretary of State to take urgent action to protect the public.
Subsection (1)(b) has a rather different objective from subsection (1)(a). It seeks again to require the Secretary of State to commission an independent study, but this time into the success of regional management boards— including, if I read the intent of the hon. Gentleman correctly, any negative impact on the management capability of individual authorities of having some of their functions pooled at regional level. Here, I can reassure him that we are thinking along similar lines.
Of course any responsible Government will want to assess and evaluate the impact of their policies, including those required under the fire and rescue national framework. But the independent evaluation that the hon. Gentleman suggests need not await a study commissioned
"within 12 months of the coming into force of any part of this Act".
That role has already been given to the independent Audit Commission, which has agreed to take on the task. Indeed, it has already published, on 25 February, a consultation paper setting out its draft comprehensive performance assessment framework for fire and rescue authorities. It proposes to implement the framework early next year, with outcomes publicly reported before autumn 2005.
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, value for money will of course be to the fore, but the commission also specifically plans to assess the effectiveness of the work undertaken through regional management boards and to report on the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities. It plans, in other words, to address the very issues about which he expressed concern, and it plans to address them sooner rather than, as the amendment envisages, later. Additionally, we are required by clause 24 to report periodically to Parliament on the delivery of the national framework, which of course includes regional collaboration. There will therefore be every opportunity for Parliament to keep a close watch on this matter. Because they are on the one hand damaging, and on the
98
other unnecessary, I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause and the linked amendment to a vote.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister explain to the House what form that reporting to Parliament will take?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to report on the national framework and to lay it before Parliament. Indeed, any significant amendments to it will be laid before Parliament as well. It will of course be open to Parliament to decide how, or if, it wishes to take these matters up and to scrutinise them. I have no doubt that the Select Committee may wish to consider some of the issues involved; it has shown a keen interest in them. Indeed, it will also be open to Opposition parties to seek debates on relevant matters if they choose to do so.
Turning to new clause 9, also tabled by the hon. Gentleman, we find a solution in search of a problem. It sets out in elaborate detail a process for the appointment of members of fire and rescue authorities when the Secretary of State chooses to exercise the power in clause 3(3)(a). I am not going to dwell too long on the detail of that process, although I point out in passing that it could involve no fewer than six distinct stages, and that at its heart is a transparent attempt to create a stand-off between individual fire and rescue authorities and the Secretary of State over who should form their number.
Instead, I shall focus on the substance. The issue of Secretary of State appointments was debated in Committee, although, as I recall, debate was curtailed when the hon. Gentleman moved rather swiftly to a vote. I acknowledged then that there were concerns, but I emphasised that the motivation was not to enhance central control but to improve the delivery of a vital public service. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that Secretary of State appointees—if they are made—will be a numerical minority, and will not be allowed to take part in votes on precepting. Only elected members will be able to make decisions about how resources are allocated.
When appointment is considered necessary, however, those elected members will make decisions with the benefit of expertise that they themselves may not possess. I was frank and honest in Committee that, when combination is undertaken to tackle failing authorities it could well, in our view, be contradictory and counterproductive to restrict appointments to existing authority members. When capacity is needed to deliver improvements and modernisation, clause 3 could be used to bring into the new authorities the wider experience and expertise—be it managerial, financial or professional—that the existing authorities may lack. But to guarantee that the experts will be chosen for their ability, these will be open, advertised appointments made in accordance with the principles of public life that underpin the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Thus they will be made on merit, with openness and transparency and with full regard to equal opportunities. But in line with the seventh principle, they will also be proportional; they will not involve the endless to-ing and fro-ing advocated in new clause 9.
Given all those safeguards, it should be clear to the House that we will use the power carefully and responsibly—if ever we come to use it. I must once again

99
stress that we have these powers available only for circumstances in which there may be a failing authority and it is necessary to achieve a combination to tackle the problems relating to it, and when sufficient expertise is not otherwise available.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister describes this as a reserved power, but does he envisage that power being built into the scheme for the CFA, so that, if there were to be a 49 per cent. Secretary of State appointment, it would be within the scheme rather than applying only in specified circumstances—for example, when the CFA has demonstrated a failure such as that of which the Minister speaks?
Mr. Raynsford: As I have already made very clear, these are reserve powers that we would use only in certain rather limited circumstances. It is certainly not our intention to put a scheme in place that would provide for such arrangements to be made according to a prearranged plan. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we have set maximum limits on the number of appointees. That does not mean that we would appoint that number of people, however. In certain cases, it might be appropriate to make only a very small number of appointments—if, for example, there were a serious weakness in terms of financial expertise or expertise in another area of responsibility regarded as very important. That would, however, be judged on a case-by-case basis. So far as the elected regional assemblies are concerned, arrangements for the appointment of the members of the regional fire authority will be contained in the legislation that brings the assemblies into existence.
Amendment No. 14 repeats one that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled in Committee and was rejected. Indeed it repeats something that he earlier tried to achieve through new clause 5 and its linked amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove the current clause 2(2)(b), which allows fire and rescue authorities to be combined so that their boundaries are aligned with those of the English regions. As I said earlier, in tabling it again, the hon. Gentleman appears to have taken little account of the explanation and assurances that I gave him during our exchanges in Committee. I made it clear that the only circumstances in which I envisaged using the provisions of clause 2(2)(b) were ones of public safety.
Mr. Hammond: I apologise to the Minister. When I intervened on him earlier to make a point about amendment No. 3, I was of course referring to amendment No. 14. I had got myself confused between the two. Given what he has just said, can he envisage any circumstances in which he could not do what he has just described under the powers granted to him in clause 2(2)(a)? Surely, in circumstances in which public safety required a CFA to be created urgently, it would be in the interests of greater efficiency and effectiveness, if not economy, to use those powers. Is it not the truth that clause 2(2)(b) is simply redundant?
Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not. It is available only in limited circumstances, but it is very important because
100
one can envisage circumstances in which existing fire and rescue authorities were operating with a reasonable degree of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but had failed to come together on the resilience issues in a way that ensured an effective arrangement at regional level to provide the resilience that we are seeking. In those circumstances, it would be necessary for us to act in the interests of public safety.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned public safety issues, and I have just highlighted some of those. An example that I have often cited, which any Secretary of State would need to take very seriously indeed, would be a failure to agree on the siting of or operational arrangements for regional control rooms. I emphasise again that this is not a cavalier provision and that my assurances about its use are on the parliamentary record. On the basis of those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his proposal.
8.30 pm
Amendment No. 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, is designed to limit the use of clause 2(2)(a)—but, strikingly, not the use of clause 2(2)(b), about which he appears to have less concern—to circumstances in which one or more of the authorities concerned are failing to discharge their duties. Clause 2 as currently drafted provides the Secretary of State with the power to combine existing fire and rescue authorities into a larger single authority in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In doing so, it accepts that the work of the fire and rescue service—work to which I have paid tribute on many occasions—must be performed effectively, but acknowledges that it must also be performed as economically and efficiently as possible. It is the council tax payer who funds a significant proportion of the cost of the service; it is the general taxpayer, through central Government, who funds the rest.
It is perfectly possible—indeed, independent studies confirm it—that we might have an excellent, responsive service at a local level costing significantly more than an equally excellent and responsive service elsewhere. If combination can maintain that quality at a lower cost to the taxpayer, freeing up moneys to be reinvested in fire prevention work and the promotion of community fire safety, I doubt that many in the House would wish to prevent it, but amendment No. 21 would. It says that there must first be a failing authority—one not performing its legal duties—before a larger unit can be created.
The case for combination, may be based not on failure, but on the proven ability of larger authorities to rise to the challenge of delivering the best service for the lowest cost. The Secretary of State still needs to make that efficiency case, not least at the inquiry that we will now be holding in response to the hon. Gentleman's persuasive arguments in Committee to the effect that an inquiry should be mandatory. On his restrictive and counter-productive amendment, however, we are not persuaded. and I ask him to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 22, also proposed by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, appears to be the product of a misunderstanding. The Bill as currently drafted allows the Secretary of State under clause 2(2)(a) to make a combination order on the grounds of economy,

101
efficiency and effectiveness. Such an order may, among other things, give effect to a draft scheme submitted by the existing authorities themselves under clause 2(3)(a). Amendment No. 22 would duplicate the meaning of those provisions read in tandem, and add nothing further. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 23 was tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge in Committee, but circumstances prevented us from debating it. Had we done so, I hope that I would have persuaded him that it amounts simply to an arbitrary and artificial restriction on the Secretary of State's ability to appoint the necessary expertise in situations where combination has been undertaken to tackle failing authorities.
Clause 3(4) already makes it clear that Secretary of State appointees to combined fire and rescue authorities will be a numerical minority, and clause 3(5) that they will not be allowed to take part in votes on precepting. As I have already said, Secretary of State nominees will be appointed only after open advertisement and in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They will also be appointed solely on merit.
With all those safeguards, amendment No. 23 really does tilt at windmills. Ensuring that Secretary of State appointees are in a minority maintains the democratic principle that local representatives should have the final say in matters of disagreement. Restricting them to one third presupposes that our objective is to have as many as possible when, in fact, our intention is to have only as many as necessary. We no more wish to appoint 49 per cent. than 10 per cent. Rather we wish to ensure that combined authorities have the skills and expertise that they need to deliver a modernised and cost-effective service. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
I now move on to Government amendments Nos. 7 to 11. Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8 fulfil a promise made in Committee. I said then that I would further consider an amendment from the hon. Member for Teignbridge that would have made an inquiry mandatory in every case where the Secretary of Sate proposes to create a combined fire and rescue authority or to vary or revoke a scheme creating one.
I explained that we were sympathetic to the underlying purpose of the amendment, and confirmed that it was our intention in normal circumstances to hold an inquiry, as well as carrying out the specific consultation required under clause 2(5). I also explained, however, that there might be circumstances in which the needs of public safety meant that we could not await the outcome of a potentially lengthy inquiry before taking action.
The example that I gave—and have repeated today—was fire and rescue authorities failing successfully to work together to meet the demands of civil resilience by establishing a regional control room. I therefore undertook to find a form of words that embodied the spirit of the amendment while ensuring that the needs of public safety remained paramount. That is what we have tabled today. As well as an exemption for public safety, it exempts from a mandatory inquiry situations in which those affected by the Secretary of State's proposals are happy with them and those where the
102
combination, variation or revocation is simply a consequence of a wider local or regional government boundary change. In all other cases, an inquiry will now be the norm. I hope that hon. Members will welcome the steps that we have taken to accommodate the wishes of the Standing Committee.
Mr. Hammond: Something registered an alarm bell there. The Minister spoke of what would happen as a result of a local or regional government boundary changes. My interpretation was that the Government amendment referred to local government boundary changes undertaken under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 rather than to the regional boundary changes themselves. I had interpreted the provision as meaning that things could proceed where there was a change in local government boundaries—nothing to do with regions.
Mr. Raynsford: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I will certainly check it. The wording is quite technical, so I will write to him about the point.
Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11 also fulfil a promise that I made in Committee to reflect further on the circumstances in which holding an inquiry might not be possible or appropriate. The amendments apply to existing combination schemes—that is, schemes made under the Fire Services Act 1947. I have already outlined our approach towards new schemes and to their future variation or revocation.
As with Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8, an inquiry will now be the norm. The only exceptions—I trust that they are not now contentious?are an exemption for public safety, an exemption in situations where those affected by the Secretary of State's proposals are happy with them, and an exemption where the variation or revocation is simply a consequence of a wider local or regional government boundary change. I trust that hon. Members will welcome our steps to accommodate the wishes of the Standing Committee, and I commend the amendments to the House.
Before I conclude, I should like to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge and by my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked about local knowledge and the operation of a control room. He posed an interesting example of controllers talking to a young child and trying to identify the location of a call. I have to tell him that the arrangements being put in place to procure a new communications or call system for operation by the fire service—to be operated through regional control centres—will use the latest modern technology, which has the capacity to pinpoint very precisely the location from where a call has been made. That obviates the need for a lengthy process of having to talk through the problem of location.
It is fundamental to have the best modern technology, which makes it possible to identify the location of the call and then to direct and guide the fire and rescue service to that particular location. I have seen some of the best new systems being introduced, so I am well aware of the scope for improving the effectiveness of the service through the introduction of new technology.

103
On the notion that new clause 5 is not particularly objectionable because it requires only a review, I have to say that it does not require only a review. When linked with amendment No. 3, it would block any move to a region other than those that satisfy the conclusions of the review proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is not simply a benign and ideal Liberal Democrat debating chamber opportunity for endless discussion about optimal regional boundaries—and if it were, it would, as we all know, rarely, if ever, lead to conclusions.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Gloucester made important points about regional control rooms and the possible implications for Gloucester. I recognise the achievement in creating the tri-service centre in Gloucester, which my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio visited recently—he told me how impressed he was by what he saw. I have been invited to visit it, and I have indicated that I will be happy to when a convenient moment becomes available in my busy diary because I want to see more of the good work that is being done there.
I am also well aware of the anxieties in Gloucester about the implications of a move towards regional control rooms. I say to my hon. Friends that there is no reason why a move to regional control rooms would threaten the continued operation of the Gloucester centre. In the first place, Gloucester will be open to bid as a location for the regional control room. No decisions have been taken on an appropriate location, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will make a persuasive case on the merits of Gloucester.
Mr. Robert Key rose—
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I am answering the points made by my hon. Friends.
If it were decided to locate the regional control room elsewhere—no doubt conflicting proposals will be advanced by other hon. Members, some of whom have not been in the Chamber for very long, and certainly not as long as my hon. Friends who have sat through the whole debate—only 10 per cent. of the existing tri-service centre's work load is fire-related, and 90 per cent. of it is not, and it is therefore questionable whether such a decision would threaten the continued operation of the Gloucester centre. However, we want to discuss the issue in detail with all concerned because I understand the anxieties.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give an undertaking this evening on behalf of the Government that, if there is any cost involved in moving the fire element of the tri-service centre away from Gloucester, the council tax payers of Gloucestershire will not have to bear it?
Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman, whom we missed in Committee because he was frequently absent. I am glad to see him this evening on this brief appearance after several hours of debate.
104
I assure him that cost-effectiveness is one of the main considerations, and we will certainly examine the financial implications, including the potential savings that will come from the establishment of a regional control centre, for all authorities involved before final decisions are taken. I assure him that the issues will be examined impartially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about accountability. One existing fire and rescue authority in England, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, is already constituted on regional lines, and it was created under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It is thoroughly accountable, and, interestingly, it includes not only directly elected members of the Greater London authority but representatives from London boroughs. It is an interesting example of achieving a proper framework of accountability within the regional structure.
With those comments, I hope that the House will agree that the Government amendments should be endorsed, and I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hammond: I could say a great deal, but I must speak against the backdrop of the Minister's filibuster. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the failure of the annunciator system allowed him to go on for rather longer than he wanted to.
The Minister has not attempted to make a case for the existing Government offices for the regions being the optimum basis for the organisation of our fire and rescue services. All we have heard from him is the ludicrous charge that because we introduced Government offices for the regions in the first place, it is somehow our fault. In view of the time, I do not intend to use any more of it up, but simply urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 5 in the Lobby.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:&#x2014
The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 263.

Division No. 88]

[8:43 pm

Allan, Richard

Collins, Tim

Amess, David

Cotter, Brian

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Bacon, Richard

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Baker, Norman

Baldry, Tony

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Barker, Gregory

Bellingham, Henry

Fallon, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Blunt, Crispin

Boswell, Tim

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Flook, Adrian

Brady, Graham

Foster, Don(Bath)

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Burnett, John

Gidley, Sandra

Burstow, Paul

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Butterfill, Sir John

Goodman, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Cash, William

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Greenway, John

Chidgey, David

Grieve, Dominic

Chope, Christopher

Gummer, rh John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hammond, Philip

105

Hancock, Mike

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Randall, John

Redwood, rh John

Harvey, Nick

Rendel, David

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Heald, Oliver

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heath, David

Rosindell, Andrew

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Ruffley, David

Hendry, Charles

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Hermon, Lady

Sanders, Adrian

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Selous, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Horam, John(Orpington)

Shepherd, Richard

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Simmonds, Mark

Hunter, Andrew

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Jack, rh Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Spring, Richard

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Steen, Anthony

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Streeter, Gary

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Stunell, Andrew

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Swayne, Desmond

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Lidington, David

Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Teather, Sarah

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Thurso, John

Mackay, rh Andrew

Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Maclean, rh David

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tyrie, Andrew

Maples, John

Viggers, Peter

Maude, rh Francis

Walter, Robert

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Waterson, Nigel

May, Mrs Theresa

Watkinson, Angela

Mercer, Patrick

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Bill

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

Norman, Archie

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Willis, Phil

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Wilshire, David

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Page, Richard

Young, rh Sir George

Paice, James

Younger-Ross, Richard

Pickles, Eric

Portillo, rh Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Hugh Robertson and

Mr. Mark Francois

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Ainger, Nick

Bradshaw, Ben

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

Brennan, Kevin

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

Allen, Graham

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Browne, Desmond

Baird, Vera

Bryant, Chris

Banks, Tony

Buck, Ms Karen

Barnes, Harry

Burnham, Andy

Battle, John

Caborn, rh Richard

Beard, Nigel

Cairns, David

Beckett, rh Margaret

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Benn, rh Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Benett, Andrew

Caplin, Ivor

Best, Harold

Casale, Roger

Blackman, Liz

Caton, Martin

Blizzard, Bob

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Borrow, David

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

106

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, rh Adam

Clelland, David

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Coaker, Vernon

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Coleman, lain

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Colman, Tony

Jamieson, David

Connarty, Michael

Jenkins, Brian

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Crausby, David

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Cruddas, Jon

Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Keeble, Ms Sally

David, Wayne

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kemp, Fraser

Denham, rh John

Khabra, Piara S.

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kidney, David

Dismore, Andrew

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

King, Andy(Rugby)

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Doran, Frank

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Drew, David(Stroud)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Lammy, David

Efford, Clive

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Etherington, Bill

Lepper, David

Farrelly, Paul

Leslie, Christopher

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Fisher, Mark

Linton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Love, Andrew

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Follett, Barbara

McCabe, Stephen

Foster, rh Derek

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

McKenna, Rosemary

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

McNulty, Tony

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gardiner, Barry

McWalter, Tony

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

McWilliam, John

Gerrard, Neil

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Gilroy, Linda

Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

Godsiff, Roger

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Goggins, Paul

Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Grogan, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David

Meacher, rh Michael

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

Merron, Gillian

Healey, John

Miliband, David

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Miller, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

Hesford, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Heyes, David

Mole, Chris

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hinchliffe, David

Moran, Margaret

Hodge, Margaret

Morley, Elliot

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Morris, rh Estelle

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mountford, Kali

Howells, Dr. Kim

Mudie, George

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

107

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Soley, Clive

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Squire, Rachel

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Olner, Bill

Steinberg, Gerry

Organ, Diana

Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Owen, Albert

Stinchcombe, Paul

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prescott, rh John

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Purnell, James

Timms, Stephen

Quinn, Lawrie

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Touhig, Don(IsIwyn)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Trickett, Jon

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

Rooney, Terry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Wareing, Robert N.

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Ruane, Chris

Watts, David

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

Wicks, Malcolm

salter, Martin

Wills, Michael

Sawford, Phil

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Woolas, Phil

Short, rh Clare

Worthington, Tony

Simon, si&#x00F4;n(B'ham Erdington)

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Singh, Marsha

Wyatt, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Charlotte Atkins and

Mr. John Heppell

Question accordingly negatived.

DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PARTICULAR CLASSES OF FIRES AND EMERGENCIES
The Secretary of State may direct a Fire and Rescue Authority to take, or not to take, action specified in the direction in relation to&#x2014;

a fire of a type or occurring in circumstances specified in the direction, or

an emergency of another kind of a type or occurring in circumstances specified in the direction.

A direction under this section may require a fire and rescue authority to act outside the authority's area.

A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a further such direction.

A direction under this section shall be made by order.&#x2014;[Mr. Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
108
New clause 13—Fire safety—

The Secretary of State may give direction to a fire and rescue authority to inspect the fire safety of one or all of&#x2014;

schools;

residential and nursing homes;

homes in multiple occupation; in the authorities' area.

The Secretary of State shall give such direction to a fire and rescue authority as conferred by subsection (1) of this Clause if requested to do so by a local authority or fire and rescue authority for the area of that authority.

Where inspections are made under subsections (1) or (2) the Fire and Rescue Authority shall make a report detailing, in particular how fire safety may be improved by&#x2014;

the installation of fire sprinkler or misting systems;

alteration to means of escape;

passive fire protection measures;

fire and smoke alarm system.

Where reports are received by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of this Clause the Secretary of State shall consult with&#x2014;

the existing authorities in question;

any persons he considers appropriate as to whether further legislation is required to require the retro fitting of such measures and to what extent it is practical to do so.

The Secretary of State shall after such consultation as carried out under subsection (4) of this Clause publish the results of such consultation.

Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 18, leave out Clause 10.
Mr. Hammond: Amendment No. 5 would pave the way for new clause 7 by removing clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene directly in a fire or incident. I shall spare the Deputy Prime Minister's blushes, given that he is in the Chamber, and not repeat the lurid image that was painted in Committee of him sitting in the basement of No. 26 Whitehall ordering fire engines around Britain.
Conservative Members believe that that arrangement is not appropriate. Systems need to be established to allow professionals to handle operational situations through existing arrangements such as reinforcement, which the Bill provides for. The Under-Secretary may envisage a situation following an unconventional terrorist attack, but powers in the Civil Contingencies Bill provide for the direction of resources in such an emergency.[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, If hon. Members are not listening to, or taking part in, the debate, would they either leave the Chamber or listen quietly? I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.
Mr. Hammond: It would be more appropriate to set down procedures for co-operation and the control of major incidents than to use the ad hoc power in clause 10. New clause 7 sets out the same powers of direction, but does that in advance, and in relation to a type of fire or incident, or a fire or incident that occurs in specified circumstances. It provides that such direction would be made by order, which would enable parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements that were put in place.

109
We do not understand the need for the Secretary of State's role of hot direction under clause 10. Fire and rescue authorities should be established and charged with their functions. The Bill contains provisions to put in place co-operation and reinforcement procedures, and new clause 7 would give the Secretary of State all the powers that he needs, in advance, to set out precise procedures, control arrangements and allocation of responsibilities in specified circumstances. Clause 10 confers an unreasonable and disproportionate power that will undermine the professionalism of the service and question the reinforcement and contingency arrangements that will routinely be put in place under the Bill. There is much more that I could say, but in view of the time, I shall now conclude.
Phil Hope: Amendment No. 5 would remove the Secretary of State's power to direct a fire or rescue authority in the event of a specific fire or other emergency, and new clause 7 would replace that power to direct with an order-marking power similar to that in clause 9. The amendment reflects a misunderstanding of what clause 10 is intended to cover. To clarify and repeat what was said in Committee, it will be invoked only when an emergency is imminent, or upon us, and when urgent action is thus necessary.
For example, the Secretary of State will be able to direct a fire and rescue authority to respond when an unforeseen emergency occurs for which the fire and rescue service has been unable to plan and there is no time to make the necessary order under clause 9. Such a direction will remove any concern an authority might have had about a possible conflict between its local responsibilities and the need to respond to an incident not covered by its core duties.
Clause 10 will also allow a measure of central coordination when a fire or other emergency occurs on such a massive scale that a local or even regional response is insufficient. That might include a catastrophic fire, widespread and serious flooding or an emergency such as a terrorist event on the scale of 11 September 2001. During such an extreme or unusual event, it is vital for the Secretary of State to offer direction should circumstances dictate it so that events can be reacted to swiftly and urgently on the ground. In such circumstances, there would be no time for the Secretary of State to make an order—
It being Nine o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January]
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 265.

Division No. 89]

9:00 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Bellingham, Henry

Amess, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

Bacon, Richard

Boswell, Tim

Baker, Norman

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Baldry, Tony

Brady, Graham

Barker, Gregory

Brazier, Julian

110

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Browning, Mrs Angela

Mackay, rh Andrew

Burnett, John

Maclean, rh David

Burstow, Paul

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, Sir John

Maples, John

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Maude, rh Francis

Cash, William

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

May, Mrs Theresa

Mercer, Patrick

Chidgey, David

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Chope, Christopher

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cotter, Brian

Norman, Archie

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Paice, James

Pickles, Eric

Doughty, Sue

Portillo, rh Michael

Fallon, Michael

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &amp Dinefwr)

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Flight, Howard

Randall, John

Flook, Adrian

Redwood, rh John

Foster, Don(Bath)

Rendel, David

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Garnier, Edward

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Rosindell, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Ruffley, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Goodman, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Selous, Andrew

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Shepherd, Richard

Greenway, John

Simmonds, Mark

Grieve, Dominic

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Gummer, rh John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hammond, Philip

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hancock, Mike

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Spring, Richard

Stanley, rh Sir John

Harvey, Nick

Streeter, Gary

Hawkins, Nick

Stunell, Andrew

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Swayne, Desmond

Heald, Oliver

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Heath David

Syms, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Hendry, Charles

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Hermon, Lady

Taylor, Dr, Richard(Wyre F)

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Holmes, Paul

Teacher, Sarah

Horam, John(Orpington)

Thurso, John

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Hunter, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Jack, rh Michael

Viggers, Peter

Jackson, Robert(Wastage)

Walter, Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Waterson, Nigel

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Watkinson, Angela

Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye &

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Inverness)

Whittingdale, John

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wiggin, Bill

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Williams, Huwel(Caernarfon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wills, Phil

Lamb, Norman

Willshire, David

Lansley, Andrew

Winterton,Ann

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Young, rh Sir George

Leigh, Edward

Younger-Ross, Richard

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

&nbsp;

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Lidington, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Llwyd, Elfyn

Hugh Robertson and

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Mr. Mark Francois

111

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ainger, Nick

Ennis. Jeff(Barnsley E)

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

Etherington, Bill

Alexander, Douglas

Farrelly, Paul

Allen, Graham

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Fisher, Mark

Atherton, Ms Candy

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Baird, Vera

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Banks, Tony

Follett, Barbara

Barnes, Harry

Foster, rh Derek

Battle, John

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Beard, Nigel

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings

Beckett, rh Margaret

& Rye)

Begg, Miss Anne

Foulkes, rh George

Benn, rh Hilary

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Bennett, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

Best, Harold

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

Blackman, Liz

Gerrard, Neil

Blizzard, Bob

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Borrow, David

Gilroy, Linda

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Godsiff, Roger

Bradshaw, Ben

Goggins, Paul

Brennan, Kevin

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Wallsend)

Grogan, John

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

Browne, Desmond

Hanson, David

Bryant, Chris

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil &

Buck, Ms Karen

Rhymney)

Burnham, Andy

Healey, John

Caborn, rh Richard

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Cairns, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Hesford, Stephen

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Heyes, David

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Caplin, Ivor

Hinchliffe, David

Casale, Roger

Hodge, Margaret

Caton, Martin

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Illsley, Eric

Clelland, David

Ingram, rh Adam

Coaker, Vernon

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Coleman, lain

Colman, Tony

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Connarty, Michael

Jamieson, David

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Jenkins, Brian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Cousins, Jim

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Crausby, David

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Cruddas, Jon

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

David, Wayne

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Denham, rh John

Kemp, Fraser

Dhanda, Parmjit

Khabra, Piara S.

Dismore, Andrew

Kidney, David

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Andy(Rugby)

Donohoe, Brian H.

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Doran, Frank

Drew, David(Stroud)

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Edwards, Huw

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Efford, Clive

Lammy, David

112

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Rooney, Terry

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Lepper, David

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Leslie, Christopher

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Russell. Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Linton, Martin

Love, Andrew

Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Salter, Martin

McCabe, Stephen

Sawford, Phil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sedgemore, Brian

McDonnell, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McIsaac, Shona

Sheerman, Barry

McKenna, Rosemary

Short, rh Clare

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simon, Sio[circ]n(B'ham Erdington)

McNulty, Tony

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

McWalter, Tony

Singh, Marsha

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

Squire, Rachel

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

Martlew, Eric

Meacher, rh Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Merron, Gillian

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Miliband, David

Stringer, Graham

Miller, Andrew

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Mole, Chris

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Moran, Margaret

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Morley, Elliot

Timms, Stephen

Morris, rh Estelle

Tipping, Paddy

Mountford, Kali

Touhig, Don(IsIwyn)

Mudie, George

Trickett, Jon

Mullin, Chris

Truswell, Paul

Munn, Ms Meg

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Organ, Diana

Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Owen, Albert

Wareing, Robert N.

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Pickthall, Colin

Watts, David

Plaskitt, James

White, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Wicks, Malcolm

Prescott, rh John

Wills, Michael

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Winnick, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Purchase, Ken

Purnell, James

Woolas, Phil

Quinn, Lawrie

Worthington, Tony

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Wyatt, Derek

Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Charlotte Atkins and

Mr. John Heppell

Question accordingly negatived.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 2

  POWER TO CREATE COMBINED FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'may' and insert 'must
  No. 8, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
  '(8A) The Secretary of State is not required to cause an inquiry to be held under subsection (8) (but may do so) if—

  in a case within subsection (8)(a), the existing authorities in question agree to the making of the scheme,

  in a case within subsection (8)(b), the combined fire and rescue authority and any other authority which would, apart from the scheme, be a fire and rescue authority under section 1 and which would be affected by the variation or revocation, agree to the variation or revocation,

  in either case, it appears to the Secretary of State that the scheme, variation or revocation is to be made solely for the purpose of giving effect to an order under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70), Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10), or

  in either case, the Secretary of State considers that, in the interests of public safety, the scheme should be made, varied or revoked without delay.'&#x2014;[Phil Hope.]

Clause 4

  COMBINED AUTHORITIES UNDER THE FIRE SERVICES ACT 1947
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 4,1ine 22, after '(4)', insert 'varying or
  No. 10, in page 4, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must
  No. 11, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
  '(7) The Secretary of State is not required to cause an inquiry to be held under subsection (6) (but may do so) if—

  the combined authority and any other authority which would, apart from the scheme, be a fire and rescue authority under section 1 and which would be affected by the variation or revocation, agree to the variation or revocation,

  it appears to the Secretary of State that the scheme is to be varied or revoked solely for the purpose of giving effect to an order made under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70), Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10), or

  the Secretary of State considers that, in the interests of public safety, the scheme should be varied or revoked without delay.&#x2014;[Phil Hope.]

Clause 19

  CHARGING
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) An order under subsection (1) may authorise charging for extinguishing fires, or protecting life and property in the event of fires, only in respect of fires which are at sea or under the sea.
  (2A) An order under subsection (1) may not authorise charging for emergency medical assistance.
  No. 13, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
  '(8) The references in subsection (2) to [odq]sea[cdq] are not restricted to the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.—[Phil Hope.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Let me remind the House of the key measures contained in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill that will help to make the service a better service for the public, and better for those who work within it. This is, as all hon. Members will be aware, the first major legislation on fire and rescue matters for 57 years. It comes after a long period in which the fire and rescue service performed its traditional functions with creditable efficiency, commanding the confidence of the public and ensuring a swift response to fires where they broke out. However, it was also a period in which there was a growing awareness of the need for the service to undertake a more extensive role. First, it began to be increasingly involved in other areas of emergency work, notably road traffic accidents. Secondly, it became increasingly conscious of the importance of prevention. We now know that however good a fire brigade is at responding to the threat of fires when they occur and getting to the scene of fires quickly—the brigades are extremely good and perform with commendable courage and commitment in discharging those responsibilities—we know also that in too many instances people die unnecessarily because they are overwhelmed before a fire brigade can reach them, and in many cases before the fire brigade is even alerted. That emphasises the importance of a greater focus on fire prevention and measures to avoid unnecessary fires occurring in the first place.
  It is right that new legislation should put a strong focus on helping to save more lives and to create safer communities. It should contain a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to promote fire safety. It should give greater encouragement to fire and rescue authorities to work constructively within their communities to identify risks and to ensure that effective preventive measures are in place.
  It is vital also that the fire and rescue service should recognise the much wider responsibilities to which fire brigades respond as a matter of course in dealing with road traffic accidents and major emergencies alongside traditional firefighting. It is important also that we recognise the growing importance of provision to underpin national resilience, through powers to ensure a co-ordinated and strategic response by fire and rescue authorities to specific emergencies, including flooding on a massive scale, a major terrorist incident or catastrophic fires.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the Minister think that the world would be a better place if more authorities charged for rescuing cats and dogs, or fewer?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue that I shall address briefly later in my speech. The world will be a better place as a result of the Bill, which will put far greater emphasis on the

  115
  importance of fire safety and fire prevention work. That is the ultimate objective if we are to save lives and avoid unnecessary fires. Issues about whether charges should be made for certain relatively small aspects of the work of fire and safety services are second-order questions. I shall return to them, but the more important objectives of saving lives, of preventing unnecessary fire and of reducing the number of people whose lives are either ended or blighted by unnecessary fires or other disasters are the priorities that the Government consider to be fundamental.
  The Bill will ensure that the fire and rescue service has a clear sense of direction and the means to deliver it. The measure will give statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which provides, as has been demonstrated in this evening's debates, the national leadership that was called for so clearly by the independent review of the fire service, which was chaired by Sir George Bain. The review highlighted the failures over many years, and of successive Governments, to address the needs for change in the service and the need to give leadership. We have recognised that responsibility to effect change and to introduce new arrangements that give a proper sense of direction and a momentum for change to the fire and rescue service.
  Through our new intervention powers, we shall be able to ensure that fire and rescue authorities act in accordance with the requirement of the national framework and that there are safeguards in place against a failure to provide the necessary arrangements to underpin national resilience and public safety.
  Mr. Swire: Before the Minister rubbishes the Fire Brigades Union, which I am sure that he will not, does he recognise that it says that there are some positive steps contained within the Bill? However, it goes on to say that, basically, the underlying proposals
  "downgrade the rescue role of the fire service and produce cuts across the service under the guise of local Integrated Risk Management plans."
  The Minister has obviously failed to convince that audience. How can he convince other people if he cannot convince the professionals within the fire service that the Bill is not about regionalisation and cost saving?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is speaking as if the events of the past two years never took place. He may have been oblivious to what happened, but most hon. Members know perfectly well that there was a difficult and controversial dispute and that inevitably the FBU took up positions that were not wholly supportive of the Government's position. We nevertheless are driving forward a reform agenda that aims both to improve the quality of the fire services and their effectiveness in preventing fires and enhance their well-earned reputation for bravery and effectiveness in dealing with fires and putting them out. The Government have never done anything other than salute the courage and commitment of fire service workers who do a difficult and dangerous job very well. However, it is important to look at ways in which we can make it easier to prevent fires and, by doing so, reduce the risk that firefighters face when they respond to fires.
  116
  As for the hon. Gentleman's regional fantasies, an extraordinary characteristic of all our debates has been the Conservatives' Pavlovian response as soon as the word "region" is mentioned. They behave as if they are puppets manipulated by someone who wants to continue dancing to the UK Independence party tune, but we are sensible, pragmatic and forward-looking in our approach, and are not affected by the dogma that the Opposition unfortunately—
  Mr. Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall do so in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have to say, because he is, I am afraid, equally guilty of Pavlovian reactions to any references to Europe or regions and is happy to dance to the UKIP tune.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has added "Pavlovian" to "preposterous" and "paranoid" as his favourite adjectives to describe me. He is obviously stung by his inability to deal with the charge that inappropriate regionalisation is being imposed on the service. He has moved away from defending himself against that attack, and in the past hour or so he started to refer to Europe and the UKIP. Would he tell me when I have ever referred to Europe or, indeed, the UKIP in the context of the Bill?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have a long memory, and I recall the many occasions during the passage of the Local Government Act 2003 and during our discussions on the Bill when references to regions produced the utterly predictable response that this was all a European plot to impose inappropriate structures on Britain. That response was entirely unjustified and indicative of a party obsessed with the long forgotten ideological causes that motivated it in the era when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. One day, its members will wake up, realise that the world has moved on, and become a better Opposition party. Sadly, however, it will be a long time before they have the responsibility of government.
  We are committed to ensuring more effective collaboration between fire and rescue authorities and more cost-effective services, which involves working together at a regional level on a number of responsibilities that are best discharged at that level. Our White Paper set out clearly the Government's view that certain responsibilities need to be discharged at a national level. We made clear our commitment to give leadership and show the way forward for the fire and rescue services in the White Paper, the national framework and the Bill, but we accept that a number of services are delivered best and most cost-effectively at regional level. Regional resilience requires coordination with the other emergency services at a regional level. The demands of coping with major threats such as that of terrorism require organisation on a scale that can only be discharged effectively at regional level. The introduction of regional control rooms will bring substantial benefits, including considerable gains in cost-effectiveness. The average cost of answering an emergency call in London is £18, but in the Isle of Wight the equivalent cost is £168. Such wide discrepancies are

  117
  simply not sustainable, and we have to move forward in a way that guarantees an effective service that delivers the most cost-effective outcomes, but does so on the basis of the absolute underlying principle that public safety and a quick response to any emergency are fundamental.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister have any evidence that the closing down of 40 of the fire control rooms in England to leave only nine covering the whole country will improve public safety? If he has such evidence, why did not the Select Committee uncover it and include it in its report?
  Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, although he chose not to refer to it, the Mott MacDonald study looked very carefully at that issue. It concluded that the previous recommendations of some three years earlier had not been implemented and acted upon, and that there was an overriding case for moving to regional control rooms. It even suggested that there was a possibility of moving to three supra-regional control rooms for the whole of England. In the end, it decided that a basis of nine regional control rooms in the English regions was probably the best outcome.
  The arguments are clear and they have been spelled out; they are to do with ensuring the most cost-effective systems, but also the most effective and up-to-date systems. That includes new technology that enables the pin-pointing of calls in order to direct fire and rescue teams in the most effective way to the location of a fire or emergency and arrangements that allow integration with the other emergency services through the new Firelink communications system. All those things are about improving effectiveness, giving a better service to the public and responding more effectively to a wide range of possible eventualities.
  Mr. Flook: Has the Minister any idea which of the regions will move more quickly? Does he have any idea whether the south-west will be moving towards regional control centres more quickly than other regions?
  Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will know—we said it often in the Committee, of which he was a member—that the process has involved all regions setting up regional management boards, which are in place, and they will be considering over the next few months the detailed arrangements for implementing what is required to be implemented at a regional level. I have always made it clear that some issues need to be handled nationally, some need to be handled regionally, including regional control rooms and other things, and some need to be handled locally. Getting that arrangement right is fundamental to delivering the best possible service. Of course, response and community engagement are best handled at a local level, and that will continue to be the case in all circumstances and all parts of the country.
  We also recognise that fire and rescue authorities must work with each other and other bodies to deliver their new functions. In the course of this evening's debate, we have highlighted areas where, on the fire prevention and community engagement agenda, it is clearly advantageous for fire and rescue authorities to work with other bodies, including local authorities,
  118
  individuals and community groups, to ensure the most effective outcomes. The message about joint working and working across traditional barriers is also very important, and such activity will be facilitated by the Bill.
  We are also ensuring that fire and rescue authorities have appropriate powers and obligations to enter into mutual assistance schemes to support the discharge of all their core operational functions. We will continue to maintain the existing ability for fire and rescue authorities to charge for particular services while continuing to exclude the possibility of charging for fighting fires and not extending charging powers other than in circumstances in which it is clear that that is appropriate and can be done in a way that in no way damages public safety and security. I have always said—and I repeat it tonight—that public safety is the overriding priority. Ultimately, that determines our whole approach to the future of the fire and rescue service.
  The Bill will help to make the fire and rescue service a better place for all who work in it by repealing outdated legislation to allow a modern approach to recruitment, training and development; by bringing forward new powers to create new multiple pension schemes while protecting existing pension provision; and by taking reserve powers to ensure effective negotiating machinery for the fire and rescue service that recognises its changing role and includes representation of all its employees.
  Mr. Roger Williams: I asked the Minister about devolution on Second Reading. I am still not clear whether the Government intend to devolve the setting up of pay negotiating bodies and pension provision to the Welsh Assembly. It is not clear in the Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I am not in the least surprised that he is confused. The provisions are governed by clause 60, which says:
  "In its application to Wales, the following provisions of this Act have effect as if for each reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales".
  On a cursory reading of the Bill, especially if they started at the front rather than the back, people might be tempted to believe that the Secretary of State has powers to determine matters in Wales. The policy objective is the devolution of all policy functions and finance matters to Wales. The one matter that is reserved is pensions, for reasons that he will fully understand.
  I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government intend to continue to operate the current arrangements for negotiation and bargaining on pay and conditions at a UK level, and I know that the Scottish Executive are equally committed to maintaining that arrangement, which will continue as long as all the parties agree that it should, and it will be a voluntary arrangement reached by the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will there be any provision to ensure that Welsh fire and rescue services and employers are represented on the pay negotiating bodies?
  Mr. Raynsford: That will be a matter for the national joint council, which will consider changes to the rather cumbersome existing structures.

  119
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is looking for bits of paper to prove that the Secretary of State will have inevitable intervention powers here. I remind him that we have made it clear that we have such powers but will use them only if the NJC fails to come up with satisfactory amendments to the existing arrangements to allow the whole system to operate effectively.
  In June 2003, we published our fire and rescue White Paper, responding to the challenge set out by the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. It outlined our vision for a fire and rescue service better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century—a service that saves more lives by protecting the public and creating safer communities. The Bill is crucial to delivering that vision, and I commend it to the House.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Hammond: The 45 minutes that have been allocated for Third Reading constitute a totally inadequate time, so I shall be brief.
  We have had our differences in these debates, but our proceedings have been generally constructive. I say to the Minister that regionalisation is an issue but Europe, in the context of fire and rescue services, thankfully, is not. I want to reiterate our strong support for the modernisation agenda as originally presented, with its emphasis on local management; its focus on prevention and education and the matching of resources to risk to life through genuine risk-based integrated risk management plans; and, critically, its reform of working practices, freeing up resources for that prevention agenda and for the new focus that we need on the response to terrorism.
  We were nervous when Ministers declared the result of the IRMPs in advance by saying that modernisation would pay for the firefighters' pay settlement. We were alarmed, as the Minister knows, when the targets were relaxed last summer, as they were a key justification for the modernisation programme. We had fears about the balance between local, national and regional dimensions, especially when we read the Bill and the framework documents, but we have remained supportive throughout of the Bill's core. At its core, the programme is sound.
  We acknowledge that, for exceptional circumstances, there is a need for a supra-brigade response, especially to deal with the new threat of terrorism. We have always recognised the benefits of co-operation between authorities, not only in response to unconventional threats but across the board to create appropriate units for providing the best possible service to the public. However, a balance needs to be struck between the national, regional and local tiers. We need to focus on the needs of the service, not unrelated considerations. We must also ensure that the service is driven from the bottom up, with democratically accountable local fire and rescue services working together so that the service is provided at the appropriate level.
  Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that regional management might mean another tier of management. with higher salaries, more inefficiency and
  120
  enormous reorganisation rather than the drive for job losses and greater cost control that the Minister imagines?
  Mr. Hammond: All the evidence shows that the introduction of a regional tier increases, not decreases, bureaucracy. The Select Committee report pointed out that no evidence had been presented to show that there would be a reduction in bureaucracy. I stress to my right hon. Friend that a bigger concern is that sucking away certain powers to the regional management boards will leave some smaller fire and rescue services with a management structure that withers on the vine. I wonder whether the Government's medium-term to long-term objective is to emaciate fire and rescue authorities to the point when regional combined authorities become inevitable.
  We share the Government's view that the Bill recognises the wider role of fire and rescue services by including statutory functions for road traffic accidents and other forms of emergency. We appreciate and approve the focus on prevention and education. Many other aspects of the measure are long overdue acknowledgements of the work of the fire and rescue services.
  The Bill suffers from two significant flaws. First, the balance between national and local powers is wrong. with the Secretary of State's huge reserve powers having the potential to undermine the role of local, democratically accountable fire and rescue authorities. The Minister is at pains to emphasise that they are reserve powers, but only time will tell.
  Secondly, we are worried about the imposition of an arbitrary and irrelevant regional structure on the fire and rescue service. That structure was designed for a different purpose and no evidence has been adduced for the proposition that it is the most appropriate way in which to run a fire and rescue service. The Government's agenda is nowhere more evident than in their proposal to reduce the number of control rooms throughout England from 49 to nine. No evidence has been produced to show that that is in the interests of public safety. We believe that it will prove sub-optimal and that the motivation for the regional agenda is extraneous to the fire and rescue service.
  Our preference is for a fire and rescue service that is based on the maxim, "Quality services locally delivered." We support a service that would confer clear functions and duties, including best value, on local fire authorities, which are accountable to their communities. That would lead them to work together, for example, by merging control rooms and sharing equipment, to discharge those functions, and they would always answer to their communities, not the Secretary of State.
  We accept that the Secretary of State must play a role in national preparedness to deal with a terrorist or other major incident, but that must not snuff out the standalone capability of our local emergency services, which will surely happen with regionalisation.
  At the heart of the Bill is a positive agenda, which we support. It has been spoilt by the inability to resist the Whitehall obsession with total control of every last detail, and by the subordination of its aims to the regional agenda. We will not vote against it tonight, but

  121
  urge our noble Friends to try again—as we have tried—to get the Government to see the case for restoring local fire authorities' lead role in the new structure. We want a bottom-up, collaborative approach based on geographical units that are relevant to the fire and rescue service, not some other agenda, so that we end up with a service that is truly rooted in our local communities and is the stronger for it.
  9.40 pm
  John McDonnell: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. I thank him both for his inclusiveness in involving us in discussions, and for the open and transparent way in which he explained the details of the Bill. Much in the Bill reflects the views of firefighters, fire managers and fire authorities. It reflects a modern fire service, and the range of services that are now provided. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing continuing concerns, particularly the clear establishment of minimum standards to be set through guidance across the country but also the advocacy of maximum quality of service.
  Clause 32, however, still causes concern. It relates to guidance in the context of industrial relations. Let me sound a note of caution. The Bill arrived in the climate that followed one of the bitterest disputes in 25 years. We introduced legislation giving Government powers to impose a settlement, and we introduced a sunset clause that will, we hope, reach fruition shortly as a result of the constructive discussions that have taken place. What I do not want is for clause 32 to be interpreted by this or any future Government as a way of interfering in industrial relations again, and imposing settlements on firefighters. Tonight they will be on shift—men and women who risk their lives daily to protect us and our communities. We do not want to drag them into the bitterness of another dispute like last year's.
  9.42 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Committee, and to lead for my party today. My father was a firefighter in the London docks during the war, and as a child I was brought up with the fire service.
  As has been said, there is much in the Bill to support. As we said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has made clear, we wholeheartedly believe in the modernisation process. Most of our debates have been very constructive. The Minister, for instance, was able to accept an amendment that we tabled in Committee; at least, he produced a similar amendment today providing that there should—not must—generally be an inquiry, which is an improvement. Nevertheless, some parts of the Bill could do with a little more improvement. Like the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we intend to ask those in the other place to consider how they might be able to improve it.
  I want to make five brief points. The Bill still tends towards centralisation. We reject the Secretary of State's power to force fire authorities to combine even when they are working well. We believe that if an authority is to combine with another, that must be at its instigation, because of reorganisation or because it is failing in some way. I do not believe that the Secretary of State's power
  122
  to act for the sake of what are, effectively, cost savings is democratic. It pulls the rug from under local democracy.
  A lot still needs to be protected in terms of democracy. The Secretary of State is taking powers to remove elected members from committees. He can determine that a person is not fit to serve. When the Secretary of State can say, "We do not think this councillor is fit to perform this duty", a stiletto is pointed at the heart of local democracy. That is not a power that the Secretary of State should ever have. Local authorities determine who should be on their committees, and it is up to them to say who is fit to perform the role; it is not a matter for the Secretary of State.
  On accountability, we need still to consider what comes to this House and what does not. The Secretary of State has again turned down the reasonable request—from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the national framework be considered in this House via statutory instrument. As was said earlier, it is flawed and it is very disappointing that we will be unable to consider it.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will entail big council tax rises to pay all the reorganisation costs?
  Richard Younger-Ross: The Bill should save money, and we accept the principle that reorganisation should involve a cost saving. However, achieving parity for firefighters could involve an increase in costs, which we would support. That would be reasonable in order to secure equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. Hammond indicated assent.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I note that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nods.
  Some spurious arguments were advanced today in respect of a well-thought-out amendment to establish a boundary review. Most people accept that, in this context, the regions of the south-west and the south-east are nonsense. They were created for different purposes and are not suitable as fire authority regions. Regardless of whether the other place can change the Bill's wording, I urge the Minister to accept the need for a boundary review at some point.
  We were nearly able to discuss sprinklers and their installation on Report, but we just ran out of time. The Minister gave a very good answer in Committee to the question of fitting sprinklers in new buildings, but we did not address their retrospective fitting. I urge those in the other place to table amendments to establish a review of existing properties, so that we can consider the practicalities of the retrospective fitting of sprinklers in schools, care homes and houses in multiple occupation. The cost of doing so could he saved through reduced insurance costs, and if we can save lives through such retrospective fitting, we should do it. That is not to say that we should give up on passive fire protection systems; rather, we see sprinklers as an additional protection. I urge the Minister to ask his noble Friends in the other place to look at the proposal sympathetically. There is a way forward, and I am sure that suitable wording and processes can be found to make it a reality.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Drew: I shall continue the process of handing out plaudits by handing out mine to Ministers. They have listened, and within reason we have made good progress. As the lack of a Division at the end of Third Reading will show, this is a consensual Bill.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said about sprinklers. To an extent, this has been a "something and nothing" Bill. The "something" is that at long last, we are introducing legislation that reflects a modern fire and rescue service, unlike the antiquated legislation that has been in place for so long that most people cannot remember why it was enacted. But other issues, such as sprinklers, have been deliberately avoided or regarded as inappropriate for this Bill. We had a useful debate on such issues in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) spoke very knowledgeably about what needed to be done, as one would expect, given his expertise. The Bill might not be the right vehicle for such matters, but they cannot remain an off-stage discussion.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and there has been consensus on both sides that once the research has been properly concluded, the issue of sprinklers must be addressed, if appropriate. From his discussion with his right hon. Friend the Minister, is it his understanding that the Secretary of State has the power to move forward on that agenda without the requirement for further primary legislation, or will we be waiting for a further primary legislative opportunity?
  Mr. Drew: I certainly believe that that is the case, and I hope that it will be confirmed soon after tonight's debate, but I understand the problem, because that matter will affect other Departments and other Bills. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have heard and taken on board the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Richard Younger-Ross rose—
  Mr. Drew: I had better not give way, because we need to allow other people to contribute.
  Another point that has been clearly made from this side is that we do not see the Bill as a cuts package in any way. Elements of it may involve a degree of rationalisation, but we have not discussed—
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Drew: No, but I will sit down in a moment to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.
  The key issue is how the resources are reallocated. If we want a modern fire and rescue service, working with the other emergency services, it is crucial for it to be properly funded. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have no problem with the regionalisation agenda as a strategic direction, but the Bill is not the way to deliver that, and it must not be used to do the work on the ground. If there are resources available, we must reinvest them not just in equipment but in the people
  124
  who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, are there day and night, doing the work, and are to be commended. If we are to make the fire service fit for purpose in the 21st century—particularly against the background of the developments that we are, sadly, seeing in this world of ours—we must make sure that those people have the resources to do the job properly.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) are being a little optimistic tonight—perhaps whistling in the dark—knowing as they do that they are under a three-line Whip to vote for the Bill, which I suspect is a harbinger of cuts and reductions in the fire service that they love and want to support.
  Mr. Hammond: Just for the record, I should tell my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has not been shy, when fire and rescue matters have been before the House in the past, about defying his Government's Whip and voting with the Opposition.
  Mr. Redwood: I quite agree, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has reminded the House of the hon. Gentleman's entirely honourable record. I was simply trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he should use his independence and freedom yet again, because I think that the Minister is selling him a pup on this important issue.
  I fear that this will be a typical Labour modernisation. We will see cuts in the service on the ground, among the people who have to deliver on not-very-good pay, but a massive expansion of bureaucracy, management and the administrative cadres. We will see large-scale recruitment of extra people called regional-this and regional-that: there will be regional chief executives, regional finance directors, regional chief officers, regional deputy chief officers and regional assistant chief officers across the country, who will be on huge salaries with cars and all sorts of perks. At the same time, the Minister will want to achieve some offsetting cost reductions. He will not achieve enough, but I am sure that he will squeeze the service on the ground. He therefore wants to go ahead with the plan to cut the number of centres around the country that deal with the emergencies and allocate the work. That is why he has got it in for the counties: he hopes that he can achieve some savings from demolishing county fire administration and replacing it with much dearer, grander, more expansive and more multi-layered administration at regional level.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I see that my hon. Friend is provoked yet again.
  Mr. Hammond: I was thinking that my right hon. Friend might want to try to provoke the Minister into a response by pointing out that his Department's internal estimates are that the cost of setting up the nine regional control centres, including the cost of redundancies from the existing control centres—because there will be

  125
  considerable redundancies—is in excess of £100 million. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could provoke the Minister into a denial of that figure.
  Mr. Redwood: That is the sort of figure that I would have guessed, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend, who has studied this much more closely than I have, has done this very accurate costing. Of course there are going to be redundancies and cuts—I think that some hon. Members who value the fire service have been misled on this occasion—and of course there will be a massive expansion of jobs and non-jobs as the regions are set up. This is an attempt to drive England into a series of regions that are neither natural, sensible nor efficient. This is not the way in which anyone with any sense of history, tradition, business practice, efficiency or service delivery would organise things.
  It makes absolutely no sense to have a fire region covering everywhere from Dover to Milton Keynes, but leaving out London at the very heart of that region, when all the main transport links go through or just round the edge of London within the Greater London area. It makes no sense to suggest that Cornwall, Devon and Somerset all wish to be lumped together. People in Exeter do not want to look to Bristol or Truro; people in Truro do not want to look to Plymouth or Bristol; and people in Bristol are not wild about either Exeter or Plymouth.
  It is dangerous for the Government to think that they can impose this "redprint" for ruin, this regionalisation, on the fire service as the soft underbelly of local government in Britain. The Government hope that the counties will not regard this as such a strong attack on themselves as the complete abolition of the counties and their replacement with regional government would be. They hope that they can start the process off by tackling it service by service, and they have picked on the poor fire service in this Bill.
  The Minister should think long and hard before trying to destroy the very good administration and delivery that exists in the many county fire services around the country. He should understand their esprit de corps, and their sense of loyalty, place and tradition, which are very important in a badged and uniformed service such as the fire service. He should also understand that there will be no such loyalty or sense of achievement and tradition if he insists on introducing these expensive regional quangos above the county services.
  Mr. Hammond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the responsible level of management is moved further from local communities to regional tiers, it is likely that local people will become more sceptical about whether the integrated risk management plan changes that are being introduced on the ground are really changes for the better and not just cuts? The further away they are, the more likely people are to be sceptical.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. These measures involve cuts in local democracy and accountability and in certain local jobs that need doing, coupled with the massive expansion of a new alien bureaucracy at regional level, which will be dearer, worse and less efficient, and without that sense of place, presence, tradition, efficiency and loyalty that is so
  126
  important in the delivery of these services in proud metropolitan boroughs and proud counties around our country. England is a country of cities and counties; it is not a country of regions. Regions are entirely artificial constructs, and they cause anger, disagreement and dissension. I have never met anyone in Liverpool who wanted to look to Manchester for their government. I have never found people in Sunderland very willing to accept the sovereignty of Newcastle. Labour Members who represent many of those cities should understand that, and realise just how unpopular—as well as expensive and undesirable—this regionalisation will be.
  Unfortunately, once again, there is not enough time to debate the intricacies of the Bill. I would, however, like to make a few comments on charging. We had a very unsatisfactory response from the Minister in our interesting mini-debate on this subject earlier today. At one stage, I thought that he was using his intelligence and common sense to accept our proposition that it would be quite wrong to start charging people who had been damaged in a serious motor accident, when the fire service turned up to rescue them. At one point, he seemed to have rejoined the human race and to be saying, "Yes, that would be inhuman, it would be wrong. I will give the House a guarantee that people will not have to reach for their credit card when the fire service turns up." I then asked him whether he would put that on the face of the Bill, but he said that there was no need, as he had given his word.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge then tried to make the words clearer, so that he could then withdraw his amendment that would have prevented such charging, and the Minister backed off. He said that the Bill gave powers, but there was no present plan, and that after the next general election, if the Government were still in office, they might want to look at the matter again, and that perhaps studies would soon emerge that would mean that they would want to do that. He suggested that the power was there, but that perhaps local discretion had to be exercised.
  The Minister used weasel words. He left open the possibility that people will be charged when they have had a serious accident. I would be happy to give way if the Minister wants to revise his view and categorically state that that there was never any intention whatever to charge people when they had been involved in accidents in their cars. I see from the Minister's—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January].
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sittings on Tuesday 16th, Wednesday 24th and Thursday 25th March—
(1) consideration of any Lords Message relating to a Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and
(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Message relating to such a Bill has been received or any Reasons Committee appointed at that sitting has reported.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Hon. Members: Object.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered.
That Mr Harry Barnes be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Stephen Hepburn be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Muscular Dystrophy (Research Funding)
10.1 pm
Bob Spink: A bid submitted to the Department of Health for research funding could provide treatment that would substantially extend life and improve the quality of life of those who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The bid was coordinated by the Right to Survive Campaign—a coalition of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, Parent Project UK, and the Duchenne Family Support Group. Hon. Members will be aware of the terrible impact of the disease on individuals and their families, and they will understand my constituent's motives for compiling a petition.
I wish to present a petition, which states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
The Humble Petition of Mr. and Mrs. Luxton and others of like disposition sheweth
That a consortium bid to the Department of Health for "molecular patch" Duchenne research, in the amount of &#x00A3;2.4 million, for funds under the White Paper on genetics for research into gene therapy for single gene disorders, has been submitted in October 2003.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to bring pressure on the Secretary of State for Health to support the bid, but in any event, to ensure that the research is funded and goes forward.
And our Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

MMR Vaccinations and Autism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Ainger]
10.2 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I wish to discuss issues around clinical ethics and research ethics in the work done at the Royal Free hospital by the inflammatory bowel disease group since 1995. Before I start, I would like to declare my interests. I was a member of an all-party group that recently visited the American society of clinical oncology conference for four days in Chicago, which was organised and funded by the pharmaceutical company Aventis. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee, although I am not speaking for that body. I also spent a number of years as a member of the central Oxford research ethics committee, which gave me direct experience of many of the issues that I will deal with tonight. I am a member of the all-party group on autism, and my father is a recently retired professor of paediatrics.
Autism is a serious condition, and all of us in the House need to be aware of how distressing it is to parents and other family members and how challenging and troubling autistic spectrum disorders are to the children and their families. The controversy surrounding the work of the inflammatory bowel disease group at the Royal Free should not detract from the need to improve the health and social care provided to the children or the need for more research into causation, diagnosis and treatment of developmental delay or regression in children. None of the criticisms that I make of the researchers, the ethical regulators and the Legal Services Commission should be taken to extend to the parents who gave their consent and cooperation to those studies in good faith. As we know, many of them still support the individuals involved and perhaps see no problem in what they did.
In the scandal over Dr. Andrew Wakefield's failure to declare financial and conflicts of interest when his research group's article was published in The Lancet six years ago, the welfare of the children who were his research subjects seems to have been forgotten. Documents revealed by the investigative journalist Brian Deer and by The Sunday Times raise major doubts about a far more serious matter than publication misconduct. By that, I mean doubts and allegations about whether children were exposed to unacceptable risks and unnecessary procedures.
I do not make those allegations lightly, conscious as I am of the need to avoid the abuse of parliamentary privilege, but there is very clear evidence pointing towards unethical conduct by the researchers—or by one or some of them—and equally strong evidence of failure and incompetence by the research ethics committee. The papers to which I refer are published on Brian Deer's website: www.briandeer.com
In 1996, and subsequently, researchers in the inflammatory bowel disease study group subjected children to a battery of invasive tests. Those included upper GI endoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope down the throat into the stomach and upper gut through the mouth or nose; ileo-colonoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope through the anus and

129
rectum right round the large intestine and into the small bowel; and spinal taps, which is passing a needle into lower back to drain some of the fluid that bathes the brain and spinal cord. Those procedures are not trivial on consenting adults, let alone on autistic children, who must be heavily sedated or even anaesthetised. In addition to those tests, the children underwent blood tests, brain scans and monitoring of electric currents in the brain.
Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: I shall certainly give way to the constituency MP for the Royal Free hospital.
Glenda Jackson: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman remembers that the hospital is in my constituency. Is he disputing the fact that the hospital's ethics committee was concerned, particularly about the fact that the project required children to undergo, as he has just pointed out, an intensive regime of investigation? The hospital's ethics committee put that point to the senior clinical investigator, Professor John Walker-Smith, who replied:
"I can confirm that the children would have these investigations even if there were no trial."
Dr. Harris: That is the key question, which I shall deal with. If that were the case, there would be less of a problem, although there would not be no problem at all. I do not believe that that was right then or that it is now.
In 1996, just as now, there were tough rules to protect children from being exposed to risk for research purposes. We are not judging this case by the standards of today but by the standards of 1996, when four separate sets of guidelines applied. The guidelines were published and circulated by the Department of Health in 1991, the British Paediatric Association—now the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—in 1992, the General Medical Council in 1994 and the Royal College of Physicians in 1996. The guidelines made it clear that children should not be exposed to anything more invasive or risky than a blood test unless certain conditions—likely specific clinical benefit to the child—were met; that proper approval be sought in advance from a research ethics committee; that the advice and instructions of the research ethics committee be followed to the letter; that changes to the agreed arrangements be agreed in advance by the research ethics committee; and that patients or their parents be given all the necessary information about risks for them to able to give adequate and adequately informed consent.
The research ethics committee was bound by the same guidelines to refuse permission for any tests or procedures that were more than minimal risk if they were not in the best interests of the individual child. That means that so-called non-therapeutic research—as it was called at that time—where there was no likely clinical benefit to the child in terms of therapy, was not allowed to involve anything worse than a blood test.
130
I shall quote some of the guidance that existed around that time. The BPA guidelines 1992 state:
"Children are unique as a research group for many reasons. They are the only people, in British law, on whose behalf other individuals may consent to medical procedures. Many children are vulnerable, easily bewildered and frightened, and unable to express their needs or defend their interests &#x2026; The physical integrity of children, as of all other people, is protected by law. Unless they, or their parents or guardians acting on their behalf, agree to it, nothing can be done lawfully that involves touching them&#x2026;Parental consent will probably not be valid if it is given against the child's interests. This means that parents can consent to research procedures which are intended directly to benefit the child, but that research that does not come into this category can only be validly consented to if the risks are sufficiently small to mean that the research can be reasonably said not to go against the child's interests."
The Department of Health guidelines 1991 are similarly clear:
"Where the proposal is for non-therapeutic research, all of the above applies"&#x2014;
criteria for other patients—
"but in addition the child must be subject to no more than minimal risk as a result of his/her participation."
The local research ethics committee
"should note that those acting for the child can only legally give their consent provided that the intervention is for the benefit of the child."
The BPA was very clear about what sort of procedures were considered minimal risk, low risk and high risk:
"High risk procedures &#x2026; should be carried out only when research is combined with diagnosis or treatment intended to benefit the child concerned. It would be unethical to submit child subjects to more than minimal risk when the procedure offers no benefit to them, or only a slight or very uncertain one."
Glenda Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman disputing what Professor Humphrey Hodgson, the vice-dean and campus director at the Royal Free and University college medical school, said in a statement issued on behalf of the school and the Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust:
"The committee, after clarifying a number of issues&#x2026;and having taken expert advice. approved the protocol submitted.
The clinical management and the investigation of these children was performed at the Free by a dedicated team of consultant paediatric gastroenterologists, in full consultation with and agreement of the parents of the affected children."
Dr. Harris: I disagree with the Royal Free when it says that the protocol was subject to rigorous ethical analysis, and I shall say why I do not think that the necessary requirements were met.
Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Dr. Harris: I wish to make some progress, if I may.
According to papers released to The Sunday Times by the strategic health authority, the research ethics committee did not appear to ask an independent outside expert—that is, someone who is independent and outside and expert—whether the battery of tests could be considered of therapeutic value to the children. In fact, after publication of the paper, the research ethics committee tried to claim that it was not even its job to

131
make a judgment about whether procedures were in the children's best interests. That in itself is a shocking admission of incompetence, so the Department of Health should investigate every ethics approval that the committee has ever given for research on children, to see whether anything else was allowed through—in effect, on the nod.
The published paper stated that the investigations had been granted clinical ethical approval by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free, but the research ethics committee says, in a letter from the chairman to the dean, dated 24 July 1998:
"On 9th July you wrote to me for my comment on the letter of Professor David Hull. In his letter Professor Hull states: 'I see that the investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust.' This is, of course, incorrect. We did not approve the investigations."
However, the paper says clearly that the investigations were approved by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free hospital. They cannot both be right. I suspect that both are wrong, in some ways, but one at least is wrong.
As it happens, the researchers had submitted their application in a form to which approval might have been given, even if the research ethics committee had looked at it properly. The researchers asked for permission to carry out the tests on 25 children with a condition known as disintegrative disorder, which is also known as disintegrative psychosis or Heller's disease. DD is a much worse form of developmental disorder than autism, and the researchers stressed in their application that it is separate from autism. They said, in paragraph 5, "Scientific background", that
"disintegrative disorder differs from autism in the loss of motor and self-help skills and usually, too, in the lack of more complex stereotype behavioral patterns".
The researchers were clear on that point, and it is still the accepted view today. DD is of later onset and involves significant loss of acquired skills. DD is rare and, in a few cases, can be caused by a metabolic disorder that can be detected by high lactate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. It could be argued that doing spinal taps on such children would allow doctors to diagnose a metabolic disorder, or to rule it out. Since such diseases are not treatable, generally speaking, the benefit is limited, but at least a benefit can be argued. However, no major group of doctors in the UK argued at the time, or argues now, that spinal taps be performed on children with autism for any clinical benefit, and certainly not as an excuse to obtain cerebrospinal fluid for private research contracts.
Despite getting research ethics approval to perform the tests only on children with disintegrative disorder and despite the researchers stating that the tests were clinically necessary to benefit the children, the published research shows that not one of the 12 children had DD. One was diagnosed "Autism? DD?", but not one had DD. Most had autism. In another paper published later in 1998—an abstract in Gut—the authors admit to carrying out the tests on 30 children, only two of whom had DD. By 2000, some 60 children had been subjected to endoscopies, according to an article in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, of whom only two had DD. When the research ethics committee gave approval for
132
the application it saw, it made it clear that any changes to the proposed tests or the group of children should be cleared with it in advance. That is standard, and it is written in the letter of approval. The research ethics committee received no such request to change the protocol, so up to 30 children were experimented on with no proper ethical approval and with no likelihood of individual clinical benefit.
Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that, in the initial request, the criteria for investigation were that children
"should have disintegrative disorder; have symptoms and signs of intestinal dysfunction, and there was a parental request for investigation to be undertaken"?
Is it not also the case that disintegrative disorder is a syndrome that is part of the autistic spectrum?
Dr. Harris: The selection criteria at paragraph 7 of the protocol application include "presence of disintegrative disorder"; the applicants state that the syndrome is separate, and it is established in their argument that it could be caused by something that would make a CSF test worth doing, but not by autism. Autism was not mentioned in the scientific background; had it been, I suspect that the procedure would rightly not have been permitted. When CSF tests on autistic children were required for Legal Services Commission purposes, no hospital in the UK gave ethics approval and children had to be taken to America for the tests. I hope that the hon. Lady understands the point that I making—[ Interruption.] I want to continue.
It turns out that Dr. Wakefield was receiving undisclosed funding for at least four of the children from the Legal Aid Board for some of the results. A central component of the deal was genetic analysis of fluid collected from those spinal taps, with further undisclosed payments for genetic analysis of biopsy samples from the bowels, following endoscopy. The evidence strongly suggests that, from start to finish of his research, Dr. Wakefield withheld the information about his legal aid board funding interest from the REC.
The question in the protocol application under paragraph 10 was,
"How are the substances for the study being provided, and how is the study being funded?"
The reply was
"Clinical research at the Royal Free Hospital (ECR)".
There was no mention of any Legal Aid Board funding. The failure to disclose that information suggests that even the approval Dr. Wakefield received for 25 children with DD may be invalid. It also seems clear that he had no ethical approval to carry out those procedures on any child who did not have DD.
Without ethical approval, the consent that the doctors obtained from the parents may not be valid. Without a valid consent, doctors could face action for assault. I do not dispute that the parents gave consent in good faith, knowing that there was REC approval for the study—albeit apparently for a different study from the one that was carried out—but even valid parental consent does not make it lawful to conduct high-risk research procedures on children with no likely clinical benefit.
Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: I must conclude, so that the Minister has time to reply.

133
The whole affair seems dubious. It is not just that there was non-declaration of interest, nor that up to 30 children were exposed to invasive procedures under those tests, but that many more may have been thus exposed in tests agreed and funded by the Legal Services Commission with no ethical oversight at all.
The GMC—currently the Government's favoured path—cannot investigate or judge the LSC. It cannot look into the actions of non-medically qualified management. It cannot make recommendations to prevent any such practices from happening again, nor can it look for similar acts. That is why an independent inquiry is needed—not a hospital inquiry. The accused cannot investigate themselves, especially because, as the letter read out by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) shows, they have already declared themselves not guilty.
An independent inquiry is needed and the Government must order one. After all, such activities could still be going on at the Royal Free or elsewhere. Children need protection from that sort of research behaviour. If the Government cannot guarantee that it is no longer happening at the Royal Free or anywhere else, they have no choice but to order an independent inquiry.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing a debate on this important subject.
Like all Members, I care greatly about the health and safety of children and I am reassured that some of the infectious diseases that used to be devastating in childhood are now seen only rarely, if at all in some cases. It is easy to forget the impact that some of those diseases had. Nowadays, parents in the UK never see their children crippled by polio. Diphtheria and tetanus are exceptionally rare in children. Since the meningitis C vaccine was introduced in the UK in the 1990s, it has cut the rate of that terrible disease by 95 per cent.
Immunisation in the UK has been greatly successful at protecting children against preventable diseases, and all those achievements have happened because of effective vaccination programmes. In particular, measles cases fell from more than 70,000 a year in 1987—before MMR was introduced—to fewer than 100 per year in 1999. Before MMR, there were between 15 and 20 deaths each year, but no child has died of acute measles for a decade.
One of the greatest achievements was the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome and the avoidance of rubella-associated terminations of pregnancy. In 2001, there was not one single case of congenital rubella syndrome in England and Wales in which a woman acquired the infection in this country. Let us not forget mumps. Before MMR, it was the commonest cause of viral meningitis and lead to around 1,200 hospital admissions a year. The MMR vaccine has dealt a hammer blow to these three serious diseases of childhood and has released children from the risk of death and disability as a consequence, which is something with which I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) agree.
134
The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is well aware of the significant media interest in MMR following the findings of an investigative journalist, Mr. Brian Deer, from The Sunday Times. Mr. Deer raised several concerns about the research carried out at the Royal Free hospital that first claimed a link between MMR and autism. The first concern was an alleged conflict of interest, and the editor of The Lancet has made it clear that the information now makes the original Lancet paper "fatally flawed". The second concern is about ethics approval for the research carried out at the Royal Free hospital, and I shall address that matter next.
As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, ethical approval, especially regarding children, is an essential part of medical research, and such medical research involving children is a matter of increasing concern. It can be an important means of promoting child health and wellbeing, but as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health clearly recognises in its "Guidelines for the ethical conduct of medical research involving children",
"Children are unique as a research group for many reasons. They are the only people, in British law, on whose behalf other individuals may consent to medical procedures. Many children are vulnerable, easily bewildered and frightened, and unable to express their needs or defend their interests."
The importance of evaluating the possible benefit, harm and cost of research on human beings, and the possible ways of carrying out that research, are key issues. The benefits of research can be great, especially if the condition being investigated is common or if the research has a high chance of success. Possible harm must be assessed with equal care, and possible considerations of harm include questions of how invasive the type of intervention is, how severe the risks associated with the research procedures are, and how likely damage is to occur. These are common-sense issues that are difficult to question. Any parent would expect that research carried out on their children should have addressed those issues thoroughly and carefully. but balancing the pros and cons of research is often complex, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates. Research ethics committees play a vital role in considering the issues and advising on what is acceptable and what is not.
Ethics committees are faced with the paradox of trying to be both stringent assessors and an approachable forum to help researchers to resolve problems. They have to compromise between aiming for the perfect protocol in advance and encouraging researchers to respond to families' unpredictable responses, which might require changes to research design later on.
Questions have been raised about whether the lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that were carried out on children at the Royal Free were justified. Both interventions are invasive and are not undertaken lightly. Lumbar puncture—during which cerebrospinal fluid is extracted from the spinal cord for examination—is undoubtedly unpleasant and is not risk-free. Colonoscopies are unpleasant and distressing to the patient, and carry the risk of complications, such as perforation of the bowel.
Should children at the Royal Free have undergone such investigations? Professor Sir David Hull and Professor Brent Taylor raised concerns in 1998. The research team believes that the investigations were

135
justified, but I cannot say what was clinically justified for each of the children in the study. However, that shows why the approval of research proposals by ethics committees is so important.
Glenda Jackson: Is it not also the case that the independent ethical committee raised those very issues in 1996, before permission was given for the investigations to proceed?
Miss Johnson: I am not an expert on all the details of the arrangements and I would not want to disagree with what my hon. Friend suggests, but we need to be certain that the right processes are being carried out. Ethics is about good practice. As the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recommends, each research ethics committee that considers a project involving children should be advised by people with a close practical knowledge of babies and children. The ethics committee also needs to have, or to have access to, the appropriate expertise to cover the breadth of issues dealt with by the research proposal. That is demanding because of the complexity of much of the research undertaken. Input from independent experts is a means of ensuring that the committee can cover all the issues.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the management of research at the Royal Free. I am sure that the hospital and my hon. Friend, as the local MP, will take careful note of his points and that the hospital will consider his concerns in the light of the statements it has made.
The General Medical Council is considering serious matters of research and ethical conduct. We must await its deliberations and its indication of how it intends to take them forward in using its statutory powers. I assure the House that should aspects of the case require further
136
scrutiny or investigation at that point, we will give them the most serious consideration and act appropriately. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are waiting for the outcome of the GMC's deliberations and will give them careful consideration. I trust that the Royal Free will also look at what he said and think about the appropriate response.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for her considered response. I raised my concerns with her some days ago. Does she accept that the GMC cannot consider the conduct of, and the procedures that were funded by, the Legal Services Commission because that is not part of the inquiry? Does she also accept that there may be other practices elsewhere of which she and the Department of Health may wish to take note? Are there not grounds for considering a wider inquiry, because there may be another form of investigation—by the Crown Prosecution Service—for which the GMC would want to wait?
Miss Johnson: It is conceivable, although perhaps not likely—it is not for me to comment on the likelihood either way—that the case has not been brought to a final conclusion. The LSC has refused to grant further financial support for the litigants' case and it appears that it will not continue. However, notwithstanding the privileges that the House enjoys, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on something on which theoretically, if not practically, legal proceedings were still pending.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the ethics committees. I am sure that the Royal Free has listened carefully to what he said.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  Community Transport Fund (Essex)
  Community Transport Fund (Essex)
  Unsurfaced Roads
  Unsurfaced Roads
  Batteries
  Batteries
  GM Crops
  GM Crops
  Nappies
  Nappies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
SOLICIITOR-GENERAL
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Law Officers' Advice
  Law Officers' Advice
  Discontinued Prosecutions
  Discontinued Prosecutions
  Katharine Gun
  Katharine Gun
WALES
  Business Output
  Business Output
  Ministerial Speeches
  Ministerial Speeches
TRANSPORT
  Computerised MOT Tests
  Computerised MOT Tests
  Rural Bus Services (Chorley)
  Rural Bus Services (Chorley)
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Rail Capacity (West Yorkshire)
  Rail Capacity (West Yorkshire)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  School Buses
  School Buses
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Waterways Improvements
  Waterways Improvements
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Civil Society Organisations
  Civil Society Organisations
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Departmental Communications
  Departmental Communications
  EU Development Finance
  EU Development Finance
  Haiti
  Haiti
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Nile Conference
  Nile Conference
  Procurement Policy
  Procurement Policy
  Rwanda
  Rwanda
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Westminster Hall
  Westminster Hall
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
NORTHERN IRELAND
  School Meals
  School Meals
PRIME MINISTER
  Law Officers' Advice Advice
  Law Officers' Advice Advice
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Global Security
  Global Security
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Israel
  Israel
  Cote d'Ivoire
  Cote d'Ivoire
  Caribbean
  Caribbean
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
CABINET OFFICE
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Official Publications
  Official Publications
  Public Service (Disqualification)
  Public Service (Disqualification)
  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Regulatory Impact Assessments
DEFENCE
  Airfield Support Services Project
  Airfield Support Services Project
  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Arms Dealers
  Arms Dealers
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Continuous Attitudes Survey
  Continuous Attitudes Survey
  Defence Bills Agency
  Defence Bills Agency
  Defence-related Industries
  Defence-related Industries
  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Met Office
  Met Office
  RAF St. Athan
  RAF St. Athan
  Regimental Artefacts
  Regimental Artefacts
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Warships
  Warships
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  Census Returns
  Census Returns
  Departmental Communications
  Departmental Communications
  court Buildings (Disabled Access)
  court Buildings (Disabled Access)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Westminster Hall
  Westminster Hall
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  Television Licence Fees
  Television Licence Fees
  Cultural Programmes
  Cultural Programmes
  Edgworth Cricket and Recreation Club
  Edgworth Cricket and Recreation Club
  Entertainment Costs
  Entertainment Costs
  Libraries (Digitisation)
  Libraries (Digitisation)
  New Opportunities Fund (Buckingham)
  New Opportunities Fund (Buckingham)
  Project Funding
  Project Funding
  Television Ownership
  Television Ownership
  Tourism (Regional Development Agencies)
  Tourism (Regional Development Agencies)
  Weymouth Transmitter
  Weymouth Transmitter
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  Casinos
  Casinos
  Child Poverty
  Child Poverty
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Care Homes (Gloucestershire)
  Care Homes (Gloucestershire)
  Housing (Buckingham)
  Housing (Buckingham)
  Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme
  Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme
  Radon Tests
  Radon Tests
  Regional Assemblies
  Regional Assemblies
  Local Councillors (Anonymous Complaints)
  Local Councillors (Anonymous Complaints)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Working Time Directive
  Working Time Directive
  Disciplinary and Grievance Hearings
  Disciplinary and Grievance Hearings
  Employment Rights Advice
  Employment Rights Advice
  Renewable Energy Initiative
  Renewable Energy Initiative
  EU Structural Funds
  EU Structural Funds
  Israel
  Israel
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Employment
  Employment
  Mark Gilbert Morse Solicitors
  Mark Gilbert Morse Solicitors
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Miners'Compensation
  Miners'Compensation
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Skills Base
  Skills Base
  Small Business
  Small Business
  EU Telecoms Council
  EU Telecoms Council
  Ukraine
  Ukraine
  Unfair Dismissal Compensation
  Unfair Dismissal Compensation
  Welsh Manufacturing Exports
  Welsh Manufacturing Exports
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  Behavioural Problems
  Behavioural Problems
  Best Practice Research Scholarships
  Best Practice Research Scholarships
  Chesterfield High School, Sefton
  Chesterfield High School, Sefton
  Computers within Reach Programme
  Computers within Reach Programme
  Connexions
  Connexions
  Education Funding
  Education Funding
  Opportunity Bursaries
  Opportunity Bursaries
  Education Standards
  Education Standards
  Educational Databases
  Educational Databases
  Homeless Young People
  Homeless Young People
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Pre-school Education
  Pre-school Education
  School Sports
  School Sports
  Specialist Sports Colleges (Out-of-hours Provision)
  Specialist Sports Colleges (Out-of-hours Provision)
  Streaming
  Streaming
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Teachers (Crosby)
  Teachers (Crosby)
  University Title
  University Title
  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Voluntary Sector Funding
WORK AND PENSIONS
  Savings Ratio
  Savings Ratio
  Pensioner Benefits
  Pensioner Benefits
  Carers Allowance
  Carers Allowance
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Departmental Website
  Departmental Website
  Employment Development Fund
  Employment Development Fund
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Maintenance (Non-Resident Parents)
  Maintenance (Non-Resident Parents)
  Pension Protection Fund
  Pension Protection Fund
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Small Business Support
  Small Business Support
  Pensions Uprating (European Union Residents)
  Pensions Uprating (European Union Residents)
TREASURY
  Birth Defects
  Birth Defects
  Charities
  Charities
  Child Tax Credit
  Child Tax Credit
  Economic Statistics
  Economic Statistics
  Family Gifts (Taxation)
  Family Gifts (Taxation)
  Employment (Crosby)
  Employment (Crosby)
  EU Budget
  EU Budget
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Project Funding
  Project Funding
  Business Regulation
  Business Regulation
  Small Business
  Small Business
  Sugar Tax
  Sugar Tax
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Unemployment (Crosby)
  Unemployment (Crosby)
  VAT
  VAT
  Welsh Industries
  Welsh Industries
  Windfall Profits (Banks)
  Windfall Profits (Banks)
HEALTH
  Alcohol Advertising
  Alcohol Advertising
  Allergies
  Allergies
  Amantadine
  Amantadine
  Continence Services
  Continence Services
  NHS Dentists
  NHS Dentists
  Breast Feeding
  Breast Feeding
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Epilepsy
  Epilepsy
  EU Enlargement
  EU Enlargement
  General Practitioners (Greater London)
  General Practitioners (Greater London)
  Child Protection
  Child Protection
  Intermediate Care
  Intermediate Care
  Nursing Care
  Nursing Care
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  People with Learning Disabilities
  People with Learning Disabilities
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Organ Donation
  Organ Donation
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Greater London)
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Greater London)
  Osteoporosis
  Osteoporosis
  Waiting Lists/Times
  Waiting Lists/Times
  Working Time Directive
  Working Time Directive
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sentencing
  Sentencing
  Asylum and Immigration
  Asylum and Immigration
  Bail(Offences)
  Bail(Offences)
  Coroners
  Coroners
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Prosecutions(Romford/Havering)
  Prosecutions(Romford/Havering)
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  Detention and Removal Centres
  Detention and Removal Centres
  Disorder Penalty Notices
  Disorder Penalty Notices
  DNA Testing
  DNA Testing
  Drug Rehabilitation Schemes (Portsmouth)
  Drug Rehabilitation Schemes (Portsmouth)
  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Eastern European Arrivals
  Eastern European Arrivals
  Electronic Tagging
  Electronic Tagging
  Court Escort Contractors
  Court Escort Contractors
  EU Enlargement(Worker Registration)
  EU Enlargement(Worker Registration)
  Extraditions(Russia)
  Extraditions(Russia)
  Female Prisoners
  Female Prisoners
  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Internet
  Internet
  Jim Stephens
  Jim Stephens
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Prisoners (Accommodation on Release)
  Prisoners (Accommodation on Release)
  National Offender Management Service
  National Offender Management Service
  Operation Safeguard
  Operation Safeguard
  Persistent Offenders
  Persistent Offenders
  Police Cells
  Police Cells
  Prison Buildings
  Prison Buildings
  Prisoner Discharge Grants
  Prisoner Discharge Grants
  Prisoner Statistics
  Prisoner Statistics
  Probation Cases
  Probation Cases
  Re-offending
  Re-offending
  Restorative Justice
  Restorative Justice
  Robert Dymond
  Robert Dymond
  Sentencing Guidelines Council
  Sentencing Guidelines Council
  Shaw Inquiry Reports
  Shaw Inquiry Reports
  Supervision and Monitoring Schemes
  Supervision and Monitoring Schemes
  Travellers(Photographic Images)
  Travellers(Photographic Images)
  Westminster Hall
  Westminster Hall
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  The Strategy Unit's report, alcohol harm reduction strategy for England, is published today. The strategy aims to reduce the harm caused by alcohol misuse by focusing on four areas for intervention:using more effective enforcement to tackle alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour;
  encouraging the alcoholic drinks industry to take a lead in promoting more responsible drinking and in reducing alcohol-related problems;
  enabling individual choice through improved and better targeted education and communication; and
  better support and treatment for those who suffer from the effects of alcohol misuse and their families.
  Its findings will be implemented as Government policy. This is consistent with the commitment made in the NHS Plan to begin implementing an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England in 2004.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Disorder Penalty Notices
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Bears)
  Home Office research findings summarising the main findings of the interim evaluation of pilots for penalty notices for disorder, which ran for 12 months from August and September 2002 to 2003, have been published today. The findings show that police officers have welcomed the scheme and are making good use of penalty notices for disorder. In particular, the pilots showed that the police find penalty notices for disorder a quick and effective tool for tackling the low-level drink-related nuisance offending that occurs late at night in city centres. Using a penalty notice for disorder saves police time and there has been a demonstrable switch from cautions and prosecutions in the pilot areas.

  The issues raised by police officers about repeat offenders, "flagging" on PNC and taking of fingerprints and DNA have already been addressed. A programme is being developed that will identify repeat offenders on the computer database. A facility now exists to record penalty notices on PNC, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains powers for the police to take DNA and fingerprints on arrest for recordable offences. These powers will be introduced on 5 April.

  Copies of the research findings have been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Public Sector Relocation
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  The report of Sir Michael Lyon's independent review of public sector relocation is published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In July 2003 I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to report on the national minimum wage by the end of February 2004.

  The Government are today publishing the Commission's 2004 report and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair of the Commission, Adair Turner, and its other members for their work on this very important issue.

  We asked the Commission to consider two issues. We asked them to look at possible fine-tuning of the minimum wage rates proposed for October 2004, in the light of the latest economic position. And we asked them, following the recommendation in their fourth report last spring, to look at the possible introduction of a new minimum wage rate for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  The Commission have concluded, first, that the overall economic outlook remains favourable, with growth being slightly higher than forecast last year and the labour market remaining robust with high employment and very low unemployment. In addition, employment across low-paying sectors as a whole is continuing to grow and there seems to be little or no evidence that the minimum wage is having an adverse impact on these sectors. On the basis that the Commission believe these recommendations are affordable for business and will not have any significant effect on levels of employment, the Government have accepted the recommended rate increases for 2004.

  The Commission have also considered whether to introduce a new minimum wage rate for 16 and 17-yearold workers. They have found continued evidence that some jobs in this age group offer very low rates of pay and little or no training, and concluded that it is important to introduce a minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-old workers, in order to stop exploitative rates of pay.

  However it is clearly important to set any rate for this group cautiously. Unemployment and employment levels for 16 and 17-year-old workers are substantially worse than those for those aged 18 to 21. The Commission believe that a rate of around £3.00 per hour would have negligible impact on young people's decisions on whether to remain in education, and the

  3WS
  national implementation of Education Maintenance Allowances this autumn will encourage young people to stay on in education after they have completed compulsory schooling. The Commission have therefore recommended that a rate should be introduced for 16 and 17-year-olds, at £3.00 in October 2004. The Government have accepted this recommendation.

  The Commission have also considered the position of young apprentices. Many young apprentices earn less than £3.00 an hour at 16 and 17, and many 18-year-old apprentices earn less than the development rate of £4.10 an hour. We are very concerned to ensure that employers continue to offer apprenticeships and, recognising the need for caution, the Commission have recommended extending the current exemption for apprentices aged under 19 to cover 16 and 17-year-old apprentices as well. They have also recommended extending this exemption to cover participants on specified pre-apprenticeship programmes. The Government have accepted this recommendation.

  I have placed copies of this statement, the Report from the Low Pay Commission and our Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Summary of recommendations in the Low Pay Commission's 2004 report and the Government's response

  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE RATES

  The adult rate of the minimum wage should be increased from the present hourly rate of £4.50 to £4.85 in October 2004.

  Accept. This increase will take place on 1 October 2004.

  The youth rate (which applies to 18-21 year olds) should be increased from the present hourly rate of £3.80 to £4.10 in October 2004.

  Accept. This increase will take place on 1 October 2004.

  YOUNG PEOPLE

  The Government should introduce a minimum wage for 16-17 year olds, set at an hourly rate of £3.00 in October 2004.

  Accept. We will introduce a new minimum wage rate for 16-17 year olds on 1 October 2004.

  Apprentices aged 16 and 17 and participants on specified pre-apprenticeship programmes should be exempt from the new rate.

  Accept.

  AWARENESS

  The Government should consider specific channels to promote awareness of the minimum wage for young people.

  Accept. We will consider this point when developing the publicity campaign to inform people of the new rates this autumn.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Sustainable Communities
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  In February last year my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published the Communities Plan. That plan was not simply about housing: it was about creating sustainable communities in all parts of the country, and we are following it up with a detailed programme of implementation. In July last year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published"Making it Happen—Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas" and in February this year we set out our plans for the north in "Making it Happen—The Northern Way". I am now giving Members a further update on our plans for the growth areas.

  One of our key objectives is to help tackle the long-term shortage of housing, and particularly affordable housing. Based on the potential set out in joint studies with partners, we are now working to deliver the additional 200,000 new homes identified in the Communities Plan for sustainable communities in the growth areas and London. This is in addition to the 930,000 already planned in the wider south-east by 2016, and subject to testing and examination through the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) process.

  These additional new homes are a key element in our response to the housing affordability problem which is seriously affecting the wider economy, business competitiveness, and the delivery of public services. Failure to respond to these pressures is directly harming communities and means that young people cannot live near their parents.

  Constraining growth in order to divert it to other regions is not a solution. We are committed to enabling every region to perform to its full economic potential, and to narrow the gap in growth rates between them, but displacing investment in the south-east means it might well go abroad or not happen at all.

  Later this week the Government intend to publish Kate Barker's review of housing supply which will consider the need for additional measures and on which we will consult. In the meantime we need to ensure that we and our regional and local partners are on course to deliver the full potential of the growth areas programme.

  The regional Planning Framework

  The growth areas will in part help meet demand close to London, and in part provide new opportunities in the north and east of the wider south-east, where there is substantial capacity for sustainable growth in new and expanded communities. The growth areas policy will also strengthen links between the south east and its adjoining regions, particularly the East Midlands, through Northamptonshire and the inclusion of Peterborough, and with Europe.

  The areas that we are now taking forward were confirmed in RPG9 (for the wider south-east) published in 2001, because of their potential to take further sustainable growth, and to exploit major transport investment. The potential of Thames Gateway was established in RPG9a, and is being further developed in the Interregional Planning Statement which is being

  5WS
  prepared by the three Regional Planning Bodies which cover the Gateway. The potential for the newer growth areas has been independently assessed in studies which were published last year. These studies and supplementary local assessments have been key inputs to the preparation of proposals by regional partners for new Regional Planning Guidance f or each area, which is then subject to public consultation and testing in public examination. The current position is tabled below:

  Milton Keynes/South Midlands

  Mini RPG proposals published for public consultation July 2003; public examination starts 23 March 2004.

  Ashford

  Mini RPG proposals published July 2003, public examination held in December—Panel report submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister February 2004.

  London—Stansted— Cambridge—Peterborough

  Growth area proposals are included in draft RPG 14 for the East of England—proposals agreed by Regional Planning Panel February 2004 subject to further work on the Growth Area for completion by September 2004.

  Thames Gateway

  Interregional Planning Statement being draw up by Regional Planning bodies puts forward outline growth potential for confirmation by Regional planning Statements.

  A more sustainable approach

  The growth areas programme is about sustainable communities, not simply about housing. We are looking to create places where we integrate from the start a more sustainable approach to health, education, transport, the environment and natural resources. Jobs growth needs to balance housing rather than simply add to long distance commuting. Where there is an urban extension, growth should strengthen the existing town centre, enabling it to offer a wider range of services, and where there is to be a new settlement, it needs to complement, not weaken, its neighbouring cent res. The challenge is to make the most of these opportunities to create communities which are better designed and more attractive to residents and investors and which will stand the test of time. There are good examples of this quality of development currently being delivered in Cambridge, Northampton, Milton Keynes and in the Abode scheme at Harlow, and in Thames Gateway in the Royal Docks and Kent Thameside. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is working extensively with local partners across the Growth Areas to help realise this potential.

  Infrastructure and services

  One of the critical issues for new communities is ensuring that provision of infrastructure and services takes place in step with growth. Failure to do so places additional pressures on hard pressed existing facilities and will make the growth itself unattractive to investors, new arrivals and existing residents. Our task as Government is to put in place mechanisms with local
  6WS
  and regional partners, and the private sector, to ensure that we tackle these issues together and give partners, investors and communities the reassurance they need. The approach we will follow is based on the following principles:

  (i) that funding allocations for major services such as health and education respond effectively to rapid population growth;

  (ii) that we will only support the development of individual growth locations which can be adequately supported by committed or planned transport services and infrastructure;

  (iii) that for the major growth locations, we recognise the need for additional funding for local infrastructure services and environmental improvement to unlock key sites, alongside strengthened local delivery arrangements, established in consultation with local partners.

  I can now report to the House on some of the early action which colleagues and I are taking to help deliver this approach.

  Health

  Creating new communities offers substantial potential for health benefits—through better design promoting healthier communities, responding to keyworker shortages in the health sector and providing health services more effectively from the outset. To support the development of Sustainable Communities, and reflect population growth, the department of Health is announcing a new funding package for the Growth Areas which will enable the NHS to increase local service capacity, including:
  An additional £20 million of revenue funding per annum for 2004–05 and 2005–06, for those Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) that are already experiencing considerable population growth as a direct consequence of development of the four Growth Areas;
  An additional £20 million of capital resources for allocation in 2005–06 to the 4 growth areas;
  A Growth Areas Adjustment as part of future PCT allocations. This will apply from 2006–07. The detail of this adjustment will be worked through as part of Department of Health's review of its allocations policy which will take place later this year. It will ensure PCTs have the resources to put in place the additional capacity that planned population growth will require.
  The aim will be to ensure that additional health and social care capacity (both primary and community and hospital-based services) is ready to open as new populations move into the areas. NHS and social care organisations will need to play a key role in each of the delivery vehicles being set up in the Growth Areas. Early engagement will ensure that they can respond positively to population growth; planning innovative services integrated where possible into other aspects of the public and civic infrastructure (e.g. health facilities with local libraries, schools, or shops) and to help design urban developments so that they promote healthy sustainable communities and tackle health inequalities. Staffing the extra service capacity required in the four Growth Areas will also be a major challenge for Health Service and other delivery partners. The optimal solution is to train and employ local people, both to aid

  7WS
  regeneration and promote healthy, sustainable communities, but also so as housing and travel difficulties are minimised.

  Education

  Improving education standards is a key objective of the Government, and of concern both for local communities and partners, and for prospective residents and investors in all the growth areas. The total capital funding available nationally for investment in school buildings has increased substantially—from less than £700 million in 1996–97 to £3.8 billion this year, and it will reach £5.1 billion in 2005–06. For example, just over £400 million (including £104 million Private Finance Initiative credits) has already been allocated to authorities and their schools covered by the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area over the period 2003–06. Within this over £200 million has been allocated largely by formula, and delivered through the Single Capital Pot, to meet modernisation and pupil needs. As part of the move to simplify the arrangements for allocating capital for pupil places, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) are introducing a mechanism whereby Local Education Authorities can apply for additional capital support to meet exceptional circumstances, including unusually high levels of growth. DfES will be discussing with rapid growth authorities their plans and funding needs.

  Within the total capital support a major component that will address capacity and help all four growth areas is the Building Schools for the Future programme. This is a programme of rebuilding and refurbishment to ensure that secondary education has facilities of 21st century standards. The aim is to deliver this goal successfully within 10–15 years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions; £2 billion is available for the programme from 2005–06. An announcement on the first wave authorities was made on 12 February, and a further announcement about future waves will be made later this year.

  Local government services

  More generally, rapidly growing populations can place substantial additional demand on services provided by local government. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government has agreed to consider the impact of ceilings on rapid growth areas in the local government revenue support grant system and to do this in advance of the 2005–06 allocations.

  Transport

  Planning for large scale growth also offers opportunities for a more sustainable approach to transport through integrated decisions on development—location, design, density and mix of uses, linking with policies on the environment, health and education to create more sustainable travel choices.

  The Local Transport Settlement in December 2003 included approval for a number of important schemes in the newer Growth Areas including the Cambridge to Huntingdon Guided Bus £65 million, Luton-Dunstable guided bus (£78 million), Milton Keynes Integrated Transport £15 million (including ODPM funding) the Northampton Quality Bus network £8 million.

  8WS
  On strategic transport, the newer growth areas will benefit from major commitments on rail such as West Coast mainline and on strategic roads, such as the M11 Junctions 8 to 9 widening, and the A 14 in LondonStansted-Cambridge. In Milton Keynes/South Midlands, the schemes added last year to the Highways Agency programme included M1 widening from Luton (Junctions 6a to 10) and Luton to Milton Keynes (Junctions 10 to 13), A421 dualling (MI Junction 13 to Bedford) and the Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5 to M1 link) (in total over £20 million of investment), and also Ashford M20, Junction 10A on the M20—decision last December.

  In terms of other possible transport infrastructure schemes, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Department for Transport on the interface between growth and transport capacity, as in the study commissioned to look at these issues in the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough area. Decisions on specific proposals and priorities clearly need to be informed by a robust evidence base. On the proposal for an East-West Rail link between Oxford and Bedford, we are carefully considering the business case developed by the Consortium and its potential in relation to future development and in supporting east-west strategic direction across the growth area. Future decisions on any new rail projects and announcements will be taken in the light of the results of the Department for Transport's review of rail industry structure and organisation and the outcome of this year's Spending Review announcement.

  Significant progress has also been made over the past six months towards realising enhanced transport infrastructure to support growth in the Gateway. This includes consultation by the Strategic Rail Authority on an Integrated Kent Franchise that incorporates Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic services to Stratford, Ebbsfleet. Medway, Sittingbourne and on to Ashford and East Kent; a provisional offer (subject to conditions) from the Department for Transport of £200 million of Private Finance Initiative credits towards the construction of the Thames Gateway Bridge; agreement between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Transport for London to jointly fund the improvement of the A206 in Bexley; and the approval by the Department for Transport of a Transport and Works Act application to extend the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from the Royal Docks under the River Thames to Woolwich. The first phase of the West Thurrock regeneration Ring Road will shortly be completed; the DLR extension to City Airport is on site and on programme; and the construction of the second Swale Crossing in Kent will commence this year.

  Water and natural resources

  We are committed to household growth that is located and designed in ways that respect the environment and minimise resource use. New homes and neighbourhoods should be built to new and exacting standards of resource efficiency as an investment for the future. The Sustainable Buildings Task Group has been asked to make recommendations to Government on how this can be done in new and existing homes.

  9WS
  The Government is committed to ensuring that the growth areas have the water they need and necessary sewerage infrastructure. The relevant water undertakers and environmental regulators have been involved in the development of the growth area proposals. Opportunities for developing sustainable new water resources in the south-east are very limited, so improving the management of water demand by improved conservation of existing resources will be crucial. Water companies will need to identify options for demand management, including better leakage control and higher levels of water efficiency. And we will support innovative solutions for water management. In Ashford, for example, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing funding for an Integrated Water Management Strategy (covering water supply, wastewater treatment, and food defence and alleviation) by the Environment Agency.

  Additional funding for local infrastructure

  Through the Growth Areas Fund administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Government has made £446 million available to :he Thames Gateway and £164 million available to the three newer growth areas for the three financial years 2003–06. A key objective of the funding is to remove the barriers to implementation in the major growth sites.

  In the newer growth areas examples of recent funding include £20 million to support infrastructure and site works for the new communities around Cambridge, £5 million to progress the Bedford western bypass which has the potential to unlock 3,500 dwellings and similar projects in Northampton, Wellingborough and other locations. We are also funding preparatory work to plan new services; for example £0.8 million has been awarded to plan local health care services and better health across the sub-region and funding has been provided for a range of master planning and economic visioning studies. We are improving the environment. Overall in the 4 growth areas, around £130 million has been allocated to 'greenspace' projects, to create new strategic green buffer areas and improve countryside access around key growth locations, e.g. Rainham Marshes, the new Nene Valley Regional Park in Northamptonshire, and extensions to the Forest of Marston Vale. Funding post 2005–06 will be determined through Government's expenditure review this year.

  In the Thames Gateway, funding has been allocated towards land acquisition and ste preparation in key brownfield areas including Lower Lea, and Rochester Riverside, and the completion of the A206 Thamesmead spine road in Bexley. Support has been provided for the renewal of key town centres at Barking, Dartford, and Gravesend, and to expand the University Campuses at Southend and Medway

  Delivery Mechanisms

  To deliver all this needs a concerted approach between partners. Within Government, a Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, brings all the key Departments together to consider issues around growth in the south east. In the newer growth areas we have established, at the sub regional level, a new Inter-Regional Board for the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area which brings together regional and local partners across the three regions to focus on strategic
  10WS
  issues and implementation. At the local delivery level we are establishing six new vehicles after consultation with local partners—local authority led vehicles at Cambridge, Ashford, Bedford and Aylesbury and subject to consultation, an Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) for West Northamptonshire and a Urban Development Area for Milton Keynes. Further discussions are under way for other growth locations.

  In the Thames Gateway we are establishing a new Gateway Delivery Office to manage the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funding programme, and local partnerships which will focus on the key development and will co-ordinate partner inputs around an agreed framework. These include two Urban Development Corporations, one already established in Thurrock, and a second (subject to Parliamentary approval) in East London, a URC in Southend and partnerships in Kent Thameside, Basildon, Medway, and Swale.

  For many key locations in the growth areas, development is already under way, implementing existing plans. We want to ensure early delivery and the measures we are taking will support this as well as laying the foundations for future growth. The scale, location and timing of that future growth will be determined through the Regional Planning Guidance process, including independent testing and examination, which will begin shortly for the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area and the Government will revise its plans as necessary to take account of that process.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport DEL will be increased by £24,367,000 from £1,545,936,000 to £1,570,303,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by £205,000 from £47,187,000 to £46,982,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  NEW DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  3,462,000

  201,906,000

  1,227,195,000

  1,429,101,000

  Capital

  20,905,000

  109,856,000

  118,654,000

  228,510,000

  Depreciation*

  0

  -3,555,000

  -83,753,000

  -87,308,000

  Total

  24,367,000

  308,207.000

  1,262,096,000

  1,570,303,000

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending, and to include depreciation of assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from increased expenditure offset by increased appropriations in aid of £9,000 to Sport, £15,000 to historic buildings, monuments and sites and £30,000 to administration and research; transfers to capital DEL of £200,000 from administration and research, of £40,000

  11WS
  from sport and £65,000 from VisitBritain; and transfers from non-voted spending for accruing superannuation liability contributions of £2,230,000 to the British Library, £52,000 to the public lending right, £104,000 to the Football Licensing Authority and £1,327,000 to English Heritage;

  The decrease in the Department's administration costs limit arises from transfers of £5,000 to increase the Royal Household's grant in aid and £200,000 to capital DEL.

  12WS
  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from transfers from sport and VisitBritain's grant in aid of £40,000 and £65,000 respectively to facilitate internal delivery programmes; utilisation of £20,800,000 non-voted DEL from the unused balance of the Department for Work and Pensions' end-year flexibility entitlement under the PES pool arrangement to increase European Development Fund expenditure borne on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Estimate.

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

Biological Weapons: US Sales to Iraq
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in accordance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, they will report to the Security Council of the United Nations the reported sale of biological weapons to Iraq by the United States.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, no. The materials were exported by the United States in accordance with export controls in place at the time. The United States did not believe that they would be used for anything other than legitimate research purposes and therefore did not knowingly export the materials to assist a biological weapons programme. There are therefore no grounds for reporting a breach of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Those who know about these matters point out the significance of the phrase that those biological materials,
"were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction".
That seems to suggest that they might have been used for other than purely therapeutic purposes. Will the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have asked those questions myself. While I do not claim to have any particular expertise, I understand that the export of pathogens is the best way of producing vaccines. The Riegle report, which the right reverend Prelate has no doubt seen, details the quantities of various biological materials that were exported between 1985 and 1989. He will have noticed that those quantities were quite small. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention makes it clear that governments and states parties have the right to exchange equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes. The United States believed that to be the case at the time of those exports.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Iraq Survey Group report came up with three suspicious findings. Two were the clandestine weapons laboratories that do not seem to be there—the Minister will respond to that through the ombudsman. The third was a phial of botulism. Will the Minister confirm that since the Americans supplied the botulism—and we know that they did—it is possible that the phial came from those pathogens supplied by the Americans?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord with any certainty about the origins of any particular substances that were found. I am not sure if there is a copy of the Riegle report in the Library of the House, but if there is not, I shall arrange for one to be placed there. As I have said to your Lordships, that report gives details of a whole range of different biological substances that were exported to Iraq at that time. Those substances were exported in very small amounts. It would have been legitimate to have exported pathogens because, as I understand it, it is easier to make vaccines from pathogens. Although it is possible to make them from non-pathogenic material, it is much easier to make them from pathogenic material. However, I doubt whether anybody will be able to say with any certainty what the origins of any particular phial have been.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a serious weakness in the efforts to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons is the lack of an international inspection system to underpin the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention? Will she say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to persuade the US Administration to allow negotiations for such a system to be restarted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. We would like to see a proper verification process put in place under the convention. In terms of persuading the United States to take the same view as we do, we take the opportunities that are available to us to do exactly that. I myself have had meetings with the appropriate under-secretary in the United States State Department and have attempted to persuade him to that very point of view. Sadly, I have not so far been successful.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the 1994 Riegle report, which, as she has indicated, is very detailed and extensive. Does she agree that whether or not it proves that bacterial cultures were exported by the United States to Iraq at the time—I think that the United States authorities have denied or minimised such claims—it also shows that the Iraqi regime, even then, before and after the first Gulf War, was building up, or aiming to build up, a biological and chemical weapons capability, as well as a nuclear capability, on a considerable scale? If the weapons cannot be found today, there are clear indications that this could happen again. Will the Minister agree that it is vital to strengthen biological weapons conventions of the kind that can be enforced? It is vital, and justifiable, to be sure that Iraq never returns to being a threat to us all.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I of course agree strongly with that view, which is why the United Kingdom Government are making efforts to strengthen the convention and to emphasise the importance of inspection within the convention. When the Riegle report was first published, it was pointed out that by the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. Its advanced and aggressive biological warfare programme was the most advanced in the Arab world. It was therefore clear that there was such a programme. The way to avoid that in the future is proper enforcement.

Supreme Court
2.43 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider siting the new Supreme Court in the Millennium dome.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): No, my Lords, we are not considering siting the Supreme Court in the Millennium Dome.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer? Is he aware that I was just trying to save him from having two monuments to his folly? But he prefers to have two follies as a monument—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Given the Government's record on the Scottish Parliament building and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's own involvement in the Millennium Dome, how can anyone have any confidence in the costs that he has put forward as estimates for the building of the new Supreme Court? Given that he said that the costs of the building will be defrayed by charges to the users of justice, can the noble and learned Lord explain why it should be right for the users of the court to carry the risk that the costs of the court will, judging by past experience, most likely be exceeded twice, five times or even 10 times?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord was seeking to protect me from myself. As to his second point, yes, there have plainly been other occasions when costs have been greatly exceeded, but that is not a reason for the Government not to embark on a course that is otherwise right. Thirdly, in relation to ensuring that the costs are properly estimated, a very thorough process, including the Treasury's Green Book process, is being gone through in detail to ensure that there are proper costings.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the fundamental objection for setting up the Supreme Court and removing the Appellate Committee from your Lordships' House is not for some of us a question of cost?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I recognise that there are other very considerable issues apart from costs. There is a real issue as to whether, as we contend, the constitutional arrangements should reflect the reality—namely, that when one is appointed to the final Court of Appeal, one should be appointed to a court, not to a legislature.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor forgotten that Parliament is the High Court of Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not forgotten that, but Parliament is a legislative not a judicial body.
Lord Addington: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider making a

5
study available of how the Dome was brought in on time and of the problems that we had as regards doing something with it afterwards? In that way, we would have something to study and recommendations to make for all future projects to ensure that we do not have the same sort of success then followed by disaster.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that there are many lessons that we can learn from the Dome. The National Audit Office has already written one report in relation to it and will write another one after the sale process is completed. When we have seen that second document, we can consider what further lessons can be learned.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that at the present time the House of Lords is in fact the final Court of Appeal for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although not for Scotland in respect of crime? It may be, as he says, that it is a legislature, but it is not only a legislature. Is it not also a judicial body? I know that the noble and learned Lord wants to change that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course I accept the current arrangements. My point in answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was that essentially Parliament is a legislative body, although I accept what the noble and learned Lord says about the current arrangements.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, or rather his department, has no doubt been looking at a number of possible sites for the proposed new Supreme Court. Can he tell us what discussions he has had with English Heritage about some of those possible sites?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we looked at a large number of sites. In particular, we are focusing on six sites. In so far as English Heritage is involved with any of those sites, we shall have discussions with it. We have not had legal discussions with that body so far.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is there not a good compromise that would satisfy most of the Government's objectives, most of the judges and most of everybody else—namely, to maintain the reading of judgments in this Chamber, which would give them dignity and the force of tradition? The Government might also retain the informality of the Judicial Committee's work, which is unique—no wigs, no palaver—while obtaining the extra space, which everybody agrees is needed, by acquiring premises in the immediate vicinity at a very modest price.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if there are premises in the immediate vicinity for a very modest price, I would be interested in knowing what they are. I have absolutely no doubt that the new Supreme Court will be able to conduct its proceedings with both
6
appropriate dignity and the degree of informality appropriate to its proceedings. I know that the Law Lords are very keen to achieve that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord prepared to draw a distinction between costs up to the Court of Appeal and costs in the Lords? Litigation in the House of Lords or the Supreme Court is designed to develop and clarify points of principle and is not concerned to the same extent with a dispute inter partes? In those circumstances, is it not right that the state should pay the costs in the House of Lords or the Supreme Court?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, civil fees currently make a contribution to the court system, not to the final Court of Appeal. It is appropriate, if one seeks to invoke the civil court system, that one makes a contribution to the cost, even if one never gets to court at all, for example. Most civil cases never get to court, yet they make a contribution to the cost. That is the right approach.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in addition to the many good arguments for the changes that he proposes, there is one other? The general public, whose servants after all we all are, is totally unaware of the distinction between this place as the legislative Chamber and this place as a court. I would invoke the fact that during the Pinochet hearings many people asked me how I was going to vote on the future of General Pinochet. I pointed out that I had no opportunity to do so—and that it would not be proper. Does my noble and learned friend agree that in order that the public understands what we are about, the separation of the legislature from the Supreme Court would be beneficial and would lead to transparency?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that one effect of creating a Supreme Court is that it will make much clearer the distinction between the final Court of Appeal and Parliament. I also think, separately, that once there is a proper Supreme Court building, it will be easier for members of public to come to see the proceedings of the final Court of Appeal.
Lord Millett: My Lords, may I be naive enough to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question in the desire to obtain information? I should like to ask him whether Somerset House has been ruled out as the location for the Supreme Court; and, if that is so, can he say why?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to particular sites, I have said that it is wrong for me to identify the position we have reached. I have said that I will inform the Select Committee in another place where we have got to, so that my negotiations with other sites are not prejudiced.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the main reason for the escalation of prices of buildings in government

7
contracts is surely the fact that either the commissioners or potential users change their mind before the contract is complete. Can the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance that he will not change his mind?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that one reason that leads to an increase in the costs of any building is that we learn more about our requirements as time goes on and, as a result, are in a weaker negotiating position in the middle than at the beginning of the process. Whatever we commission, whether it be by way of refurbishment or a new building, we will do our level best to ensure that all the requirements are provided at the earliest possible stage. I cannot guarantee that we will get it absolutely right but, plainly, the noble Lord's point is a good one.

Sustainable Communities Plan
2.51 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the status and purpose of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's report Making it happen: The Northern Way.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, Making it happen: The Northern Way is the second progress report on the delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan. The document outlines the good progress that we have made to date with our partners since publication of the communities plan in February last year with a particular emphasis on the north and the Midlands.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, replying to a Question on the cessation of producing government annual reports, telling the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy:
"If the noble Lord believes that it was a waste of time and spin. he ought to rejoice, because the sinner has repented".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1480.]?
Apparently not. Making it happen: the Northern Way is another fatuous glossy. I must press the Minister: what is the point of it; to whom is it being distributed; and what is it supposed to achieve?
Lord Rooker: Well, my Lords, I am astonished at the Question asked by the noble Lord on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As I said, this is the second progress report, not the first one, on delivering a £22 billion programme. As I said, most of the others have concerned the south-east. We want to make clear
8
that the sustainable communities programme is a national programme. It is not north, it is not south; it is not urban, it is not rural.
The document outlines the progress that we have made on, for example, the northern market renewal pathfinders, involving a half a billion pound programme where we have collapse of the housing market and problems of community cohesion. The document explains how the money has been spent. It contains a progress report on the coalfields community programme.
The document mainly concerns the north and the Midlands, but not exclusively. For example, it announces the setting up of the 16th urban regeneration company in Gloucester. To describe it as a fatuous glossy is quite out of order and out of proportion to its contents. I cannot respond fully in the context of this Question, but I am quite happy to have these reports debated in this House at any time that noble Lords choose.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am tempted to use the same form of words to describe the document as did the noble Lord, Lord Smith, but I shall refrain. The Minister talked about creating sustainable communities costing £22 billion. How much of that will come from general taxation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the £22 billion is government expenditure. The programmes that have been carried out across the country will lever in a factor of four, five or, sometimes, up to tenfold from the private sector. Most of the investment will come from the private sector; we have made that clear. Most of our money is for remediation—getting land, especially Brownfield land, ready; opening up sites with infrastructure such as bypasses or bridges; and a whole host of work. Most of the money for investment in both the wider four growth areas of the south-east, which is what the Sustainable Communities Plan is about, and in the north and the Midlands, on which I have just touched, will be levered in from the private sector.
I challenge anyone to argue that this is not a report on progress made—as I said, a second progress report. No one seemed to criticise the first one. Perhaps that is because it was devoted exclusively to the south-east and the Members of this place, like the Members of the other place, and journalists, being London-centric, thought that that was a good idea. Because this report concentrates on the north and the Midlands, all of a sudden, it is not on.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the north of England, with 15 million people, six major cities, three world-class national parks and several world-class universities, represents a tremendous opportunity for this country and an alternative to the continued over-expansion and investment in the south-east of England? Does he recognise that the three regional development agencies in the north of England do not regard this as a fatuous exercise, but are working extremely hard, along with

9
the Government, to ensure that not only does it receive appropriate public funds, but that it is based firmly on attracting private investment to show that the north of England is indeed a major alternative to the southeast?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The report sets out the work that is being carried out by the three regional development agencies and the other partners, such as English Partnerships. Most people would say that the growth pressures are only in the south-east, but the potential for growth in the north, as set out in the concept of the northern growth corridor, is enormous. We dismiss that at our peril. For example, productivity in the three northern regions is not as good as in the rest of England. If they worked only to the English average, the income for those three regions would be £30 billion more. So there is enormous potential that we fail to exploit at our peril.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, would the noble Lord please interpret the word "remediation"?
Lord Rooker: Well, my Lords, getting second-hand land use-ready is one example. It is clearing derelict sites so that the pressure is taken off the countryside and greenfield sites; it is remediating land or, in this case, buildings, that have been used for other purposes. Our objective is to make good use of the assets that we have and to ensure that we push development away from greenfield sites. For example, with the housing programme, our target is to ensure that 60 per cent of new dwellings are built on brownfield sites—either second-hand buildings or second-hand land, if I can call it that. They must be prepared. so it is more expensive to build on brownfield than on greenfield sites. So far, we are achieving a proportion of 64 per cent.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as a resident of Worcestershire, which might be called the Midlands, can the noble Lord tell me where the north begins? Is it north of Watford Gap?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am going to get into trouble here. I fear that we will have to tear up some of the old boundaries. The wider south-east, as we now talk about it, finishes at Peterborough and Corby, because they are part of the two south-east growth areas. There is then a wedge called the Midlands between what we might call the north and the southeast. I shall not get into any arguments about where the boundaries are. I have my own views about some counties being in the wrong region, but I shall not deploy them here and now.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that one of the strongest arguments for regional government for the north is that currently all those schemes are administered and managed by a network of agencies that it is extremely difficult for the outsider to understand? Is he further aware that I
10
attended the Yorkshire Forward annual meeting the year before last and did not understand quite a lot of the jargon used? A little more democratic power in the north and a little more simplicity in the structures might help considerably to enable the north to make its case for stronger growth against the south.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. Later this year, the citizens and residents of the three northern regions will have the opportunity to decide whether they want a directly elected body. It will be for the people to choose whether they want to go down that road.

Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Ceasefires
2.59 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland's comments on 9 March about paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, what assessment they have made about the current state of the Ulster Defence Association and Provisional Irish Republican Army ceasefires.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government's assessment of the state of the various paramilitary organisations' ceasefires remains unchanged. A judgment is made in the round, not on the basis of individual incidents. The Secretary of State, in making a judgment on the status of a paramilitary ceasefire, takes account of all relevant considerations and, in particular, those set out in Section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. However, we have to bring about a complete end to all paramilitary activity.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response, which, as I expected, is measured but is not going anywhere. Recently, the Chief Constable said that republican terrorism is at the same level as that of the UDA. In the light of that, do Her Majesty's Government still believe that the IRA ceasefire, in the words of the 1998 Act, is complete and unequivocal? If not, why do Her Majesty's Government refuse to deal with the IRA on the same terms as the UDA—that is, specify it'?
Furthermore, do Her Majesty's Government agree that the IRA has been the prototype for global terrorists and is the organisation from which those terrorists have drawn encouragement over 30 years?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, regarding the question about specification, the noble Lord will know that when the UDA was specified by the Government, it had been involved in a number of murders and bombing incidents. We shall continue to judge it by actions and not words. I repeat exactly what I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord's initial Question. We need to move beyond a narrow definition of ceasefire. We have made it absolutely

11
clear that we want to see an end to all paramilitary activity. That was repeated last Thursday by the Taoiseach and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I agree with the noble Lord that in talking about issues of terrorism we and other governments need to look at terrorism across the world and work together to bring an end to it. The noble Lord clearly knows that that is something on which we have been working over many years. We shall continue to do so.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do we not need something rather more than words from Prime Ministers? Surely, the continued terrorist activities of all groups, totally contrary to the Belfast agreement, should be the first priority for the police, the security services and the criminal justice system.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that it is about more than just words. That is why we have seen so much progress in relation to issues in Northern Ireland. That would not have happened without considerable work and action not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but by previous Prime Ministers in this country and by the Taoiseach. Of course, the police, the security services and others have to see this as a priority. That is why we continue to say that the ending of all paramilitary activity remains our goal.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, to my personal knowledge, governments have been saying that since the Labour Government of the 1960s. Does the Minister agree that the current situation of lawlessness is not fundamentally different from then? Surely, it is no good to go on for ever saying, "Well, everyone is being nice to us at the present time, but we will not put up with it". We have put up with it for over 30 years.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The situation has changed dramatically. It is different. I shall happily send the relevant figures to the noble Lord. While we should not condone the violence and murder that continues, the situation is quite different. The people of Northern Ireland are actively seeking peace in a way that has not been the case over the past 30 years.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her birthday on Saturday, which I understand she is celebrating today. I am sure that she has the good wishes of the House.
Last year, there were 191 loyalist and 125 republican outrages, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, is about as bad as it gets and is not unique. Following the terrible outrage in Madrid, does that not act as an additional spur to persuade the police to work more actively against these outrages? Given the worldwide condemnation of what happened in Madrid, will the Government take the political initiative to tell these proto-Fascist organisations that it is time to stop?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and all other noble Lords who
12
have expressed good wishes, sent me cards and, indeed, presents. It is very gratifying to be in place where reaching 50 years old one is still considered to be very young.
The Government have taken the political initiative on this matter. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has dealt with this issue from the time that he became Prime Minister. Indeed, he was talking with other world leaders about these issues before they became such an issue in many other countries. That needs to be acknowledged. The Prime Minister has faced a great deal of criticism for doing precisely that.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (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 23 [Disclosure of Information]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 13, line 30, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
"(8) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).
(8A) Notwithstanding subsection (8), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular section 35 and Schedules 1, 2 and 3 thereof."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 refers to Clause 23(8) on disclosure of information, which states:
"But nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998".
That matter was discussed in Grand Committee, but it is right to bring it back to the Floor of the House. During the passage of the Bill, there has been legitimate public concern about how different authorities have interpreted their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act. Concerns have been expressed by non-governmental organisations associated with domestic violence that an overenthusiastic interpretation of the Data Protection Act could undermine the code of conduct for implementing it.
The amendment seeks to clarify that nothing a service provider does which complies with the victims' code will put it in breach of the Data Protection Act. The voluntary bodies associated with implementing the Bill continue to be concerned. On one occasion, the Minister stated:
"There are circumstances where compliance with the code might be important. For example, compliance with the code might be relevant to the question of whether a person has committed an offence under the Data Protection Act 1998".
On another occasion, the Minister said:
"Any government revising the code in the future needs to ensure that it does not require the disclosure of information that would be contrary to the Act".
My amendment seeks to maintain the need to respect the Data Protection Act, but clarity is needed regarding the disclosure of information between the relevant agencies. That will be crucial to give effect to the code of practice for victims. A number of the agencies already have found a variance in police cooperation in sharing information. At this stage, we need assurances in the Bill that will make the sharing of relevant information the automatic rule.
Victim Support has experienced practical difficulties in operating the referral process and a lack of clarity in interpreting the requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore, there needs to be such clarity in the Bill. However, the amendment leaves in place the existing reference to the overriding obligations imposed by the Data Protection Act.
The Minister knows from our discussions in Committee that I think that that is important. There is genuine public concern that the good intentions of the Data Protection Act may bring with them unforeseen circumstances and consequences in implementing other Acts that have equally important duties and responsibilities. I hope that by moving this amendment we give her the opportunity to put on record her and the Government's attitude to interpretation, and perhaps also to bring us up to date—as she did in Committee—on the various intergovernmental and other consultations that are going on to enable the Data Protection Act to be properly interpreted and public confidence to be fully restored with regard to the Act's operation. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 76A.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, we talked about this issue in Committee; the debate can be found in Hansard at cols. GC 443–44 on 5 February.
I do not support this amendment—that will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I am aware as—I think I made clear on the previous occasion—of the anxieties that Victim Support has about data protection legislation and its effect on the organisation's work with victims. In Grand Committee, I hope that I explained that the administrative protocols for passing a victim's personal details from the police to Victim Support had been approved by the Information Commissioner. This amendment now seeks to put beyond doubt that compliance with the victims' code of practice.
I am extremely grateful that Victim Support has signed up to deliver obligations under the code, which will not put individuals in breach of the Data Protection Act. I do not propose to repeat in detail the arguments I put forward in Grand Committee. The
14
main reason for resisting the amendment then was that it is unnecessary and would cast doubt on the legality of existing arrangements and on data sharing in other contexts. That is still an important reason to resist the amendment. I know the noble Lord wants me to say a little more about the Act and I am very happy to do that because, as he pointed out, when I wrote to him and the noble Baroness, Baroness Anelay, about whether the code of practice should be admissible in criminal proceedings, I cited proceedings for an offence under the Data Protection Act as an example of when it might be relevant. The noble Lord said that because individuals could face criminal prosecution, they are entitled to more certainty about whether they are complying with the Data Protection Act.
The offence under the Data Protection Act which is most likely to be relevant is that under Section 55(1), which says that it is an offence for a person to disclose personal data,
"knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller".
There are a number of exemptions from liability for this offence, set out in Section 55(2). These include, amongst other things, that the disclosure,
"was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of the court".
It also requires that the person making the disclosure acted in the,
"reasonable belief that he had in law the right to obtain or disclose … the information … that he acted in the reasonable belief that he would have had the consent of the data controller if the data controller had known of the … disclosing",
and that,
"in the particular circumstances … the disclosing … was justified as being in the public interest".
Clearly, compliance with the code could be relevant to those defences. It does not, however, follow that there is ambiguity in the current drafting of the Bill or that service providers acting under the code should be given protection over and above that which is already available under Section 55(2) of the Data Protection Act. An individual who acts within the disclosure policy of his organisation, has the explicit consent of his organisation to disclose information, or reasonably believes that he has the right to disclose information will be protected. That will be the case whether or not the disclosure actually complies with the Data Protection Act. Therefore, it would make no difference if disclosure under the code were deemed to be compliant with the Data Protection Act.
The noble Lord also spoke about the Government revising the code in the future and the need to ensure that it does not require the disclosure of information which would be contrary to the Data Protection Act. However, this is not an argument for deeming information disclosed under the code to be compliant with the Data Protection Act. The point is that the Data Protection Act provides important safeguards to the citizen and that those safeguards need to be preserved. If disclosure under the code automatically

15
complied with the Data Protection Act, it would effectively be open to a future government to override the Data Protection Act by means of secondary legislation. I know that is certainly not the noble Lord's intention. The fact that information is disclosed under the code will often be sufficient to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act. However, in some cases—most notably those involving sensitive personal information—it will be necessary to ensure that other information and other requirements of the Data Protection Act are satisfied.
We are confident that the current draft of the code does satisfy those requirements but want to ensure that future versions also satisfy them. If there were a conflict between the requirements of the code and the requirements of the Data Protection Act, the Data Protection Act would prevail. The sanction for breach of the code is investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. We would expect the Parliamentary Commissioner to take into account the fact that the code had not been complied with because compliance with the code would involve breach of the Data Protection Act.
The noble Lord wanted further updates in relation to developments. I have nothing more to tell him over and above that which I outlined in Committee. As soon as I have fresh information I will make sure he, those in Committee and those here today who may be interested get notice of it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in Committee, the Minister told us that she chaired an inter-departmental domestic violence committee which she told us had expressed some of the same concerns that we had expressed in Committee. Has that committee made any progress in its considerations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that this work by the committee which I chair is considered to be of the utmost importance. We are energetically trying to craft something which meets the needs of all practitioners. There is currently a draft that is being looked at by various departments, to see whether it should not be further and better perfected. We will certainly issue it as soon as that work is completed.
As I hope I indicated last time, it is very important for us to get this right. We absolutely agree with noble Lords who said that this whole issue is very important for practitioners. Regrettably, some are just misunderstanding how the Act operates and what they need to do to keep in tune with it. We can help them in this regard. I am hopeful that this will be a useful piece of work that can be shared across departments and those other agencies that would benefit from it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 13, line 30, leave out "But"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Victims' Advisory Panel]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 36, after "appoint" insert "a minimum of ten"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 to 81. I gave notice in Grand Committee it can be found at col. GC 447 of Hansard for 5 January—that I would need to probe on Report the nature and membership of the Victims' Advisory Panel. That is what the amendments do.
I am surprised that the drafting of Clause 24 means that the Government translate the existing Victims' Advisory Panel from an ad hoc body appointed by the Secretary of State to a statutory body in the twinkling of an eye, without actually giving us any idea of what the body does now or what it will do in future. We are asked to take an awful lot on trust by Clause 24(7), which simply states:
"The non-statutory Victims' Advisory Panel is to be treated as having been established in accordance with this section".
I remarked in Grand Committee that the Library had done its utmost to find out how the panel operates now, but had drawn a virtual blank.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, whom I am pleased, as always, to see in his place today, thought that I might be satisfied with the information in paragraph 91 in the Explanatory Notes. That paragraph is far too limited a source of information for the House to agree simply to transcribe the unofficial body into a statutory one.
I therefore tabled some Written Questions on 23 February to ask Her Majesty's Government: on how many occasions the Victims' Advisory Panel has met since March 2003; to list the members of the Victims' Advisory Panel and, where appropriate, the organisations that they appear to represent; and on how many occasions since March 2003 the Victims' Advisory Panel has reported directly to the Home Secretary and whether its reports are printed or presented by a government Minister. So far, I have had only one response to those three Questions, which arrived while the House was debating the Bill on Thursday.
When I looked back over the snippets of information that had been published about the panel, I noticed that its composition appears to be different from how it was set out in the Government's press release, in Justice for All and in the Explanatory Notes. I am trying to reconcile all those descriptions and work out what the Government's panel really is.
The press release stated that:
"The members of the Victims Advisory Panel have been affected by crimes including murder, rape and stalking, and many have experienced giving evidence in court".
That makes it clear that the members have personal experience of being victims of crime themselves. However, that is not what Justice for All describes. It refers to a body representative of organisations. Page 48 states, in paragraph 2.45:
"The Commissioner will be supported by a National Victims' Advisory Panel. This will be representative of victims' groups and others affected by crime, and will include community representation".
The description given in the Explanatory Notes about the current membership seems to show a confusion of those two models. Paragraph 91 states that the current membership comprises,
"ten voluntary lay members, who have direct experience of issues relating to victims".
We need to know whether that is personal experience, or whether they represent groups with experience of assisting victims.
Paragraph 91 also states that three members are co-opted to represent "wider victims' interests". What does that mean? What are those interests? It goes on to say that those three co-opted members are also,
"representatives of voluntary organisations to which the Government provides core funding".
That is why I ask what those organisations are. Will they continue to be co-opted to the new body? Will different bodies be represented? How do the Government define the community representation to which Justice for All refers? Is that the representation of national voluntary organisations, or does it refer to local community organisations?
The response that I received on Thursday 11 March was to my Question in which I had hoped that the Government might list the members of the Victims' Advisory Panel. In fact, the Minute Room slightly changed my wording, which I know is not always felicitous. I had asked the Government to list the members, and that was changed to "Who are the members". The Answer that I received was as vague as anyone in the Government could want, and as vague as I would not want. It reads:
"The panel consists of 10 voluntary lay members"—
as the Explanatory Notes say—
"recruited through open competition in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—who have either experienced victimisation themselves, or are family members or very close friends of murder victims.
In addition there are representatives from the following victims groups: Victim Support, Support After Murder and Manslaughter, Victims Voice and Birmingham Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit.
The panel is chaired by myself"—
the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland—
"and is also attended by Chris Leslie MP, of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and Harriet Harman MP, the Solicitor General".—[Official Report, 11/3/04; col. WA 186–87.]
Senior representatives and officials also attend.
There is no mention of the three co-opted members, so we still do not know what they are—we do not know which bodies that receive public money are in the loop at the moment and whether they will continue to be. We do not actually know who the current members
18
are. One assumes, unless the noble Baroness tells me differently, that by signing the virtually blank cheque in the Bill we are saying, "All those of you who have done such sterling work so far and worked so hard can carry on in the job". Alternately, will they complete their membership before a new system of appointing takes place?
We do not know the answer to other questions. How will the chairman be appointed? Will there be a change from the current chair, the Minister, to non-ministerial chairmanship? How will that run? How long will the members serve? Will any good governance procedures be put in place? Will there be a limit on the number of co-opted members? Who appoints them—the panel or the Secretary of State? Do the co-opted members have voting rights? All members who have been elected as councillors to local authorities will know that those are always vexed issues in governance terms.
We anticipate, of course, that the panel will have the job of giving very valuable advice to the Government on which they should then act, yet there is still no duty on the Secretary of State to pay its expenses if he considers it appropriate. It is still left open to the Secretary of State whether to pay the expenses or not, which I find extraordinary. In her response on 5 February, the Minister argued that it was common and accepted legislative practice to provide a power rather than a duty to pay expenses in such circumstances. I do not think that that necessarily makes it right, even if it has been practice.
I hope that the Government have thought again, and are able to give us some further and better particulars on what the body will be. In particular, has it even been consulted? The questions about its work since last spring go unanswered. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government have undoubtedly done right in Clause 24 on the Victims' Advisory Panel. However, the attention that my noble friend Lady Anelay has given to the detail is worthy of the Government's respect. She is absolutely right to assume that the members of the panel will be ordinary but experienced people who must not be reimbursed merely at the discretion of the Government. They will deserve to be reimbursed. Amendment No. 80 surely must be agreed to. Amendment No. 78 goes much further in ensuring a composition of the panel representative of people who are experienced, but are lay people. I hope that the Government will give the amendments very careful attention, because they are excellent.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it has been extremely worthwhile for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to have pursued—behind the scenes, and indeed through the amendments today—her inquiries on what type of body the Victims' Advisory Panel is at the moment in its non-statutory form and should be in a statutory form.
To some degree there is, in both the Explanatory Notes and the amendments, a good deal of vagueness. For example, I am not sure what "lay persons" or "issues" mean in this context. Those words can be

19
found in the Explanatory Notes; perhaps they are all right there, but to translate them into statutory form would probably not seem appropriate. Some of the words of the amendments are at least equally vague. The persons appointed should,
"appear to be representative of victims' groups and others affected by crime".
There is no doubt that one big group affected by crime is the prisoners' wives, spouses, girlfriends, families and so on. They probably need support in a variety of ways, yet I do not think they are intended to be covered by the support to be given by the Victims' Advisory Panel.
As for community representation, I do not know what that means. Is it geographical, ethnic, religious or local? It could be any of those. I do not wish to be critical of the noble Baroness because she is entitled—and it is helpful to us all at this stage of the Bill—to probe what is intended. I am not sure that I want the Government to be too precise at this stage as to who should be on this panel. I certainly do not want the Government to use vague words in what will eventually be the Act, which would not be particularly helpful because they would have so many different meanings. I associate myself with the noble Baroness to this extent: I am at least equal with her in eagerly awaiting to hear the Minister's response.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I will try to keep just within the rules for Report and say to the noble Lord, before he sits down, that he may be interested to hear that two Written Answers, to complete the trio, have just arrived hotfoot from the Doorkeepers. If they had arrived half an hour ago, I might have saved the House about five minutes of its time. I have no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will give an even better explanation.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, that may be the answer to the question I was going to ask. If we are setting up a statutory panel, surely we should at least know what its intended size is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the type of person likely to be on it. If it is a fact that the first panel is to be formed by turning what is, at the moment, merely an advisory panel into a statutory panel, presumably—the information may be in the Written Answer to which my noble friend referred—the membership of that advisory panel should be public knowledge to this House, so that we may know who we are appointing to this statutory panel.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and my noble friend Lord Borrie, for the acuity of their questions about this panel.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has kindly indicated that her reason for this amendment is to seek greater clarification about the administration of the current non-statutory panel, which this clause will put on a statutory footing. I am sorry that she has had
20
difficulty in establishing how the panel currently works. I assure the noble Baroness that we are not seeking to hide the panel's light beneath a bushel, but it is a relatively new body which met for the first time almost exactly 12 months ago, and the substance of its work is still taking shape. I am grateful for the opportunity to inform the House in more detail about the administration of the panel.
As the noble Baroness said, the members can be grouped into three categories. The lay membership comprises 10 volunteers who either have experienced victimisation themselves or are close relatives of those who have been killed. I am very happy to present the whole list of the membership but will give noble Lords one name that they will recognise: that of Jayne Zito. Noble Lords will know that she falls into both categories. First, her husband was a victim of crime and, secondly, she is also a representative of a group of people who have become victims of mental health patients. The same is true of virtually all the 10 lay members, whom I could outline.
There are three co-opted members: David Hines, a member of the North of England Victims' Association; Maxie Hayle, the Birmingham Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit representative; and Wendy Robertson of Victims' Voice. The victims' groups involve Theresa Reynolds of Victim Support and Rose Dixon of Support After Murder and Manslaughter, which your Lordships will know represents those who have suffered as a result of murder. The 10 lay members, whose names are now in the public domain—I am very happy to send them to the noble Baroness—are people or family members who have had direct experience of being victims, and who participate in various groups dealing with that type of victimisation.
These lay members, who will serve initially for three years, were recruited through open competition, overseen by an independent assessor in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidelines on public appointments. The second category is a small group of co-optees, which I have just outlined: Victim Support, Support After Murder and Manslaughter, Victims' Voice and the Birmingham Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit.
The third group comprises senior representatives from the criminal justice agencies, who will present papers or respond to points that are made by the lay members. The whole point of the group is to put a human face on some of the issues we are dealing with, so that there can be a real understanding, from the victim's point of view, about how some of the changes we are making and the procedures we are putting in place can be viewed. For example, when we created the "victim's walk-through" on the website, we asked the victim's panel to look at what we had done, to identify whether there are other things they, or their members, might have wished to see, to help us to adapt it.
It is my great pleasure to chair the panel, and a Minister from the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Solicitor General will also attend. It is proposed that there should continue to be a ministerial

21
chair, not least because there can be a very direct correlation between that and what the victim's panel has to say about the impact that our policies and procedures may have. Ministers have the advantage of hearing from them in a very direct way and there can be a very immediate conversation between the panel members and those who have ministerial responsibility for them. Noble Lords will know that I am the Minister responsible for victims and witnesses issues, and therefore it is only right and proper that I chair those meetings.
The aim of the panel is to advise the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General of the views of victims and witnesses of crime, and generally to contribute to developing and safeguarding the rights of victims. We have so far had five meetings. The first was in March 2003, and others were in May, July and October of that year. We had our first meeting this year, in February. As an advisory non-departmental public body, the panel is required to produce an annual report. The panel's first annual report will be published at the end of April 2004 and will give details of the issues it has discussed during its first full year of operation.
We would like the Victims' Advisory Panel to continue to be a flexible and dynamic group, and the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that we are not prepared to be as prescriptive about its administration as her amendment would suggest. I am sure she will forgive me if I do not deal with each and every item of her amendments in detail. I understood the purpose of it was to allow me to give more information.
I would, however, like to reaffirm what I said during Grand Committee about the payment of expenses to lay members of the panel. I explained that it is fully intended that lay members will be reimbursed for their expenses as outlined in their terms of appointment. We would be in breach of our contract with them if we failed to do so. But it will remain a discretion of the Secretary of State as to what expenses would be appropriate in each case. I would therefore wish to retain the "may" rather than the "must" in the drafting.
I hope these explanations have been helpful, but I reiterate that it is not my intention to accept any of the proposed amendments to Clause 24. I do, however, understand the thrust of them and hope I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness both of the purpose of the panel and of the fact that it will be properly reimbursed for moneys properly expended by it. I assure the noble Baroness that my purpose and hers are absolutely in accordance on these matters.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She has now resolved some of the inconsistencies that appeared between the various publications about the Government's proposals on the composition and the role of the Victims' Advisory Panel. In Grand Committee we paid tribute to its work. I am sure that in its new form it will continue to gather that approbation.
22
I accept what the Minister says about expenses. If a case were to come to light where appropriate expenses were not reimbursed, she might well find that there could be an outcry as a result.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was right; my drafting was not full of acuity; on the other hand, I pinched the Government's drafting in some respects, as I said that it was not quite right, particularly with regard to the use of the words "lay members". If the noble Lord is to remain for the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, I can promise him that I will offend yet again by using the term "lay members" in a different context. I value the role that lay members play.
I am grateful to the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 14, line 26, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 82 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 83, to which I shall also speak.
In Grand Committee I raised the issue of the manner in which the Secretary of State would make grants to organisations that assist victims. I asked that question because I wanted to get some idea about the ground rules that would operate when the Secretary of State gave out any available funds. I did not seem to get very far, so I have tabled the amendment to prompt the Government to give us a flavour of the kind of organisations that they anticipate may be successful in an application for funds.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to say that specific organisations will be successful—I am not daft enough to think that she would be enticed to answer that anyway. I appreciate that some level of flexibility is needed. We need to know whether funds will be available—within a finite range of money, we know—for national-only organisations, or whether they will go to regional and local organisations. How will the decisions be made? For example, is it anticipated that a tendering system will be started whereby organisations submit bids for particular sums? Are we to go through the same kind of screening as happens for organisations when they look to the lottery funds for assistance? How will that work?
The amendment contains a very haphazard list of organisations—that makes it sound as though I am being rude towards the organisations listed. The organisations that I have mentioned are all those that have briefed me heretofore during our debates. In addition, the Minister will notice that, as a red rag to a bull, I have placed at the top of the list the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I did so just to remind noble Lords that we are not yet finished with

23
the Bill, even at the end of Report and Third Reading, because it is very likely that the Government will bring it winging back with substantial amendments that affect the authority, the manner of the disposition of its funds and, indeed, its very existence.
The organisations listed are not the only ones to which I anticipate the Government might consider giving money. Broken Rainbow, which I shall meet very soon, has pointed out to me that none of the organisations specifically would assist those who have suffered domestic violence and are from groups that would consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. In addition, the list includes no organisation specifically targeted at disability groups. I have listed only those who have had contact with me so far, but I shall certainly continue to have meetings with others.
This is a probing-only amendment to ensure that, before we get to the end of this major stage, we will have a better idea of how grant funding will proceed. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness intends to use this as an opportunity to probe. I shall assist her as much as I can in that regard.
The purpose of the clause is simply to provide a statutory authority for regular government grants to voluntary sector bodies and is consistent with Treasury best practice. It is not intended to signal that more funding will be available, nor that we intend to redistribute the money currently directed to victims organisations. Noble Lords will see that Clause 25 is permissive in tone, because it simply provides that the Secretary of State may,
"pay such grants to such persons as he considers appropriate in connection with measures which appear to him to be intended to assist victims, witnesses and other persons affected by offences".
Should any additional funds become available, I can assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider very carefully the needs of victims and witnesses when deciding which organisations to fund or to continue funding.
Much of what we have done to join up the system, to work with the local criminal justice boards and to identify local needs has helped us to craft better responses than those that we were able to provide in the past. That certainly proves very helpful. Our pilot projects have involved the prosecution and the police working together to support witnesses and victims. Noble Lords will see that, together with what Victim Support and other organisations can do, that is important cross-cutting work that has given us some very good indications about how we may target funding, or perhaps how we should consider targeting it in future. This clause is merely permissive.
I see no reason why the Secretary of State should be required to consult victims organisations before grants are paid, as he will be better placed than they are to assess the overall financial position and the overall
24
needs that arise across the system. Organisations remain free to lobby government—they do so most energetically—about their funding needs. Any arrangements for grants paid to organisations are between the Government and that particular organisation, and would very rarely be subject to consultation with third parties. Wider strategic decisions—for example, about longer-term funding plans—would also be considered first within government before views are sought more widely. We see no reason why that process should be subject to the constraints of legislation.
I understand why the noble Baroness would like to entice me into giving a little more, but I regret that on this occasion I must disappoint her.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Can I take it from the Minister's answer that there is no intention of changing the current means by which the board is funded?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. The process will remain the same. Noble Lords will know that we are carrying out consultation. As I have said in the past, we will await the outcome of the consultation about any changes that are made. However, that will not be the way in which it is funded entirely. Noble Lords know the areas on which we seek views about any proposed change.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As we are setting up a statutory victims body, is there any intention to change the way in which the board is funded?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No. my Lords. I hope that I have been clear; the board will continue to be funded as at present. The consultation is dealing with changes that we propose to the ambit of things that may be included or excluded. At the end of that consultation, we will decide whether any further or other alteration will be needed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, although I am not sure whether it takes us much further down the line of knowing how the moneys will be distributed. Of course the Minister did not take the bait about deciding whether it would be tendering against "lobbying", to use her word. Organisations are to be able to lobby, and there is a world of difference between that and a more organised system of tendering. However, I accept the position as she has explained it.
The Minister realises that organisations will listen carefully to her words. She has not signalled that more funding is to be made available, more that it will be a redistribution. The second point might be a consolation, but the first might not in the light of press interest ahead of the Budget on Wednesday which

25
anticipates that the Home Office budget is one that is to get the chop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
"(3) The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who arc subject to immigration control and who have sponsors from the restriction on public funds, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (recovery of expenditure on support from sponsor)) of the victim.
(4) The Secretary of State may pay such grants or make available funds to such bodies or individuals as he considers appropriate in connection with measures intended to assist victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control and their dependants and who otherwise have no recourse to public funds and do not have sponsors within the meaning of subsection (3), for the purposes of funding emergency accommodation and living costs."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with a small number of victims of domestic violence who are also subject to immigration control. In moving it, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Walmsley, who have added their names to the amendment.
When we debated a more wide-ranging amendment in Grand Committee, my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated that she understood the purpose of the amendment and that while she could not give it her support, she certainly showed a deep understanding of its underlying issues. I hope that she will show a similar understanding of this amendment.
I understand that under the terms of the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992, the Government can recover funds from sponsors. My amendment is in two parts. The first concerns the recovery of money from sponsors to finance the costs consequent on people leaving their homes because of domestic violence. Therefore the Government have the power to recover such money. I am also aware that for sponsors to be liable, they give a written undertaking to maintain the person from abroad. However, it appears that, currently, such undertakings are required only from sponsors of dependent elderly relatives, not for spouses. However, immigration rules permit the Secretary of State to require written undertakings from all sponsors. Introducing such a requirement would require only a change in policy, not in the rules.
I thank the Southall Black Sisters group for its help in providing useful briefing and information for this amendment. It estimates that 90 per cent of all victims of domestic violence subject to immigration control will have sponsors. The first proposed new section covers those. It is clear to me that were the Government to make sponsors stick by their undertakings, most of the costs of dealing with the consequences of such domestic violence, affecting a very vulnerable group of people, would not be borne
26
by the taxpayer—the Exchequer—but would be recovered from the sponsors themselves. That is the main aim of the amendment.
However, that would leave a small number of persons, perhaps 60 or so a year, who in equity would need similar support but, because they do not have sponsors, require some backing. The amendment suggests that that could be provided by means of a grant, so as not to undermine the basic principle of the benefits system. The estimate of the total grant required would be something in the region of £80,000.
The Government recently made a contribution of £40,000 to the Women's Aid Last Resort Fund, which was matched by another £40,000 from a charitable trust. That sum is roughly equivalent to what would be needed to provide grant support for those victims who are not sponsored.
We are not asking for an enormous sum, rather a tiny one. Moreover, the main thrust of the amendment is to ensure that the Government accept that sponsors should be made liable for victims of domestic violence when they are subject to immigration control. This is a simple proposition. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before debate continues, perhaps I was remiss in not reminding noble Lords that certain procedures apply at Report stage. After the Minister has spoken, unless there is a question for elucidation, no other Members of your Lordships' House should again rise to question the Minister further.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am sure that when my noble friends ask questions of the Minister, they are following immediately on what has just been said. They preface their remarks with phrases like, "Before the noble Baroness sits down", to keep well within the rules. My noble friends are old hands at this and they teach me a lot.
I rise briefly but strongly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I add my thanks to the Southall Black Sisters group for its careful briefing both before Grand Committee proceedings and subsequently. The group has taken up in a very practical way several issues that we debated in Grand Committee.
The organisation does not seek to undermine any of the existing rules—which I think is the most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The majority of people have sponsors, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made it clear that the number of those who do not is relatively small. So we are not talking about large funds to be made available for grant purposes, and we are certainly not asking for benefit rules to be undermined. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to this matter, or perhaps to take us a little further forward so that we can think about it again between now and Third Reading.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is surely an amendment which fills the gap in our law and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has put forward a strong case for it.

27
I hope that, even if the Government do not accept the wording, they agree with the substance here and ensure that this matter is covered.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the amendment. I am sure that all who favour this amendment were grateful to the Minister who, in Grand Committee, expressed her understanding of and concern for these few very vulnerable women. At the time she said that women who apply under the domestic violence rule would be fast-tracked. However, many of us are still concerned that fast tracking may still take four months and that some of the funding now being made available would be so for only two months. Additionally, the changes about to be made as a result of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill could well mean that women are left without recourse to public funds for longer than that. Even under the present rules, people who apply outwith the domestic violence rule and who need this kind of support are not covered, along with those subject to appeals at the time, many of which are brought by the Home Office rather than by the appellants themselves.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in saying that this provision would not require an enormous amount of money. There are relatively few women for whom the money could not be recovered from the sponsor, but they are extremely vulnerable. Moreover, if the amendment is agreed, it would enable Britain to fulfil the rights of women enshrined in the convention covering the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. These rights have already been acknowledged and upheld by what has been done in other countries when dealing with this kind of appellant. I refer to the USA, Canada. Australia and Denmark. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for those proposing this amendment. An extremely persuasive case has been made by the Southall Black Sisters group. As we have heard, only small sums are required and it would be a sad injustice if these women were excluded from the important provisions of this Bill.
4 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, from the comments made by my noble friend Lord Dubs and other noble Lords, I know that your Lordships are aware that I am sympathetic to and concerned for this group of women. I hope, therefore, that what I say will assist, although I fear that it may in part also disappoint.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay of St Johns and Lady Walmsley, would give the Secretary of State the power to exempt domestic violence victims still subject to immigration control from restrictions on access to public funds and to recover such funds from the sponsor. I understand the basis on which that
28
suggestion is made. In addition, the amendment would give a power to the Secretary of State to fund organisations and individuals that seek to assist domestic violence victims who are still subject to immigration control and do not have sponsors from whom the recovery of public funds can be made.
As I said in Grand Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to protect victims of domestic violence who come to the country as the spouse or partner of a British citizen or someone who has indefinite leave to remain. I will not rehearse everything that I said in Committee, but I stress that the Government's position is clear: we are concerned to give assistance to victims of domestic violence who are still subject to immigration control, if they have come to this country for settlement on the basis of marriage or relationship to a British citizen or a person with indefinite leave to remain. However, we do not intend to amend the immigration and benefits rules for that one category, as that could lead to avoidable difficulties with fraudulent and other applications. It could perhaps also be an invitation to people to introduce further delay. Clearly, it would not benefit the real victims of domestic violence or other people if such a delay were to take place. Those women and other applicants need speedy determination of their application.
We have given further thought to the proposal on sponsors' undertakings. We thought that it deserved further scrutiny, to see whether we could use it to meet the needs of the situation. We have some concerns about it. The idea of recovering funds from sponsors could lead to more problems, particularly for the victim of domestic violence who may be brought into contact inadvertently with their violent partner.
The practical difficulty of recovering money from sponsors is clear. For example, if the marriage or relationship has broken down, the sponsor may argue that he does not wish to support the individual but is prepared to return them to their country of origin. We know that sponsors have said, "No, I am not willing to maintain my undertaking now, and I wish to resile from it". Would we be justified in insisting that the sponsor should nevertheless pay in such circumstances? We are keen to keep an open mind on the question of holding sponsors to account and will continue to monitor the situation to see whether we can do anything with it. However, we see that there may be practical and other difficulties that may prove to be insurmountable. We will continue to consider the position.
The balance that we have struck through the changes to the immigration rules is the priority given to such applications in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the exemption from charges for indefinite leave to remain. Those measures 'are designed to give the necessary support and help to that small number of domestic violence victims, without relaxing the immigration and benefit rules.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says about the time limit being perhaps four months, but she knows that we are using our best endeavours

29
to fast-track such cases. They get the priority that they need because we understand how the situation can be for those who find themselves almost falling between two stools.
The second part of the amendment deals with the powers of the Secretary of State to provide grants for bodies or individuals,
"in connection with measures intended to assist victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control and their dependants and who otherwise have no recourse to public funds and do not have sponsors within the meaning of subsection (3)".
Of course, the Secretary of State does not need a statutory power to make such grants. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm what was said by my noble friend Lord Dubs and to tell the House that we have agreed a one-off grant of £40,000, to be provided to Women's Aid to bolster its last resort fund. In Committee, I said that we would try to see what we could do to fill that gap, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to match the £40,000 found by Women's Aid to do it. As noble Lords may know, Women's Aid has run the fund for several years. Its members can apply for funding from it to cover the living expenses of women who are making an application for indefinite leave to remain because of domestic violence. It will help to meet the rent and living costs of a small number of cases in refuges that cannot be covered by the "Supporting People" arrangements. It is in addition to the overall spend throughout Whitehall on domestic violence issues. This year, we are investing £84 million.
I believe that that combination of measures will give such victims of domestic violence the support and help that they need at a difficult time. However, I must say that the majority of such women come as spouses to the sponsors. As such, they, like any other wife who does not live with her husband because she has had to leave, are entitled to apply for ancillary relief. Legal aid is available in ancillary relief proceedings, under Section 1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978. It could be done in a few weeks, but the question of enforcement must be considered. However, there are several possible avenues, and we are trying hard to work together on the protocols that exist between different departments and different organisations and to make sure that the network of support that is available to victims of domestic violence is as tight as we can make it.
I cannot give noble Lords the total answer that they would have liked, but I hope that they will accept that the Government not only recognise the problem but continue to do all that we can to address it, with appropriate vigour.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I listened carefully to what she said, and I noted the point about ancillary relief under the legal aid scheme. As regards the main thrust of the amendment, which is to do with recovering money from sponsors, the Minister, while indicating that there were difficulties with the procedure, said that she would keep an open mind on the matter. From that, I take it
30
that she will keep the issue under review and that, if anything else can be done, she will bring the work forward.
Some of the domestic violence concerned may be criminal behaviour. If the pressures are such that the victim leaves the country, the chance of a successful prosecution of the person who has perpetrated the violence will be so much smaller. In considering all the issues, will my noble friend also take into account the need for us to have a robust criminal justice system, so that anybody committing a criminal offence such as certain types of domestic violence will not escape prosecution because the victim has been forced to leave the country, for understandable reasons?
I shall read my noble friend's speech in more detail. I thank her for being open-minded in her approach, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 84A:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause
"AMENDMENTS TO THE YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 TO EXTEND THE CATEGORY OF WITNESSES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE ON GROUNDS OF FEAR OR DISTRESS ABOUT TESTIFYING
Section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying) is amended as follows.
After subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) Where the complainant in respect of proceedings relating to any form of molestation, including violence, involving the complainant, a cohabitant, a relevant child or associated persons, is a witness in such proceedings, the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness's wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.

(4B) For the purposes of this subsection, "cohabitant", "relevant child" and "associated persons" mean a person as defined by section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (meaning of "cohabitants", "relevant child" and "associated person") as amended by sections 2 and 3 of this Act.""

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are grateful for the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
The amendment is identical to one that I moved in Grand Committee. In her reply, the Minister suggested—I hope that I understood her correctly—that domestic violence was less easy to define than sexual offences and that such violence covered,
"a whole spectrum of behaviour".—[Official Report, 9/2/04; col. GC 468.]
I suggest that the need for special measures is related not to the seriousness of the crime but to the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator. The behaviour complained of may have been relatively mild, but that pales into insignificance when the victim is faced with the often terrifying possibility of confronting the perpetrator in court. In many cases, the victim will have had previous experience of the courts in any number of contexts. For many of the

31
victims that we are considering, that experience may well have convinced them that courts are intimidating, unsympathetic and even hostile places.
I come back to what I said in Grand Committee. Against that background, I invite your Lordships to see the difference between the victim's solicitor being able to say, "Don't worry. You have the right to special measures. It's yours. You will not have to confront the perpetrator across the court". But as the Bill currently stands, the solicitor can only say, "I cannot be absolutely sure but there is a good chance that the court will permit you to have special measures".
In that second scenario, there is a further practical consideration which has been brought to our notice recently by Victim Support. That is, that magistrates are frequently reluctant to make an order for the use of screens when the application is made on the day of the trial. That is a potentially very serious point. The Minister's reply to the point regarding the application to the court for special measures, which I raised in Grand Committee, was that it was likely that these would be granted. I refer to cols. GC 466 to 469 of the Official Report of 9 February 2004. If what Victim Support now tells us is substantiated, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it will make the case for the rights to special measures for victims of violence to have statutory entitlement very much stronger. I hope that the Minister will give the matter very careful consideration when she replies.
That could make all the difference in many cases between the victims agreeing to give evidence and being too frightened to do so. That is well recognised by the Minister, who, if I may be permitted to quote her, said in Grand Committee:
"We … want to … ensure that women know what opportunities are available to them so that they receive the succour they so desperately need to enable them to have the courage to come forward, to come forward early, and to be supported through the process so that they are not discouraged from obtaining the justice they so rightly deserve".—[Official Report, 9/2/04; col. GC 469.]
The Minister also suggested in Grand Committee that my amendment was too widely drawn. That amendment, which is reintroduced, in bringing the rights of a victim of domestic violence into line with those relating to sexual offences, makes use of the definitions contained in the Family Law Act 1996.
The Minister suggested in Grand Committee that that amendment will catch offences where the special measures are not needed. That is quite possible. However, I suggest that these will be far outweighed by the many cases where victims will be able to come to court to give evidence in the absolute certainty—that is the whole point of the amendment—that they will be free from the terrifying prospect of having to confront the perpetrator across the court.
I should have liked to have brought to the Minister's notice, before this debate, the point about court practice. From these Benches we are grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing that Victim Support can meet the Government before Third Reading. In view
32
of these two considerations I should like to advise the Minister that we will not seek to divide the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, from these Benches, we support the amendment. One of our objectives must be to encourage as many victims of domestic violence as possible to come forward to talk about their suffering and to be prepared to do something about it. But, as the Minister pointed out during the debate, evidence given in domestic violence cases may not be as sensitive as that given in sexual offences cases. Therefore, witnesses may not automatically need the additional protection of special measures. However, we argue that while the nature of the crime may not be as sensitive in that it may not be sexual, it is sensitive in that the crime takes place within the home and in the context of a power relationship.
It can be very hard for a victim to admit that a seemingly minor threat or slight physical contact can have such a devastating effect on him or her, but, in the context of domestic violence, that is the case. We are all different: something that might run off one person like water off a duck's back might completely devastate someone else. I am not, of course, talking about insignificant slights or insults, but alleged behaviour which is regarded as criminal. So it is important that a victim does not feel demeaned in court, particularly as their self-esteem will already have been knocked about a good deal, and their body as well, by domestic violence.
I also support the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that, according to Victim Support, courts are reluctant to make an order for screens on the day of the trial, even though that measure is already available to them. This amendment seeks to make absolutely sure that a woman is quite clear that she will not have to face her assailant across the court. It is to be hoped that she will then be much more likely to come forward and give evidence.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very glad that we are all in agreement that not only is the domestic violence issue a sensitive one, but it comes in various forms, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have made plain.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness said, that instances that take place in the home can be very hurtful to talk about in a public place. However, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount will know too that one size does not fit all, because there are some women who are abused in the home who wish to take advantage of an opportunity to say to their partner in an open forum: "I am going to tell everybody what you did to me. I am going to stand up for myself, and I am not going to allow you to see that you have obliged me to take special measures to hide from you". Some go one way; others go another. The real thing that we are saying is that you have to be

33
sensitive to the individual case, and that we cannot put all these cases into one group and treat them in the same way.
Therefore I refer noble Lords to the point that I made in Grand Committee, as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I reiterate that Sections 16 and 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 already enable victims of domestic violence to have access to special measures where a court decides that is appropriate. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount about decisions being made on the day. Noble Lords will know that in terms of practice we are working very hard, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the court and Victim Support, to make sure that an assessment of the victim's and witness's needs takes place before the hearing so that we can maximise the opportunities: first, for the victim to turn up to give evidence; secondly, to get the sort of support that they will need to enable them to give their evidence, and, thirdly, to do so. These practical issues are very much to the forefront of the planning that is going on in local areas to make sure that those needs are addressed.
Therefore, automatic access to special measures may not be appropriate in all cases of domestic violence because they may not actually respond to the needs of that particular victim or witness. We believe that, due to the nature of the evidence given, special measures are always appropriate in cases dealing with sexual offences, and this is the only case where there exists automatic eligibility unless the witness refuses such assistance.
We have been careful to limit automatic access only to children and to those adult cases where the evidence to be given is consistently and always of a highly sensitive nature. That is not in any way to suggest that in a case of domestic violence the evidence may not be sensitive. Clearly the quality of the evidence given by such a witness may be diminished by reason of fear or distress. In such cases the courts have the ability to grant a special measures direction. Therefore we believe that the balance that we have struck between this single exception and relying on the court's discretion to grant special measures in all other cases where the court considers it appropriate is the right one. I reiterate that victims of domestic violence have access in all cases where the court decides it is appropriate.
We are continuing to implement those provisions and it may help noble Lords if I outline where we are now, because those provisions are coming in. From June, the vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in magistrates' courts will have access to screens and evidence in private. We are aiming to extend the availability of live links and video recorded evidence in chief from spring 2005, subject to sufficient securities being in place, and successful piloting of alternatives to full transcription in less serious cases.
As I said in the debate last time, I would expect courts to be sensitive to the needs of victims of domestic violence and grant special measures where it
34
would be appropriate. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that noble Lords know that I am with them in the spirit that those who need special measures should certainly have them.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support for this amendment. I think we are not entirely in agreement with the Minister on the question of "one size fits all". However, the outcome of the meeting between the Government and Victim Support will be interesting, and we shall also be interested to hear the further explanation of the point raised by Victim Support in relation to this amendment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I hope I made clear that I said "one size does not fit all".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 14, line 35, leave out "enactments mentioned in Schedule 5 are repealed" and insert "provisions mentioned in Schedule 5 are repealed or revoked"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this set of amendments deals with a range of necessary consequential amendments.
The first, Amendment No. 85, replaces "repealed" with "repealed or revoked", in order to ensure that the Bill reflects the correct terminology for Northern Ireland. The next set of amendments will ensure that the new offence in Clause 4 is dealt with in a similar way to other homicide offences where that is appropriate, and other dangerous offences where that is appropriate. I will briefly run through what each amendment does.
Amendment No. 86 adds a new offence, when committed in respect of a child or young person, to those listed in Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The schedule sets out offences to which certain special provisions apply. The provisions include presumption and determination of age. Amendment No. 92 will insert the new offence into the list of those excluded from the Home Secretary's power, under Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, to make an order for early release of classes of prisoners. Amendment No. 94 will add the new offence to the list of serious arrestable offences contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment No. 96 will create a presumption that, where there are criminal proceedings for the new offence, any coroner's inquest will be adjourned until after those proceedings. It will also ensure that the coroner is informed of the result of the criminal proceedings for the new offence. Amendment No. 99 will ensure that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General's consent is needed to institute proceedings for the offence if the proceedings are brought more than three years after the death.
Amendment No. 102 will add the offence to those for which a person may be disqualified from working with children. Amendment No. 104 will add the offence to those offences regarding which a sexual offences prevention order can be made. Amendments Nos. 106, 113 and 115 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment Nos. 89 and 97 are consequential on extending the offence to Northern Ireland.
I should perhaps say that Amendment No. 106 is a drafting amendment adding the title of the offence to a consequential amendment already in the Bill, which adds the offence to Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is not in his place, which is why I have the bravery to say that.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 115 would delete the word "or" in the Coroners Act 1988 and from Section 19 of the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996, where the word "or" is no longer needed because of the previous amendment. Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 merely transfer the transitional and transitory provisions from Clause 27 to a separate schedule. This is due to the fact that the number of provisions has grown following the extension of some of the clauses to Northern Ireland.
Finally, Amendment No. 123A amends the extent of the Bill. It reflects the fact that provisions relating to causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, homicide reviews, common assault as an arrestable offence, restraining orders on acquittal, multiple offending and grants for assisting victims and witnesses all extend to Northern Ireland.
Following discussions with colleagues in the Scottish Executive, we have amended the extent clause to make clear that Clauses 24 and 25 do not extend to Scotland. This amendment is also consequential on the extension of the Clause 5 evidence and procedure to courts martial.
After that exhaustive explanation, I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 99:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
In Schedule I to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (offences against children and young persons with respect to which special provisions of the Act apply), after "Infanticide" insert—
"An offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, in respect of a child or young person.""
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)
In section 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (interpretation), after the definition of "duly approved" insert
""local probation board" means a local probation board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;"."
36
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Criminal Appeal Act /968 (c. 19)
In section 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (right of appeal against finding of disability), in subsection (1), for the words "the jury has returned" substitute "there have been".
In section 37 of that Act (detention of defendant on appeal by the Crown to House of Lords), in subsection (4). for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) a hospital order made by virtue of section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (powers to deal with persons not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead etc),".
B1 In section 51 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (2A), for "6, 14 or 14A" substitute "6 or 14"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34)
In Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (offences against children and young persons with respect to which special provisions of the Act apply), after "Infanticide" insert—
"An offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, in respect of a child or young person.""
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Juries Act 1974 (c. 23)
C1 (1) Section 11 of the Juries Act 1974 (ballot and swearing of jurors) is amended as follows.
In subsection (5) omit paragraph (b).
In subsection (6) omit ", (b)"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)
In section 19(1A)(a) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (legal aid), after "appeal under" insert "section 10A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004,"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
In section 55 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (constitution of criminal division of Court of Appeal), in subsection (4)(a)(iii) omit the words "of a jury"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)
In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (offences excluded from early release provisions), in Part 2, after the entry relating to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) insert—
"Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
Section 4 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).""
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
D1 In section 69 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (application to tribunals concerning patients subject to hospital orders etc), in subsection (2)(a)—

(a) for "below," substitute "below or";

(b) omit "or section 5(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964".

E1 In section 71 of that Act (references by Home Secretary concerning restricted patients) omit subsections (5) and (6).
F1 In section 79 of that Act (interpretation of Part 5) omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1)."

37
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
In Schedule 5 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (serious arrestable offences), in Part 2, after paragraph 23 insert—
"Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
24 Section 4 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).""
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)
In section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (defence costs), in subsection (4) (power of Court of Appeal to make defendant's costs order), after paragraph (c) insert "or
(d) allows, to any extent, an appeal under section 16A of that Act (appeal against order made in cases of insanity or unfitness to plead);"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)
In section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988 (adjournment of inquest in event of criminal proceedings), in subsection (1)(a), after sub-paragraph (iii) insert—
"(iv) an offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult); or".
In section 17 of that Act (coroner to be informed of result of criminal proceedings), in subsections (1) and (2), at the end of paragraph(c) insert "; or
(d) an offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult),"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12))
In Schedule 5 to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (serious arrestable offences), in Part 2, after paragraph 14 insert—
"Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
15 Section 4 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).''"
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (c. 35)
In section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (references by Criminal Cases Review Commission to Court of Appeal), in subsection (6), for the words "a jury in England and Wales has returned" substitute "in England and Wales there have been"."
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
"Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 (c. 19)
In section 2 of the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 (restriction on institution of proceedings for fatal offence), in subsection (3), at the end of paragraph (b) insert ", or
(c) an offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 24, line 11, leave out from "shall" to end of line 13 and insert "use the power conferred by subsection (2)(b) to make a non-molestation order, whenever violence has been used or threatened, or where there is a risk of significant harm to the applicant or any relevant child"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, please excuse the confusion on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord leading this team is in no way implicated in the confusion.
First of all, this amendment was not put at Grand Committee, so it is a new amendment at this stage. It amends Clause 3(2) of Schedule 4 of the Bill, which is of course in itself an amendment of Clause 42 to the Family Law Act 1996. It reflects concerns on the part of Women's Aid. I should say, because I have been having a discussion with somebody who is very concerned about violence in the domestic setting, that the fact that these concerns come from Women's Aid does not mean I am a paid-up member of the clan that says only women suffer violence. That is not true, and I want to make that point clear.
Clause 1 of this Bill amends Part 4 of the Family Law Act to make a breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence, but it does not extend to criminalising breaches of occupation orders issued in the case of domestic violence under the Family Law Act 1996. The reason given for not making a breach of occupation orders a criminal offence is that a history of violence is not a prerequisite for granting an occupation order, as such orders not only deal with occupation and exclusion from the family home but also other matters relating to property. We have heard the noble Baroness making this point on several occasions during the course of this Bill.
However, while the assumption may be that, where domestic violence is present, non-molestation orders are also likely to be granted alongside the occupation orders, there is no requirement for this to be done in all cases where violence has been used or threatened, if the occupation order itself contains measures that are considered effectively to provide the same remedy.
It is the experience of Women's Aid that occupation orders may be applied for and granted without non-molestation orders. The present wording of the Bill means that the court may consider making a non-molestation order, but it does not make this compulsory, even where violence has been used or threatened. This could mean that the perpetrators of domestic violence could breach an occupation order, for example by visiting the property, loitering outside or other similar behaviour prohibited under an occupation order, but that, in the absence of a non-molestation order, such breaches would not be arrestable offences.
A mechanism is needed to ensure that in all cases where violence is used or threatened the breach of any relevant order is a criminal offence. An obligation on the court in cases where violence has been used or threatened, or where there is a risk of significant harm to the applicant or any relevant child, to issue a non-molestation order whenever an occupation order is issued, would ensure that victims are better protected, and a more effective and co-ordinated approach by relevant enforcement agencies. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in cases of domestic violence, applications for occupation orders

39
are nearly always made alongside applications for non-molestation orders. As the noble Baroness knows, and I think she has already outlined it in her remarks, by virtue of Section 42(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1996, the court already has the power to make a non-molestation order on its own initiative, although paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Bill amends the 1996 Act so as to place the court under an obligation to consider, whenever it is deciding whether to make an occupation order, whether it should also make a non-molestation order. The noble Baroness will know that that is a new duty which will basically highlight for the court the need to consider whether what it is doing gives rise to the necessity to consider a non-molestation order, even where no party has applied for such an order. It is an important new impetus for the courts to highlight this change. We consider that it will provide vital protection by ensuring that, whenever the court believes it is needed, a non-molestation order will be put in place.
The effect of the noble Baroness's amendment would be to force the court, when making an occupation order, always to make a non-molestation order when there is actual or threatened violence or a "risk of significant harm". The Government believe that this is unnecessary as it should be for the court to decide whether a non-molestation order is appropriate in the circumstances of each individual case. I have little doubt that in the circumstances to which the noble Baroness alluded, a court would make a non-molestation order. But we believe that the preservation of the court's discretion as to what to do for the best is important.
The amendment would also have the effect of removing the obligation on the court to consider making an order in the less serious cases that would not fall within the amendment—namely, where violence has not been used or threatened or where there is no risk of significant harm to the applicant or to any relevant child.
Noble Lords will know that in certain cases the making of the non-molestation order becomes necessary because you have changed the rights of occupation. That sometimes is the impetus for difficulty and the court must be left in a position where it can make an assessment as to whether or not that level of protection is appropriate.
There may be occasions when the actions complained of are sufficient to warrant the issue of a non-molestation order—for example, low-level but continuing harassment. Our changes to the Family Law Act would place a duty on the court to consider issuing a non-molestation order for such actions at the same time as an occupation order, thereby giving the best and most appropriate protection to the victim. I know that it is not the noble Baroness's intention to prevent the court from so doing, but her amendment could leave some victims without the protection of a non-molestation order.
Finally, I should also point out that the amendment would result in cases where the applicant for an occupation order found that the court had no option
40
but to make a non-molestation order, regardless of either the applicant's wishes or how much time had passed since the violence occurred. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I cannot accept her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely clear explanation of her difficulties with the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 25, line 10, after ""relative"" insert—
"(a) for "or nephew" in paragraph (b) substitute ", nephew or first cousin";
(b)"
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for raising in Grand Committee on 9 February the issue of whether or not cousins should be added to the list of associated persons. I was concerned that any reference to cousins should be strictly defined to make it consistent with the definition of the relatives already in the Family Law Act 1996. I agreed to take the matter away for further deliberations. After careful consideration I believe it is right that first cousins should be given the same protection of the Family Law Act 1996 as other family members such as brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece or nephew.
I hope that the amendment is perfectly straightforward. It incorporates a reference to first cousin in the list of relatives as set out in Section 63(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1996, as amended by paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 116, which is consequential on Amendment No. 7, which has been accepted and which repeals Section 41 of the Family Law Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 100A to 107:
Page 25, line 26, at end insert—
"Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)
11A (1) Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfers of prisoners within the British Islands) (as amended by Schedule 32 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 8 (restricted transfers from England and Wales to Scotland), in sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (4)(a), for "264" substitute "246A".
(3) In paragraph 9 (restricted transfers from England and Wales to Northern Ireland), in sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (4)(a), for "264" substitute "246A"."
Page 25, line 26, at end insert—

Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9))
11 A (1) Article 7 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (power to make restraining order where defendant convicted of offence under Article 4 or 6 of that Act) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the end insert "on conviction".
(3) In paragraph (2) omit "further"."
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—

Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43)
In Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (offences against children for the purposes of disqualification orders), in paragraph 3, after paragraph (sa) insert—
"(sb) he commits an offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult) in respect of a child.""
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
In section 133 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (general interpretation of Part 2) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) A reference in subsection (1) to section 37 or 41 of the Mental Health Act or to Part 3 of that Act includes a reference to that section or Part as it applies by virtue of section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 or section 6 or 14 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.''"
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
(1) Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (other offences for the purposes of sexual offences prevention orders) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 63 insert—
"63A An offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult)."
(3) After paragraph 171 insert—
"171A An offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).""
Page 25, line 31, at end insert—
"12A In section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (further provisions about trial without a jury), in subsection (6), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "the requirement under section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 that any question, finding or verdict mentioned in that section be determined, made or returned by a jury"."
Page 25, line 31, at end insert—
"In section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (interpretation of Part 9), after subsection (6) insert—
"(7) In its application to a trial on indictment in respect of which an order under section 9(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 has been made, this Part is to have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order specify.""
Page 25, line 36, at end insert "(causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult)"
Page 25, line 36, at end insert—
In Schedule 17 to that Act (Northern Ireland offences specified for the purposes of section 229(4)), in Part 1 (specified violent offences), after paragraph 60 insert—
"60A An offence under section 4 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 121A:
Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)

Section 14A."

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Juries Act 1974 (c. 23)

In section 11 paragraph (b) of subsection (5) and "(b)" in subsection (6)."

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)

In Section 55(4)(a)(iii), the words. "of a Jury","

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)

In section 69(2)(a), the words "or section 5(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964".

Section 71(5) and (6).

Section 79(1)(b)."

Page line 3, at end insert—

"Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)

In section 16(4), the word "or" preceding paragraph (c)."

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)

In section 16(1)(a), the word "or" preceding sub-paragraph (iii).

In section 17, in subsections (1) and (2) the word "or" preceding paragraph (c)."

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 (c. 25)

Section 3 and 5

In section 6—

(a) the definition of "local probation board" in subsection (1);

(b) subsection (2). Schedules 1 and 2."

Page 26, line 3, at end insert—

"Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 (c. 19)

In section 2(3), the word "or" preceding paragraph (b)."

Page 26, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert—

"Section 41."

Page 26, line 11, at end insert—

"Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9))

In Article 7, the words "under Article 4 or 6" in paragraph (1) and the word "further" in paragraph (2)."

Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

"Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)

In Schedule 13, paragraph 163."

Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

"Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)

In Schedule 9, paragraph 133."

Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

"Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14)

In Schedule 4, paragraph 16."

Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

"Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43)

In Schedule 7, paragraphs 99 to 102."

Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

"Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)

In section 246(6), in the definition of "the required custodial days", the word "or" preceding paragraph (b).

In section 264(1), the word "and" preceding paragraph (b)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 122:
After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
"SCHEDULE TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
1 (1) Section 1 and paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 4 apply only in relation to conduct occurring on or after the commencement of that section.
(2) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference to 12 months in subsection (5)(b) of section 42A of the Family Law Act 1996 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) is to be read as a reference to six months.
2 In section 4, the reference in subsection (1)(a) to an unlawful act does not include an act that (or so much of an act as) occurs before the commencement of that section.
3 (1) This paragraph has effect, in relation to any time before the commencement of the repeal (by paragraph 51 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003) of section 6 of the Magistrates' Co
Courts Act 1980 (c. 43), where—

(a) a magistrates' court is considering under subsection (1) of that section whether to commit a person ("the accused") for trial for an offence of murder or manslaughter. and

(b) the accused is charged in the same proceedings with an offence under section 4 above in respect of the same death.

(2) If there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial by jury for the offence under section 4, there is deemed to be sufficient evidence to put him on trial by jury for the offence of murder or manslaughter.
4 Section 7 applies only in relation to offences committed on or after the commencement of that section.
5 (1) Section 8(1) and paragraphs 10(3) and 12 of Schedule 4 do not apply where the conviction occurs before the commencement of those provisions.
(2) Section 8(2) applies only in relation to applications made on or after the commencement of that provision.
(3) Section 8(3) and paragraphs 10(2) and 11 of Schedule 4 do not apply where the acquittal (or, where subsection (5) of the inserted section 5A applies, the allowing of the appeal) occurs before the commencement of those provisions.
6 (1) Section (Restraining orders: Northern Ireland)(1) and paragraph 11 A(3) of Schedule 4 do not apply where the conviction occurs before the commencement of those provisions.
(2) Section (Restraining orders: Northern Ireland)(2) applies only in relation to applications made on or after the commencement of that provision.
(3) Section (Restraining orders: Northern Ireland)(3) and paragraph 11A(2) of Schedule 4 do not apply where the acquittal (or, where paragraph (5) of the inserted Article 7A applies, the allowing of the appeal) occurs before the commencement of those provisions.
7 (1) The provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) do not apply—

(a) in relation to proceedings before the Crown Court, where the accused was arraigned before the commencement of those provisions;

44

(b) in relation to proceedings before the Court of Appeal, where the hearing of the appeal began before that commencement.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) sections (Unfitness to plead: procedure) and (Powers of court on finding of insanity or unfitness to plead etc);

(b) Schedule (Supervision orders);

(c) paragraphs A 1, B1, C1, D1 to F1 and 12A of Schedule 4.

8 The Schedule inserted by Schedule (Supervision orders) has effect in relation to any time before the commencement of sections 8 and 37 of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)—

(a) as if a reference to a local justice area were to a petty sessions area;

(b) as if a reference to a designated officer were to a justices' chief executive.

9 Each entry in Schedule 5 applies in the same way as the provision of this Act to which it corresponds."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Transitional and transitory provisions]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 14, line 37, leave out subsections (1) to (9) and insert—
"Schedule (Transitional and transitory provisions) (transitional and transitory provisions) has effect."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Extent]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 16, line 2, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"() Subject to the following provisions of this section, Parts 1 to 3 extend to England and Wales only.
() The following provisions extend also to Northern Ireland—

section;

section 4;

section 6;

sections 9 to (Application of sections 9 to 12 to Northern Ireland);

Schedule (Modification of sections 9 to 12 for Northern Ireland);

section 25.

() The following provisions extend to Northern Ireland only—

section (Evidence and procedure: Northern Ireland);

section 7(2);

section (Restraining orders: Northern Ireland).

() Section (Evidence and procedure.' courts-martial), so far as relating to proceedings before courts-martial constituted under a particular Act mentioned in subsection (2) of that section, has the same extent as that Act.
() An amendment, repeal or revocation in Schedule 1, 2, 4 or 5 has the same extent as the provision to which it relates.
This subsection does not apply to the amendment in paragraph 12A of Schedule 4 (which accordingly extends to England and Wales only).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment Nos. 124 to 128:
Line 1, leave out "and"
Line 2, after "1997" insert "and the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997"

45
Line 4, after "indictment;" insert "to make provision about findings of unfitness to plead and about persons found unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity;"
Line 4, after "indictment;" insert "to amend section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;"
Line 4, after "indictment;" insert "to amend Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in relation to intermittent custody"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Making of Remedial Orders) Amendment Bill [H.L.]
4.36 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Although the Bill has been introduced in my name, it is put forward on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The Committee's recommendations are all-party and beyond party, and they are unanimous. Six of its members are elected Members of the other place.
The Human Rights Act empowers Ministers, with parliamentary approval, to make statutory instruments amending legislation, including primary legislation, either where the legislation has been declared by one of the higher courts in the United Kingdom to be incompatible with a right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, or where it appears to a Minister or to Her Majesty in Council to be incompatible with such a convention right, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings against the UK. This is a beneficial power since it enables the executive, with the concurrence of the legislature, to remove a mismatch between UK statute law and convention rights.
The Joint Committee is responsible for reporting to Parliament on the operation of the remedial order procedure, which can be invoked only if certain other conditions described in the Explanatory Notes are satisfied. The Explanatory Notes have been prepared on the Joint Committee's behalf by our legal adviser, the admirable Professor David Feldman. There are different provisions for urgent and for non-urgent cases.
The super-affirmative procedure is a good one but, in our seventh report of 2001–02, Making of Remedial Orders, House of Lords Paper 58 of 17 December 2001, we drew the attention of both Houses to two defects in the prescribed procedure for non-urgent cases.
In the first place, the statutory period of 60 days during which the proposal for the order must lie before Parliament is calculated without taking account of any period during which Parliament is prorogued or
46
dissolved, or any period in which both Houses—I emphasise the word "both"—are adjourned for more than four days. The way in which paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 2 is drafted means that the statutory period runs when either House is adjourned for more than four days.
We recommend that the Human Rights Act should be amended by replacing the words "both Houses are" with the words "either House is". That would mean that the clock would not tick when either House is adjourned for more than four days—for example, when this House has Judicial Sittings in October but the other place is not sitting. This would be even more important were the other place to start sitting in September and this House not to follow suit. In other words, this amendment would increase the time available for consideration of any proposal that precedes the laying of a draft remedial order.
The second matter, the only other matter, is that the 60-day period before either House can consider a resolution to approve a draft remedial order seems to us to be longer than is necessary given that there will already have been a previous period of 60 days for the making of representations. It is anomalous to impose a specially long period of inaction in relation to draft remedial orders, particularly as they have the beneficent purpose of securing, rather than interfering with, the convention rights of the individual.
The second amendment—to paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 2— would allow a draft remedial order to be approved at any time after being laid before Parliament. As we explain, that would bring the procedure into harmony with the procedure for the approval of other types of draft order. But because it affects parliamentary scrutiny, it will need to be carefully considered in Committee.
The committee's recommendations were endorsed by the House of Commons Procedure Committee in its first report of 2001–02, Making Remedial Orders: Recommendations by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Commons Paper 626. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considers that the changes would strike a better balance between the need to change the law to remove an incompatibility reasonably expeditiously and the need for adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
We hope that the Bill will be regarded as non-controversial and that it will proceed through both Houses on oiled castors. I also hope that I have broken some kind of record for brevity in introducing a Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
4.41 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in my very brief and undistinguished career at the Bar, I think the first words I ever uttered in court were to seek "no order as to costs". I hope I can be almost as brief in dealing with the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and stick to those sentiments in offering neither support for nor opposition to it.

47
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be aware in recalling the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, I was never a particular fan of Section 10, which the Bill seeks to amend. I was probably one of those on this side of the House who felt, in the words of the noble Lord on that occasion, that it created,
"a vast Henry VIII clause with jackboots added on".—[Official Report, 29/1/98; col. 403.]
Nevertheless, we now have it, and we now have a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reminds us, he is a member. So I am perfectly happy not to oppose the passage of the Bill and to accept the committee's recommendations that some amendment to the Human Rights Act should be made.
In passing, let me say that just as I am happy to accept the recommendations of that distinguished Joint Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, might consider—and perhaps this might also be true of the Government—accepting the advice of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which reported in another place, particularly its advice that the Constitutional Reform Bill could be considered in draft before coming before this House.
4.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I will not rise to the last bait—I think we gave that issue good measure last week.
I note the challenge from both noble Lords to be brief. I should like to put on record the Government's appreciation of the work of the Joint Committee in general and of its seventh report in particular, with which the Bill deals. I will not speak to those two measures; the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already done so, admirably and clearly.
The Government can see the case for both changes. The then Minister for Human Rights at my department, my honourable friend Yvette Cooper, wrote to the chair of the Joint Committee on 8 July 2002 and indicated that the Government would not oppose a Bill to implement them should the Joint Committee's recommendations find favour with a private Member of either House. I am happy to stand by that position today.
This is subject to one reservation, which I have signalled to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The second 60-day limit and other detailed rules in Schedule 2 to the Act reflect lively discussion in this House and in the other place about what were then described as a new raft of Henry VIII powers. The rules in Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act are there as a safeguard for the legislature as a whole.
In the Government's view, this matter should be entirely one for the House to determine. The Government are, as I have signalled, neutral but not hostile. We merely wish to ensure that any decision is made in an informed way by the House, looking at the possible arguments on each side of the issue. I should therefore greatly welcome the tabling of a probing
48
amendment to the Bill in Committee so as to probe the opinion of the House on the merits of Clause 1(1). In the event of a favourable result, both Houses could, I believe, give a fair wind to the Bill's passage, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues desire.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his handsomely generous speech, given that he said he was not a great admirer of the handiwork of the Government and Parliament in 1998 in introducing and enacting the human rights legislation.
I hope it is clear that one of the advantages of this procedure is that it enables the Government and Parliament to put right a wrong done to an individual relatively speedily but with proper parliamentary scrutiny so as to avoid the long and costly journey to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, which is choking with a backlog of 80,000 cases. It is because of the interests of the individual, balanced with the need for parliamentary scrutiny, that this procedure is rather important.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asks me to return the compliment by expressing my view about the Constitutional Reform Bill. All things being equal, I strongly favour pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills, including important constitutional Bills. I, for my part, wish that the Constitutional Reform Bill could have been introduced in draft some considerable time ago. What worries me now is that we may throw out the baby with the bathwater unless we proceed with reasonable speed. We will have no proper procedure in place for appointing the judges of England and Wales unless we are able to make proper progress.
Having said that, I entirely sympathise with the noble Lord. There is nothing between us—I hope he understands that I am a strong supporter of effective parliamentary scrutiny in this case as well as in any other.
I am sure that the committee will be very grateful for what the Minister has said. He is quite right that there needs to be full scrutiny of the second change in Committee in order to ensure that the House is satisfied that there really will be sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of this important matter. We do not want a vast Henry VIII clause, whether or not with boots on, which can circumvent effective parliamentary scrutiny. That can be done in Committee, with an appropriate probing amendment, and I am sure that that will happen.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it might assist us if he expanded somewhat on what he would include in Committee. Knowing this was the noble Lord's Bill, we have got through it somewhat quicker than we normally expect to get through his Bills. As the Government Chief Whip will recognise, a number of noble Lords who are down to speak in the coming debate have not yet made it into the Chamber. I know that the noble and learned Lord

49
the Lord Chancellor had some problems getting in. If the noble Lord. Lord Lester, wishes to expand a little, I am sure the House would not object.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am too young in this House to know whether there is not some more elegant way of dealing with the matter than the House having to be wearied by me, since I will be making a speech in the next debate. I do not know whether it is possible for a pause that refreshes to take place. Otherwise, I am perfectly happy to blather on indefinitely, if that is the wish of the House. However, I should have thought there must be some better way of ordering our arrangements in 2004. Unless someone can think of anything else I can say, I propose to sit down.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading debate, I shall do what I usually do and remind the House of the arithmetic. We have a target rising time of ten o'clock. The figures are, very roughly, that if speeches were around eight minutes, we would hit that target rising time. If they were around 10 minutes, we would hit eleven o'clock. The rest is in the hands of your Lordships.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
4.50 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government have made substantial progress in the difficult area of asylum and immigration, including meeting the Prime Minister's target of halving the number of asylum claimants from 8,700 in October last year to around 4,000 this September.
Applications for asylum fell dramatically in 2003 as a result of the measures introduced by the Government, including legislation and border controls in France. The downward trend continued in the last three months of the year, with a 52 per cent drop compared with the same period in 2002.
In 2003 as a whole, following a surge in applications before tougher benefits rules came into force, applications fell by 41 per cent—this is four times as much as the average across the rest of the EU.
As a result of the fall in new claims, applications for state support fell by 60 per cent in the last three months of 2003 compared with the same period in 2002. We must recognise and accept our obligation and willingness to accept those in this country who are genuinely persecuted or are in real fear of persecution.
But reducing abuse of the asylum system is an important part of our overall immigration strategy—encouraging managed, legal migration, including from
50
the EU accession countries, working internationally to address the global problems of refugees at source, while robustly preventing abuse of the asylum system and illegal migration.
Despite these successes, we need to continue to respond flexibly to the evolving pressures created by sophisticated and determined people intent on abusing the system.
It is not just about legislation. We are making progress in moving border controls to the Continent. extending what we have already done in France to Belgium, in extending the use of biometrics on visas and at ports, and in agreements with other countries to return failed asylum seekers. We are also reviewing the way the Immigration Service works and how it links with other agencies.
However, legislation is also vital to help us keep one step ahead of this fast moving problem. This is why, on 27 October, the Home Secretary and I announced that we would be bringing forward further legislation to address two remaining problems in the asylum system: applicants who lodge groundless appeals to delay removal; and the problem of asylum seekers who deliberately destroy or dispose of their documents to make unfounded claims.
As noble Lords will know, the central part of this Bill is Clause 14, which creates a unified appellate structure for asylum and immigration appeals. It is important that the appeals system is fair, but it must also provide speed and finality. A swift and final decision is in the interests of both genuine refugees and the British taxpayer, who should not have to fund those seeking to play the multiple tiers of appeal and the support costs they incur.
There remains considerable scope for delay. We have reduced delay in the initial decision process to the point where the number of cases awaiting an initial decision stands at its lowest in a decade, and 80 per cent of decisions on applications are made and served within two months, but delays still exist in the appeals process. Only 43 per cent of decisions on permission to appeal to the tribunal are dealt with within two months and those granted permission can currently expect to wait until October for their hearing.
Of course, people are able to exploit that delay; not necessarily because they have a good case to run but because it enables them, in many cases, to claim benefit from the state and to have access to housing and health care.
Our intention in bringing forward the single tier was to target that delay and reduce abuse in the system. I am confident that our proposals do that, by reducing what is currently a 62-week process to 18 weeks.
At present, on average, it takes eight weeks for I N D to make the initial decision and inform the asylum seeker. If an appeal is lodged, it takes, on average, 17 weeks from the IND's decisions to the adjudicator's determination.
If permission to appeal against the adjudicator's determination is sought, it takes another seven weeks until the permission decision is made by the IAT. If

51
permission is granted, and there is a substantive hearing at the IAT, it can take another 30 weeks before the IAT decision is promulgated.
When added together, we have 62 weeks from beginning to end. That is far too long. There is too much delay. With so many layers, extra resource by itself is not a sufficient answer. But the system also needs to ensure that we have proper and appropriate judicial oversight of the system so that it is independent, thorough and fair. And we do not have that right yet.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put by the senior judiciary, including those of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I have also talked to my predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, who has forcibly made representations about the Bill. I have read closely the arguments advanced in debate in another place, as well as the report by the Select Committee for Constitutional Affairs and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I believe that we can have the necessary judicial oversight of the system by the higher courts and obtain the aims of speed and reduction in abuse. These are aims which I believe we share. There are a variety of ways in which we could achieve this, and I am confident that we can find a solution which meets the needs of all. I am sure that noble Lords will want to work with us.
In those circumstances, I am prepared to bring forward amendments to replace the judicial review ouster with a new system allowing oversight by the administrative court in those decisions. That system must ensure speed is increased and abuse is reduced. We need to concentrate on how these objectives should be achieved. The relationship between the single tier and the administrative court is important in this respect. No one disagrees that we should aim for a system where very few cases go to the High Court.
Reform of the appeals process goes hand in hand with reform of the legal aid system, including thresholds on legal aid, and by a clampdown on unregulated immigration advisers to put a stop to those whose only advice is how to exploit the system. We want to ensure that those who need advice because they have claims with merit get it. So, in parallel to the terms of the Bill, we will target legal aid better.
I shall discuss the individual clauses of the Bill. I have already dealt with Clause 14. Clauses I to 5 introduce new offences to tackle illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system. The vast majority of people who claim asylum at UK ports do not have documentation, even though in many cases it was necessary for them to be in possession of a passport and travel documents in order to travel here.
Clause 2 sends out a clear message that this is unreasonable behaviour from someone who is seeking our protection, by creating a new offence of entering the UK without a valid passport without a reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty for such an offence will be a two-year prison sentence. The offence is not
52
intended to catch people who were not in possession of a document when they fled persecution, and to protect against that situation a reasonable excuse defence is built into the clause.
The Sexual Offences Act introduced a new criminal offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new criminal offence of trafficking people into, or out of, the UK for the purposes of exploitation. The offence is aimed at those who traffic people into the UK in order to obtain labour or services through force or coercion, for the removal of organs, or for offences of false imprisonment. In line with the offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation, this offence will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
Clause 7 concerns the need for asylum claimants to be honest with us when they seek our protection. It sets out various behaviours which a deciding authority is required to take into account when considering whether to believe a person's claim. It covers situations where an applicant fails to provide a valid passport without a reasonable explanation, where a person has failed to take reasonable opportunity to seek protection in a safe third country that they have travelled through in order to reach the UK, or where a person has delayed making their claim without good reason.
Clause 8 will already be familiar to many noble Lords, as it was widely misreported by the press when we first announced the measure.
In fact, the policy is designed to encourage families whose asylum claims—and appeals—have been rejected, to take up the more dignified option of a paid voluntary flight home with some reintegration assistance at the other end, instead of having to enforce their removal and sometimes detain them.
It will be made clear that they cannot. as now, stay on indefinitely in the UK supported by the taxpayer, when it is possible for them to leave.
The provision in the Bill would enable the Government to withdraw support for families whose asylum claims have failed only if they are able to return but fail to take up the offer of a voluntary route home. This is designed to encourage more families to return voluntarily through packages that provide reintegration assistance. Returning voluntarily with some reintegration assistance, rather than having their removal enforced, is better for the families and would reduce the waste of public funds when they do not comply with enforced removal. The policy is not designed to make families destitute. It is designed to act as an incentive to return voluntarily before removal is enforced. There will be a robust process in place to ensure that support is only ever withdrawn as a last resort.
Clauses 9 to 13 propose to enhance existing enforcement powers. We brought forward an amendment to the Bill in another place—now Clause 11 of the Bill—which will enable us to require carriers to take copies of passengers' identity documents

53
before they travel. We do not intend to use this power until we have considered the results of a voluntary scheme which will take place later this year.
Clause 15 introduces a further degree of flexibility into the concept of non-suspensive appeals introduced in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, by permitting a designated country as generally safe for certain categories of people where we cannot be satisfied that it can be designated as safe for everybody.
Clauses 16 to 21 deal with various problems relating to rights of appeal and to removal.
Clauses 22 to 26 aim to tackle unscrupulous or unregulated immigration advisers. We propose to give new powers to the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner—the OISC—which currently oversees immigration services, in order to help him act against those legal advisers who are simply giving advice on how to defraud the system. This will complement new restrictions on legal aid.
Clause 22 amends the categories of advisers qualified to provide immigration advice or services.
Clause 23 gives the OISC a power, subject to obtaining a warrant, to enter and search premises where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that immigration advice is being provided by an unqualified person.
Clause 24 creates a new criminal offence of advertising or offering to provide immigration advice when unqualified, which will carry a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine.
Clause 25 proposes to remove the right of appeal to the tribunal where the commissioner has recorded a complaint on file for consideration when an application for continued consideration is received from an immigration adviser.
Clause 26 amends Section 86 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to place a duty on registered advisers to provide timely information to the commissioner in order to enable him to carry out his statutory functions.
We believe in opening up more legal and managed routes into the United Kingdom. Such managed migration is a source of great benefit to the United Kingdom, but it also provides great benefits to those who take advantage of opportunities to come to work, study or make a permanent home here. We believe it is fair to raise income from such situations, and are therefore proposing to introduce an enabling power to allow us to introduce over-cost charging for non-asylum applications. Clause 27 sets out that enabling power, but the charges themselves will be phased in over a number of years, possibly at differing rates, and not without wider consultation.
The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 already allows fees to be prescribed for the consideration of applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, variation of leave to enter or remain or the fixing of a stamp in a new or replacement passport or
54
travel document. Clause 28 broadens that power to allow for a charge to be made when we transfer conditions.
This is a very important Bill which builds upon the major reform we have already undertaken in this area. It contains a number of tough but vital provisions to ensure that the public have continued confidence in the immigration controls of this country. This is vital work if we are to succeed in encouraging legal migration and successful protection and integration of genuine refugees, who should always be welcomed in the United Kingdom. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has signalled today that the Government have begun to listen to the chorus of criticism of Clause 14 in the Bill. Naturally, we shall all consider his words very carefully indeed during the course of the debate—just as, no doubt, he judged every single word very carefully when he drafted his speech for today.
Our asylum system must be humane and we must continue our long and honourable tradition of giving safe refuge to the persecuted. We recognise, of course, that the asylum system must be efficient; it is not fair to anyone, including the asylum seeker, if it is not. We contend that our current system lacks efficiency and is in danger of losing humanity.
The Home Secretary has maintained that this Bill—the Government's third asylum Bill in four years—is the final stage in the Government's planned approach to solving the problems of effective administration of the asylum system. I have to say that it does not look quite like that to anyone else. It looks like a patching job rather than a carefully crafted response. After all, the ink is barely dry on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and much of that Act still remains not implemented.
I say immediately that some parts of the Bill can be welcomed from this Bench. I will refer to those later.
The blot on the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord referred at the beginning of his speech—quite rightly, he opened with it—and which means that it cannot be supported in its current form is indeed Clause 14. It is an objection because it seeks to treat one class of people substantially differently from others. Everyone in this country should be subject to the rule of law and have the protection of the law. That is why it is wrong for the Bill as currently drafted to remove the supervision of the higher courts from the process of administrative tribunals. Access to proper judicial oversight is a cornerstone of our democracy. It should be available to all.
I shall outline our position on Clause 14 briefly now. but my noble friend Lord Kingsland will explain our proposals in detail later tonight. He will lead for these Benches on the appeal section in the Bill.

55
We agree that the Government face a problem with the appeals system. We accept that it could be streamlined to make it more efficient. However, the Home Secretary likes to blame lawyers and the courts for his ills. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is always more circumspect.
We acknowledge that it is possible that some delay in the appeals process had been the result of abuse of the system by a few—a very few—lawyers who believe that they serve their clients best by spinning unmeritorious claims in the hope that their clients may never be removed. However, the real problems about delays in the asylum system have nothing to do with the lawyers or the courts. They stem from the Government's administrative failure to cope with the sheer volume of asylum seekers since 1997.
During that time, the number of asylum applications has at times threatened to overwhelm the Government's system. The process leading up to the tribunal stage is not only slow, but it is entirely in the hands of the Government, who run it. We know that too many decisions made by the Home Office executive officers are not made within the two-month period prescribed. The noble and learned Lord has referred to that already.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Baroness asserting that everything before the Labour Government were elected was all right as far as this provision is concerned? Would she like to elaborate on that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, asylum has always been a difficult issue. We have always accepted that. However, it has to be said that asylum applications trebled in the period after the Government took office, and they trebled because the Government were giving out a message that you could come here and not be removed. We accept—or certainly I accept, having sat through the proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act — that the Government were making strenuous efforts to reverse that. It has been a long time coming. I, along with others, welcome the reversal in the numbers of applications last year. What I do not welcome is the fact that so many of the decisions that are made today are still wrong. What we want to do is to be able to welcome to this country those who have a justified reason for applying for asylum.
The Medical Foundation has referred to the fact that there are problems with decision-making in reports that were published just last month. It concludes that decision-making is often of poor quality, and that Home Office caseworkers regularly dismiss medical evidence of torture from asylum seekers. Amnesty International also found that the quality of initial decision-making is inadequate, highlighting in particular the lack of accurate information relating to the human rights situation in countries of origin, the need for objective consideration of issues relating to the applicants'
56
credibility, and inappropriate consideration of allegations of torture and supporting medical evidence.
Problems also arise at the adjudication hearing. We understand from Written Answers in another place that Home Office presenting officers attend far too few of them; apparently, it was only about 60 per cent. Surely it is not surprising that adjudicators often overturn decisions.
As I said earlier, we are prepared to recognise that the appeals system itself could be improved. We accept the proposal to amalgamate the adjudicators and the tribunal into one new asylum and immigration tribunal, which will hear appeals from initial decision-makers, but we do so only if three main conditions are met: first, that a single tier must have the appropriate membership and the ability to reach decisions fairly and effectively; secondly, that there must be a process of statutory review that is sufficiently fair and robust to make judicial review unnecessary; and, thirdly, it is vital to retain the normal appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. If those conditions are not met, the AIT would become a self-contained system that is not subject to the rule of law. We would find that unacceptable.
We have already published our proposals. They were debated on Report in another place on 1 March and will provide a framework by which it would be possible for the Government to achieve their aim of streamlining the legislation while keeping it compatible with the Human Rights Act and, indeed, making it work properly. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor's announcement today is welcome to me, because it looks as though the Government are beginning to work towards a change in the system that they originally proposed. We hope that they will take up our solution of coupling statutory review with judicial oversight of the appeals. As always, I shall await impatiently the amendments to be tabled by the Government before giving them any outright welcome or rejection. They will deserve everyone's full consideration.
I said earlier that some aspects of the Bill are welcome. The Government have made them even more welcome by improving their original proposals in an acceptable way in another place. The Lord Chancellor dealt with the Bill in its totality. I shall just pick out parts of the Bill where I am in agreement with the Government, but that does not mean that I disagree with the rest by any means.
The Government introduced a few new clauses on Report in another place. There was not enough time to give them full scrutiny, so I hope that we will be able to give them full and detailed consideration in this House. That does not mean that there is a problem with them. At first sight, I think that they will be acceptable, but they need to be fully considered.
I shall refer first to Clause 2, which covers entering the United Kingdom without a passport. It is right that we should try to make sure that people who seek asylum here should not deliberately destroy documents in their possession that are relevant to their

57
claim in order to frustrate the system intentionally. However, we will need to consider the position of those who have never had travel or immigration documents or passports. Indeed, many people would be refused them in their country of origin for the straightforward reason that they are being persecuted there. We shall also want to consider the point, raised by the Refugee Children's Consortium, that amendments to the Bill in another place have, perhaps inadvertently, resulted in a risk that an adult will be prosecuted because a dependant child has no documents, even though that child became a dependant in the UK only after his arrival here.
We welcome Clause 4. which introduces the new criminal offence of human trafficking for non-sexual exploitation, with a maximum penalty of 14 years. In the threat assessment that it publishes on its website, NOS notes that human trafficking takes various forms, including exploitation as cheap, tied labour; for example, in illicit sweatshops producing counterfeit goods. According to NCIS, large numbers of illegal immigrants entering the UK in the future, as now, will be looking to work, but of course will not be entitled to work legitimately. Serious and organised criminals exploit that by controlling the recruitment and supply of illegal immigrants as cheap, unskilled and casual labour within the manufacturing, food-processing, construction, catering and agricultural labour markets. The illegal immigrants become victims of the system too.
I agree with the Immigration Advisory Service that there needs to be more joined-up thinking in the Home Office between the good work that is being done by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in giving victims support in the criminal jurisdiction, and the policies of the immigration and nationality department on asylum. After all, we have in the past half-hour completed the Report stage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The Government make no specific reference there to support for victims of trafficking. We hope that they are covered by the provision in general.
In addition, we shall need to probe some of the amendments to Clause 4 that were added on Report in another place. The Refugees Children's Consortium is concerned about the new Clause 4(4)(d). While it improves the clause, it also unfortunately seems to allow some people who traffic children and families to escape prosecution. I am sure that that is not the Government's intent.
Clause 8 deals with the withdrawal of support. I recognise of course that it has been a highly controversial issue in recent years. We had a significant debate on the matter during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Press reports before the publication of that Act represented the Government as using the withdrawal of support as an incentive to force asylum seekers with children to leave the country or have the children taken into care. Neither the 1996 Act—under a Conservative government—nor the Government's 2000 Act, both of which withdrew benefits, were accompanied by such threats.
58
When the Bill was printed, it did not have such provisions within it. The immigration Minister, Beverley Hughes, gave specific undertakings in Committee and on Report in another place on the intention behind those proposals. On the basis of her undertakings, we accept them. On the basis that the proposals are not intended as an incentive to force children into care, we have not opposed them and we shall not do so now. We agree, as we always have, with the proposition that people who should not be here and who have exhausted the legal process should not be entitled to support from the state.
However, despite our support for some parts of the Bill, the Government should remain under no illusion about our opposition to their current proposals, as drafted, in the appeals section. They are seriously flawed. They make the Bill illiberal and grossly unfair to tens of thousands of people. I look forward to those proposals being improved considerably in this House.
5.17 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, particularly in the tone of her contribution. We certainly echo her analysis that the Bill as it enters this House is seriously flawed and illiberal. There are already indications that it will not leave this House in the shape in which it entered. The Lord Chancellor has already made one of his early concessions and the Government's charmer-in-chief, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. will wind up the debate.
One can understand why that team formation should have been put out. I can imagine Ministers and government whips looking at the list of speakers and seeing that the game was up. It is not often that one sees not just one former Lord Chancellor but almost two former Lord Chancellors willing to weigh in. I hope that we will hear the opinion of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Irvine, in the later stages of the debate on the Bill. A Lord Chief Justice and three other Law Lords are also in the line-up, plus what I respectfully suggest are some of the most formidable legal troublemakers in this House. Whenever I see from these Benches any one of my noble friends Lord Dholakia, Lord Avebury, Lord Russell, Lord Lester, Lord Phillips or Lord Thomas on the list of speakers, I know that the Government are in for a pretty rough time if they are touching on civil liberties or human rights. With all six of them there, I am looking forward to the next few hours.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the fact that all the Law Lords are speaking a perfect example of why the Liberal Democrats were wrong to vote last Monday as they did?
Lord McNally: My Lords, as I said, most of the trouble makers are on parade today. I am grateful to have that reminder from one of the chief exponents of the art.
I start from the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that we all approach the matter with a certain humility. I entered the House in time for

59
the final 18 months of the Conservative government, and I remember the vigour with which those on the Labour Benches, then in opposition, attacked the failure of that government to get a grip on immigration and asylum. They said that the waiting list was a cunning ruse to ration immigration—it was pretty good stuff. However, as has been pointed out, this is the Government's fifth attempt in six years to get this matter right.
We must recognise that some of the simple political jousting that has gone on over this issue does not come to terms with the reality of a world which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, involves organised crime, people trafficking, the sex trade and exploitation of labour on a global scale. Any government would be faced with new problems. The task is therefore to make legislation that keeps faith both with the rule of law and with our historic role as a safe haven for genuine refugees.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made much in his opening remarks about the recent reduction in the number of asylum seekers. However, as a number of observers have said, that is partly or mainly due to a more stable international situation; certainly, it has been more stable in places that have hitherto been a great source of refugees. We must ensure that we deal with this matter with a little humility, given the various track records on it, and that we address the reality and not just the perception of the problem. Our media, and particularly the tabloid press, have played a pretty miserable role in whipping up xenophobia and intolerance in this area. It is not surprising, if people rely on certain newspapers, that MORI found that most people in Britain believe that immigration is four times its actual level.
Many clauses in the Bill will demand our attention—and I give fair warning that we shall deal with them fully in Committee. The three that have been highlighted include Clause 2, which will make it an offence to enter the UK without a passport. As the noble Baroness said, that throws up real problems about refugees who come from countries where the niceties of obtaining a passport are frankly absurd. Yet there is a valid point to make in that we must find ways in which to penalise those who wilfully abuse the system by destroying their authentic documents.
Clause 8 threatens failed asylum seekers with removal of basic support. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tried to put a good gloss on that proposal, but most observers have seen it as an attempt to coerce asylum seekers to leave the country by effectively starving them out. It seems almost reminiscent of the old Speenhamland system and the old Poor Law that a society should inflict destitution on people. Again, I believe that the clause will be given a very rough ride. The Government are in effect raising the spectre of depriving families of their children as a means to an end. It is inhuman to do that to facilitate their removal from the UK.
Clause 14, as a distinguished jurist said, infects the entire Bill. We get different noises from different ends of this Palace. The Home Secretary is on record as
60
saying that he is sick and tired of spending valuable parliamentary time discussing Bills that are then overturned by the courts. As has been pointed out, that is not the line that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor usually takes in this House. We all read our newspapers and know of the Home Secretary's impatience with the judicial system, but we on these Benches will settle for the comment made by Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty, who said that judges looking over their shoulders was a powerful incentive to adjudicators to get things right.
I shall rely on legal and judicial opinions far more expert than mine to see just how much of a concession on Clause 14 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made today. At later stages of the Bill, we shall consider carefully the proposals put forward by the Conservatives on those matters. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us, the Government's justification for the measures is abuse of the system, yet we know that much of the delay is due to Home Office procedures.
Many people have concerns. I received a letter, which does not look as if it comes from a lobbying organisation of any kind, from a lady in Bristol who says that she is worried about the Bill because of the,
"exclusion of the judiciary from oversight of government decisions to refuse asylum … creation of a new offence of entering the UK without a passport, when it may be impossible for persecuted people to have one … removal of support from asylum seekers and the threat to take children into care. In many such instances the designation of the refugee's home country as 'safe' is in fact incorrect",
and,
"the curtailing of legal aid. Without adequate legal advice the initial interview will come to wrong decisions".
The lady goes on to say:
"I am concerned that this is an unjust Bill and does not reflect well the standards"—
that we expect in Britain. We may hear longer speeches tonight about the weaknesses of the Bill, but I do not believe that I have read a better one.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, as I understand what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said to us this afternoon, he has given us an unqualified indication that he is dropping from the Bill the ouster provision as to the jurisdiction of the High Court. On that basis, I warmly welcome the indication given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. I am sure that his announcement will be greeted with approval by the judiciary and, indeed, everyone who is committed to the upholding within this country of the rule of law.
The judiciary share the Government's desire for there to be an efficient, effective and expeditious method of dealing with immigration and asylum appeals. Such a system must also be just and firm. That an appropriate system of appeals is necessary is beyond dispute. The statistics for successful appeals make that need clear beyond argument. What has to be achieved is a proper balance between the interests of the Government in upholding the law and avoiding

61
unnecessary expense and complexity and the interests of appellants. The system needs to be fair and just, but not readily capable of abuse.
The judiciary has already made a substantial contribution to improving the existing system. It has provided leadership for the existing first tier of the system, the adjudicators, and, therefore, the tribunal. Considerable praise is due to His Honour Judge Henry Hodge, who has given up his normal role of Crown Court judge to be president and to lead the adjudicators. Initially, Mr Justice Collins and, now, Mr Justice Ouseley—respectively, the past and present presidents of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal— produced dramatic improvements in both tiers of the appeal system.
Together with Mr Justice, now Lord Justice, Maurice Kay, they deserve credit for their contribution in establishing the statutory review under the 2002 Act, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Statutory review appears to be a success. It avoids abuse while at the same time retaining appropriate supervision by the High Court. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness indicating support for statutory review.
To avoid unnecessary appeals to the existing Immigration Appeal Tribunal, such appeals are only with leave. However, what happens if the tribunal wrongly refuses leave? Prior to the 2002 Act, there was a steady stream of applications for judicial review to the High Court against the refusal of leave. Statutory review provides an alternative simple procedure that for practical purposes replaces judicial review, as a decision of the administrative court on Friday last confirmed. The virtue of statutory review is that the whole process is completed within two weeks, which is a remarkably short period in the context of the periods to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred.
If the statutory review is successful, the case is remitted back to the existing Immigration Appeal Tribunal for a substantive hearing by judges with experience in immigration work. Because it is so expeditious, there is no purpose in making an abusive statutory appeal. The applications are dealt with on the papers, but it is still a process that safeguards appellants, as the results of statutory review indicate. No doubt, that is the reason that in the other place the all-party report of the Select Committee for Constitutional Affairs of 24 February recommended that the statutory appeal procedure should be allowed more time to demonstrate its merit.
The judges to whom I referred and I support this recommendation. I appreciate that the Government are reluctant to do that, but I have reservations about whether there is any more satisfactory solution. The alternative is to risk overwhelming the High Court with applications for judicial review, which would be more expensive and would lead to delay. Of course, the judiciary will still try to assist in finding a solution, the desire for which we share with the Government. But I fear that that may be difficult.
62
Finally, I turn to a related concern. Under the proposals contained in the Bill, the role of adjudicators within the single tier would be even more important than it has been until now. The adjudicators would be the majority of members of the new tribunal. Their role would be judicial. It is therefore a cause of some concern that Schedule 1(3)(1)(c) provides that a member,
"shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision for dismissal)".
I am unaware of such a proposal for "dismissal" ever previously being included in a judicial officer's terms of appointment. The Council of Immigration Judges is concerned that this provision will be used as a justification for members of the new tribunal being dismissed because of dissatisfaction with their decisions. Their concerns are exacerbated because of the novel proposal that it should be a term of their engagement that they have to comply with practice directions. Judicial officers observe practice directions if they are issued by someone with such authority, but I am surprised that it should be felt necessary to have a term of appointment to that effect.
Because of the important role of those members of the new tribunal, I urge the Minister to deal with these concerns in her reply. In particular, I hope that she will make it clear that the current arrangements that I have with the Lord Chancellor— that judicial officers, including adjudicators, will not be dismissed or removed without my concurrence—will continue to apply to the members of the new proposed tribunal.
5.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Churches have a long-standing concern about the issue of asylum expressed, first, in relation to the successive Bills that have come before your Lordships' House and, secondly, in support of asylum seekers at the local level. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will speak more specifically about the Churches' involvement, as well as about the recent debate of the General Synod of the Church of England on this subject.
A bishop colleague, hardly noted for his modish views, once confided in me that he always supported the government of the day because government was always such a difficult, near-impossible task. The difficulties are large when it comes to asylum and immigration issues. I certainly sympathise with the Government's task of trying to achieve a fair and efficient asylum system in the present context. However, like many of your Lordships, I have grave reservations about a single-tier appeal system, despite the qualifications now built into the Bill and the previous assurances of the Government. Therefore, I was extremely glad to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor refer in his opening speech to the need for the necessary judicial oversight. That was very good to hear.
I was not quite sure whether there was a slip of the tongue or whether I misheard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I thought that I heard the phrase, "oversight by the administrative court", when

63
I was expecting the phrase, "oversight of the administrative court". If we are referring to the necessary judicial oversight, we are referring to oversight over an administrative court, not by the court itself.
At the Report stage in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs stated:
"It is vital to have early finality".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/04; col. 696.]
He used the word "finality" three times in a short speech. In his opening statement, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the phrase "speed and finality". Indeed, it is important to obtain a clear, certain and, above all, correct decision as soon as is practical. Inordinate delay helps no one, least of all the asylum seeker. But there is a human tendency, not confined to the legal process in asylum cases, to go for early finality at the expense of other important considerations.
There are many occasions in life when we would just like to "sort it all out" or resolve some issue. We may feel frustrated and impatient. But, more important than early finality is the correctness of the decision. The desire for early finality cannot be allowed to bludgeon the imperative to arrive at a just decision. In cases that are confused, which many of them are, where it may be difficult to get at the facts, it may take more time and procedures to double-check decisions already made than we would like in an ideal world. But this is not an ideal world. Where there is the possibility of human error, time, however reluctantly, must be allowed.
The Government say that those making an appeal will have the benefit of legal advice and representation, but, as we now know, that applies to only five hours of work, except for exceptional cases. I shall not stress that point because I know that noble Lords more experienced than I will emphasise it. Clearly, that is totally inadequate in cases which are very often complex and difficult to represent.
Many noble Lords have pointed out that the proposed one-tier appeal system, with no possibility of judicial review or reference to a High Court, would be unique in our legal system. The Government have argued that in other fields of law, there is no desire on the part of appellants to delay matters. They want a decision as speedily as possible. In the case of asylum seekers, it has been suggested that there is a vested interest in delaying matters as long as possible, spinning things out through a whole succession of appeals. Undoubtedly, that does sometimes happen. However, the fact that some people are motivated in this way is not, I would suggest, enough to make a fundamental change to the very basis of English law. As I have already emphasised, speed, though important, is subservient to the overriding imperative to achieve a correct—that is, a just—decision.
If getting a right decision is the paramount obligation, we have to note the grave concerns expressed by a number of policy bodies about the
64
quality of decision-making in the first instance. For example, the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its recent report commented that:
"The real flaws in the system appear to be at the state of initial decision-making, not that of appeal".
It went on to recommend that the implementation of a new asylum appeals system should be contingent on a significant improvement in initial decision-making having been demonstrated.
A similar point was made in the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Together with this, the poor quality of legal advice and representation already noted—which again affects the quality of first stage decisions—is a concern. The Churches in Reading and the Diocese of Oxford believe that this has led to a number of incorrect and unjust decisions.
On the Government's figures, of the 33,000 appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal between October 2002 and September 2003, 2,000 were allowed. The figures are not always easy to evaluate because they depend on what year we are talking about—not everyone is talking about the same year—and at what level the appeal is made. Certainly other bodies put the rate of successful appeal much higher than the Government. For example, it has been argued that of the one-third granted permission to appeal and heard by the IAT, 58.8 per cent are either allowed outright by the tribunal, or else remitted back to an adjudicator for a fresh hearing. Even on the Government's figures, where 2,000 were allowed, we are talking about a significant number of people—people for whom a correct decision may be a matter of life or death.
For these reasons, I share the reservations of other noble Lords about the Bill as it now stands, particularly about Clause 14, which creates something quite unprecedented in our legal system. Even if the first stage of decision-making is improved as the Government intend, there will be a need for an appeal system which is independent of both the initial decision-making process and the initial appeal system. A one-tier system, even when staffed by experienced judges, will still be reviewing its own decisions, and that pertains in no other area of our legal system. I was therefore very grateful to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening statement. Obviously we will need to look very carefully at the Government's amendment when it comes before this House again in order to ascertain whether it really builds in that extra safeguard for which many of us are looking.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and I adopt many of the points which he has made.
In a matter of this overall importance, widespread consultation with all who have something worthwhile to contribute—some expertise—is absolutely essential. Yet there has been no consultation at all with the Law Society. I do not think there has been any consultation with the Bar Council either. Yet both have numbers of practitioners who play a vital part in

65
this whole apparatus. Have the Government any intention, even now, to repair that omission? After all, there is no reason for any disgruntlement on this score.
We know that many of these organisations have expressed their profound concern about various concepts advanced by this Bill, particularly on the question of ouster provisions, the role of the High Court, and the restriction of the right of appeal. This idea of removing a challenge to the proposed asylum and immigration tribunal by virtue of judicial review should be abandoned by the Government.
Why, these organisations ask, do we have so many immigration appeals in such a relatively short time? That question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, today. Which measures in the past have been found to be inadequate to justify this stance?
Despite these shortcomings, the claim made by the Government—that the number of asylum applications has markedly diminished—is wholly to be welcomed. There has been a substantial reduction in the number of cases waiting for initial decisions and new cases are largely decided within two months. On the other hand, the Government have pursued with vigour up to now the measures contained in this Bill. In consequence, some serious injustices could have resulted. I am pleased to say that the Government have had second thoughts, particularly about Clause 14.
I now turn to that clause. It is a pity that the Home Secretary was not more amenable in another place when this issue was decided. Not only was he not amenable, he was distinctly hostile. I am delighted that, on second thought, the Government are going to entertain some amendments—about which the House of Lords is likely to be very concerned. We will look at those amendments very carefully. However, I assume there has been no consultation at all with regard to that point. I hope that the Government will put that issue right because, as I said before, consultation is absolutely crucial with people who know something about immigration.
In my respectful submission, as drafted, Clause 14 should never have seen the light of day. Yet it survived all the House of Commons's surveillance in the Bill's various stages. This ouster clause has, in fact, been heavily criticised by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Bar Council, the Law Society and many others with specialised knowledge of this issue.
What was envisaged—the single-tier asylum and immigration tribunal—was designed to take over the role of the asylum and immigration system, with the High Court and Court of Appeal no longer carrying out any oversight of the tribunal. It was alleged that there is abuse and delay in the present system of appeals. Is that right?
There probably is some delay, we have heard it said today. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has an obligation to spell that out. It is no good making allegations—he has to provide the House with facts. He has not done that. If on the other hand I am right, we have to be guided by what has happened in the vast majority of situations. I am not sure
66
whether I am right or wrong about this, but we have to ask ourselves what the statistics indicate. I submit that, on that basis, the Government have misled themselves.
In the House of Commons, the Home Secretary argued that only a tiny minority—he said about 3 per cent—of appeals succeeded. What he overlooked was that appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal required permission to be granted in the first place. Of those, 11 per cent succeeded and 48 per cent were remitted for a re-hearing. It has been said before, but in the year between 1 October 2002 and 30 September 2003, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed 639 appeals and dismissed 1,722. A small number were withdrawn. Thus there was a success rate of as much as 23 per cent, although the Home Secretary asserted that it was only 3 per cent. He was entirely wrong about that point, which is absolutely essential and goes to the heart of the whole matter.
The situation affecting appeals was amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Where permission to appeal was not given, there could be a statutory review. Because it was a paper-only review, it was very swift, as was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Why on earth is it now alleged by the Government that that procedure has failed?
The real trouble, which I think that the Government now admit, is that the officials concerned with the initial decision-making have not made a very good fist of it. Indeed, that is the view of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I therefore hope that the Government, in the light of experience, will not be averse to changing the situation. Other immigration Bills have been put before the House, but if this Bill demonstrates that it is in some material respects wanting, it is particularly important that the Government assert the confidence to change the system.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have had the experience of his wisdom over many years in a number of different capacities. It is of some interest that in the Times this morning there was a report of an appeal by the Home Office, under the statutory provisions that it set up, that failed on the grounds that the Home Office did not have a basis for its appeal in the statutory jurisdiction. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of the judges who decided the case suggested that the Home Office might have a remedy by judicial review.
When I put my name down to speak in the debate, I noticed that, on the already tight form, the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was present and that the debate was to be opened by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. That was on Wednesday last week, so events have moved somewhat in a direction that I very much appreciate.
It is important to notice what has happened. The Government have decided to put forward a Bill that provides that no court should have any supervisory or

67
other jurisdiction, whether statutory or inherent, in relation to the tribunal. Not content with that, they went on to explain what the courts could not do. Proposed new Section 108A(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act is the vital provision, and reads:
"Subsections (1) and (2) …prevent a court, in particular, from entertaining proceedings to determine whether a purported determination, decision or action of the Tribunal was a nullity by reason of … lack of jurisdiction, … irregularity, … error of law, … breach of natural justice, or … any other matter".
Those who are familiar with that branch of the law will recognise those words as coming from a speech of the late Lord Reid in the case of Anisminic. Those were the grounds on which he held that the decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission in that case was not protected by the statutory ouster, which was elaborate, because the statutory ouster purported to protect determinations of the commission. However broad that protection is, if there is no true determination of the commission, there is nothing to protect. Alert to that problem, those who have put the Bill together sought to avoid it.
In my submission, that is a serious affront to the rule of law. Let me take a breach of natural justice. What the House of Commons has been asked to affirm by the Government—and has affirmed —is that the High Court should be prevented from intervening, even where there is a clear breach of natural justice on the part of the tribunal. But for that, the present law would of course allow the High Court to intervene to correct that breach of natural justice. That is what is required to be affirmed by each House of Parliament passing the Bill—that the High Court is precluded from intervening to put right a clear breach of natural justice by a tribunal. In my submission, that strikes right at the very heart of the rule of law. Anyone who read the Bill should have appreciated that.
I therefore find it disturbing, to say the least, that the Government thought it right to invite the House of Commons to pass the Bill in that form. As a footnote, I should say that when I first heard of the proposals for the abolition of the Office of Lord Chancellor and the setting-up of the Supreme Court, I was somewhat perturbed. When I read this provision in this Bill, I was much more perturbed, because I saw that the Government were apparently willing to subvert the rule of law in relation to people who might well be at risk of their lives from persecution in a foreign land.
In an article in one of what I should perhaps call the broadsheet newspapers, someone wrote suggesting that because asylum seekers and immigrants are not citizens of our country they should not be considered as requiring justice. I am proud to say that our courts over the years have not distinguished between foreigners and others in giving people proper justice, whatever their origins might be. I am proud to think that a very distinguished Scottish Lord Chief Justice enunciated that rule with great vigour.
68
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has now undertaken to table an amendment to allow a statutory appeal, I think, to the administrative court— that is, to the judges of the High Court who specialise in dealing with administrative matters. We used to call it the Crown Court list; now it is called the administrative court because it deals with matters that arise in administrative law. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford may have assumed that, when the noble and learned Lord spoke of the administrative court, he was speaking of the tribunal under the Bill, but I do not think so. Rather, he was thinking of a review by the judges of the High Court who specialise in such matters under the name of the administrative court. I am assuming that that is going to be provided, and no doubt the experiences of the Home Office this morning will perhaps instruct its view as to the nature of the appeal to be provided. Obviously, time limits can be put into a statutory procedure as well as any other safeguards, consistent with justice, that should exist.
In my submission, this request to the House of Commons to pass this Bill was a very serious incursion into the rule of law, and I am glad that your Lordships' House—for all its shortcomings and things that have been said about its procedures—is going to have an opportunity to put this right with, I understand, the full approval of Her Majesty's Government.
So far as the previous history of these matters is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked my noble friend about that and, as a member of the government who were dealing with these matters before the present administration took over, I fully admit that it was an extremely difficult jurisdiction. We tried to improve it by bringing judicial officers into the appeal tribunal, so I am very conscious of the difficulty of the situation. One must be quite careful in a difficult situation, however, that one does not increase the difficulties and destroy justice in the mean time.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is almost an impossible task to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern; let me try a different angle.
We have had five such parliamentary Bills in the last 10 years, and as was predicted on all previous occasions, this will not be the last one. We are told that these are Government proposals on asylum reforms. They are some of the most draconian measures under the name of reforms. In essence, we are dealing with a system of justice the likes of which we have never seen before. We are creating a new offence of asylum seekers arriving here without proper documentation, and we are creating a class of people in our welfare services who will cease to be eligible for support. It is not just the asylum seekers but their families who will be ineligible for support and assistance.
A country has the right to determine its immigration policy, and the United Kingdom is no exception. But it has always been apparent that our policies have been based on xenophobia—the word was rightly used by

69
my noble friend Lord McNally. The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated total inconsistencies in the way immigration matters are handled. It is no good Ministers denying responsibility. The buck must stop with them. I have no problem with whistle-blowers. They perform important roles in exposing a highly bureaucratic and secretive government. Equally, I do not think that the Minister needs to apologise for the way cases which fall within our obligations are dealt with speedily. I am delighted that my party did not offer cheap publicity to the character who wrote to the BBC advocating a policy of nuclear attacks against Muslim countries. The question we should be asking is how, despite a policy of equality and diversity, a person of such extreme views came to be employed by the Home Office. Do we genuinely believe that he could take rational decisions on applicants seeking asylum in this country? This xenophobic attitude is well documented in the way we have historically handled immigration and asylum issues. We have now turned full circle from the days when the Labour Party set out its suspicion of foreigners.
Let me refer to 1951—that is, 53 years ago—when immigration from the colonies started. The then Labour government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislative and administrative methods to deal with immigration. At that time, so preoccupied were the Ministers with the numbers entering the UK that the welfare and integration of newcomers was not even discussed. In fact, its key policy recommendation was:
"Any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible for adoption. Never the less it has to be recognised that the use of any powers taken to restrict the free entry of British subjects to this country would, as a general rule, be more or less confined to coloured persons".
Such attitudes have not only shaped our immigration policies, but have also done much harm in the way we have conducted our race relations policies. In the 1964 general election, we had Peter Griffiths, the then Conservative victor in Smethwick. He captured his seat from Patrick Gordon Walker by using race and immigration in the most emotive way. He was called the parliamentary leper by Harold Wilson, and yet it was the Labour Party which, within two years of coming to power, actually deprived British passport holders of colour from East Africa of their right to enter the United Kingdom.
We then had, in 1968, Enoch Powell making the most divisive "rivers of blood" speech. Much water has flown since then and, to the credit of the British people, we have a culturally diverse society which has contributed so much to our prosperity. But now, more than 50 years after the first wave of immigration from the Commonwealth, the Home Secretary is actually questioning the benefits of diversity. Last week, he told a think-tank in America that there was powerful evidence that diversity is linked to falling standards in society and suggested that immigration can be damaging. He went on to say that the evidence that diversity correlates with a decline in social capital is sufficiently powerful that we need to address it.
70
These comments come at a time when the majority of the ethnic population is British-born, and their home is more likely to be Burnley, Blackburn or Brixton. It seems a strange way of conducting a debate about immigration and asylum issues. Immigration, despite the infrequent blips of communal incidents, has been a success story and we should be proud of it. It does worry me that, at the highest political level, we have failed to single out the benefits and have concentrated on the negative aspects of our race and immigration policy.
It is therefore no surprise to many of us that this damaging piece of legislation before us will do more harm than good. Look at Clause 2. This will make it an offence, punishable by imprisonment, for any non-British or EEA national arriving at a UK port, not to have a passport. I accept that it will be a defence for that person to provide a reasonable excuse to the immigration officer. Almost all practitioners have told us that the threshold set when defining "reasonable" has been high, and with the added proviso regarding the deliberate disposal of a passport, there will be, effectively, no defence. In reality, it is likely to mean that many asylum seekers would be committing a criminal offence on entry to the UK, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years.
I need to ask the Minster to explain if Clauses 2 and 3 contravene Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, which forbids a signatory country from prosecuting, on account of their illegal entry, those seeking refugee status. Successive governments have introduced measures which make it impossible for asylum seekers to enter the United Kingdom. The UN convention is rendered meaningless if a person in search of protection and assistance is unable to reach countries which are party to it.
We are now turning on those who have already sought shelter here. We are the architects of our own failings in the way we have dealt with immigration. It has taken us 50 years to distinguish between skilled primary migration, economic migration and asylum seekers. At a time when we had a manageable list of applicants, we removed almost 1,500 civil servants from the immigration and nationality division. Surely there cannot be any surprise that the list became unmanageable?
I have no doubt that if we had a properly managed system there would be only genuine asylum seekers. We would not need accommodation centres, detention centres or policies that take away their basic rights under the Geneva Convention. An effective policy on skilled managed migration and one about employment or economic migrants would establish different routes of admission to the UK, without damaging those who are genuinely victims of torture and persecution.
This is why it is necessary—and there is public support for it—that a system should be designed that helps refugees and deals effectively with those who have been rejected. We have numerous concerns about the Bill and, as my noble friend Lord McNally has pointed out we shall certainly deal with them in Committee.

71
Let me start with a quote from the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I know that the Minister has now indicated that there will be some concession, but the Lord Chief Justice was absolutely right when he said:
"Immigration and asylum involve basic human rights. What areas of government decision making would be next to be removed from the scrutiny of the courts? What is the use of the courts, if you cannot access them?".
Let me give an analogy: we are the envy of the world in which our justice system operates. The lives of so many decent people, particularly in the third world, have been saved because their authorities follow our legal process. It beggars belief what would be the reaction of the British Government if dictators curtailed the judicial process as we seem to have done, or are thinking of doing, regarding the right of appeal.
In a democracy no one is above the law, not even the tribunals. Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford, is right when he says:
"The clause … is not to be condemned merely because it will promote inefficiency. It is a constitutional outrage, and almost unprecedented in peacetime".
What surprises me is how long it took the Government to suggest improvement.
At the root of my argument is the concern expressed by many practitioners about the poor quality of initial decision-making by the Home Office. If the process here were effective, the number of successful appeals at adjudication stage would be reduced.
When I ask for information on specific cases, I am denied it by the immigration Minister at the Home Office. Recently, I sought information about a detainee at his request. This is the reply that I received from the Minister, Beverley Hughes:
"I hope that you will understand that the Home Office records on individuals have to be treated as confidential. I appreciate your concern but as you are not acting for Mr. X, nor are his constituency Member of Parliament, I regret that I cannot give you any information regarding this case".
Obviously, I am left to ask the Parliamentary Ombudsman whether the Minister is justified in withholding information from a Member of your Lordships' House. particularly when that information was requested by the person who was to be deported.
The point at issue is that the Government have imposed cuts in legal aid for immigration and asylum cases. Five hours for asylum case advice and three hours for immigration case advice will mean that in many cases applicants may be unrepresented. They are most vulnerable at a time when legal representation could make all the difference. Surely a right of appeal is vital in such cases.
There has been much adverse publicity relating to Clause 8, which seeks to deny financial support and accommodation, currently provided by NASS, to the families of asylum seekers whose appeals have been dismissed. No matter how the Government try to disguise the implication, it is clear that in order for a local authority to maintain its obligation to the welfare of children in such families, they may have to be placed into the care of that authority.
72
There is ample evidence to confirm that, even if an appeal has been dismissed, there are applicants who fear to return or cannot be returned. We now have a government that will ensure that families will be forced to live in poverty until they depart. Let me remind the Government that there are families who are prepared to face prosecution in their own homeland but the only reason that they have sought asylum here is to protect their children from harm.
More than anything else, I want the Government to lead on such issues, and not to follow public opinion shaped by tabloids. So far, I have seen very little evidence of that.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, many people, both within and outside this House, have condemned the ouster provisions of Clause 14 as a constitutional outrage and an affront to the rule of law. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Fortunately, it appears that the Government have now had second thoughts. We need not, therefore, stop to consider, as otherwise we would have done, what would and should have been the response of the judiciary had the clause been law, interesting and important though that would have been.
What is not about to go away is the problem of how to deal fairly and expeditiously with the vast numbers of asylum and immigration applications. In seeking a solution, it is necessary to identify at which level things are going wrong. Government Ministers, in particular the Home Secretary, point a finger at the courts. Thus, David Blunkett, at Second Reading in the other place, said that Clause 14,
"will cut out the terrible situation in which, despite the adjudication system, which weeds out initial decisions that are doubtful, we end up with months and sometimes years of prevarication before action can be taken".
He said that Clause 14 would ensure that,
"we do not end up with judicial review after judicial review on claims that are not valid".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/03; col. 1603.]
The Home Secretary seems blithely to ignore Section 101 of the 2002 Act, which requires would-be asylum seekers to seek leave to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal if they want to appeal a decision by an adjudicator. Since 9 June last year, if that leave is refused by the tribunal, asylum seekers can apply for a review of the refusal by the High Court. That is a paper application dealt with by a single High Court judge of the Administrative Court.
Between 9 June 2003 and 27 February this year, the High Court dealt with 552 such applications. The average delay between the time when the application was received by the High Court and the time when it was disposed of was 14 days—more accurately, it was 13.9, but I am prepared to take that as being 14. That is something of which the High Court can justly be proud. What is disturbing is that 20 per cent of those applications succeeded. In other words, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should not have refused leave in more than 100 cases.

73
I do not understand the Home Secretary's reference to,
"judicial review after judicial review'",
unless, when a decision was quashed by the High Court, the authority came back with an equally defective decision. It happened sometimes, but very rarely, when I was concerned with the work of the administrative court.
The alternative, which is slightly more charitable, is that the delays were such that, by the time the tribunal had come to reconsider the matter in response to the order of the administrative court, things had changed out of all recognition and a new situation had arisen which itself called for a review. I do not know, but I doubt whether we shall ever find out. Still less do I understand the Home Secretary's reference to,
"months and sometimes years of prevarication",
unless he is speaking of delays by Home Office officials in reaching an initial "immigration decision" and/or delays in appeals to adjudicators, and/or delays in appeals from adjudicators to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Home Office has not given us any figures for such delays.
The caseload may be declining—I have certainly read that the Government make that claim but it must still be enormous. Between October 2002 and September 2003 an unknown number of immigration decisions were made, but no fewer than 70,000 of them were the subject of appeals to adjudicators. Of that 70,000, no fewer than 11,000 succeeded. That left some 60,000, of which half—33,000, to be exact—sought appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, where 2,000 were successful. If the adjudicator level of appeal were eliminated, I very much doubt whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal could cope. I am sure that the administrative court would be under considerable strain because so many would be seeking judicial review, and, on previous figures, a great many of them would be right. There would also be the intriguing possibility that the Home Office would seek review on so many occasions as to become itself a vexatious litigant, but we must wait and see how that turns out.
Surely the remedy lies, not in tampering with the levels of appeal, but in a determined effort by training and supervision to improve the poor standard of decision-making by Home Office officials. Coupled with that, the number of adjudicators and of judges of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal may need to be increased. Asylum seekers are likely always to regard delay in being deported as a desirable aim in itself. Only if, and when, it becomes apparent to them that appeals are dealt with so quickly that the effort is not worth it will the flood of appeals subside.
Finally, steps should be taken to curb the wholly unjustified enthusiasm of some lawyers for promoting proceedings which they should know cannot possibly succeed. They have a duty not to pander to their clients' desire for relief from the tribunals and the court and, above all, their clients' desire simply to achieve delay. 'To that end, I suggest very strongly—I suggested it much earlier, although not in this
74
context—that the legal aid authorities should insist that in every case where proceedings recommended by counsel fail, certainly those strongly recommended, counsel should be required to give a free written opinion explaining why the proceedings failed. That might well be a salutary curb on such enthusiasm, which in some cases—I regret to say—is fuelled by the desire to earn fees in the process.
Whatever is the way forward, it is certainly not to be found in Clause 14. I am delighted to hear that Clause 14 is to be consigned to the bin rather than being reformed, because I doubt whether it is capable of reform.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, it will not surprise anybody looking at the list or hearing the speeches that have been made since this debate started that a mere non-lawyer rises with some diffidence to address the House against the background of what has already been said. On the other hand it is quite important, given some of the controversy that has occurred and the reports that we have seen in the press, that it should be made reasonably clear that this is not just a spat between lawyers or a protection of the interests of lawyers, however grand. There are real issues for members of the public, and not least for those who will be affected by the operation of these asylum and immigration provisions.
My rationale for taking part in the debate is in part that I currently hold the office of chairman of the Council on Tribunals. My predecessor was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, so I am relatively rare in being a non-lawyer in that capacity. The council was set up by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 to keep under review the constitution and working of a wide range of tribunals. We now supervise some 80 different kinds of tribunals, including the adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is intended that the new tribunal will be under the council's supervision, and therefore my remarks are principally directed to the proposals under Clause 14.
I suspect that, like many others taking part in this debate, the remarks that I originally intended will be somewhat truncated, partly by the Government Chief Whip's injunctions about the time that we were supposed to take if the House was to rise at a respectable hour, and partly because I am also among those whose principal concern was the ouster provisions of Clause 14, which to some extent at least—though we cannot yet be quite clear to what extent—have been disarmed in advance by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. He recognised very wisely that that clause—or some aspects of it had trouble written all over it.
Without going on about it at length, I should also make the observation that when the Council on Tribunals responded to the very short consultation that preceded the Bill's introduction, it made it clear that it was not enthusiastic about the move to a single tier of appeal. It is not on that point that I propose to

75
focus most of my brief remarks this afternoon, but there did seem some irony that this proposal came forward not very long after the Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users, in 2001, which recommended that there should be a two tier system for tribunals generally, with the observation that:
"the appeal body needs to give genuine coherence to the development of the law, and promote consistency effectively at its own level and in the first tier tribunals".
In that sentence alone lie the reasons for our concern about some aspects of the proposal.
I do not want to make a meal of that this afternoon, merely to say that obviously any difficulties arising from the fact that this was now to be a single tier would be compounded if access to the higher courts were restricted in the way that appeared to be proposed by what was—when this Bill was published—the most comprehensive ouster clause ever devised.
I observe in passing that there was again some irony for the Council on Tribunals, since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958—under which it was set up—provided an avenue of appeal from tribunals to the courts on points of law in cases where none had existed before. It rendered ineffective all the then subsisting statutory provisions purporting to oust the courts' supervisory jurisdiction. Against that historic background—and the reasons for the changes then made—it would be no surprise to anybody that the ouster clause in the Bill, as it stood, caused the Council on Tribunals serious concern because of its implications for tribunals generally. I made that clear when I was invited to give evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee in January. We submitted a memorandum to the committee setting out our concerns, and I can do no more this afternoon than endorse the committee's observations in that regard.
We need to be clear that the major practical issue is whether the provisions in Clause 14 for review of tribunal decisions by the tribunal itself, and for references of points of law by the president of the tribunal to the appellate court, provide adequate protection against incorrect decisions. I can only say, without elaborating in view of the time available, that in the council's view they do not.
I echo words that have already been expressed by others in this debate. All this might matter less if the issues at stake for individuals were not so serious and if the quality of initial decision making in the Home Office were better. But, at present, all too often a case receives full and proper consideration only when it comes before an adjudicator on appeal. Even then, problems frequently arise through poor preparation and the absence of a Home Office presenting officer. A further consideration is the recent restriction of publicly funded advice, assistance and representation in immigration and asylum cases. All these factors make it all the more important that there should be an adequate mechanism for appeal decisions to be reviewed.
76
At the council's request, some little time ago I wrote on its behalf to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, to express its continuing concern about Clause 14 and particularly the ouster provision. I hope that the council's views played some part—possibly not quite as much as the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and others—in what the Minister said at the outset of the debate this afternoon. I very much welcome the indicated concession. Like everybody else, I shall study it with care, but I genuinely hope that it will provide a real answer to the concerns which I echo, building on what was said by noble and learned judges and others earlier in the debate.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, said about the Leggatt report is extremely important. We should consider carefully not just Clause 14 but also whether we are now prepared to scrap the two tier system which has stood the test of time and is under severe criticism now only because, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the beginning of his remarks, there are long delays and people are spinning out the process. But that is in the context of 2003 and we are changing very rapidly as a result of steps already taken: non-suspensive appeals, juxtaposed controls, new visa regimes, the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union—which removes many of the countries from the list of those that provide asylum seekers—introduction of fingerprinting in Sri Lanka and the extension of that process to the countries of east Africa in 2004. So, there will be, irrespective of anything that we do in the Bill, a substantial fall in numbers—all the way through the process, from initial applications to appeals to the adjudicator and then, if we did nothing, appeals from the adjudicator to the tribunals.
The only thing that does not seem to be going down—I agree with the noble and learned Lord on this—is the number of undocumented arrivals, which remains stubbornly in one place, in spite of the successes that we have achieved on Eurostar. At Dover and Heathrow, particularly Terminal 2, it is still a problem. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the Government are considering proposals for carriers to copy the documentation held by passengers at the time of boarding, so that the identity of a person can be established by comparing his photograph in the document copy with the undocumented passenger himself, when he arrives. Presumably, that would be done initially at selected pilot departure points, so that we could see how difficult it is to match up the information. I draw to the Minister's attention a letter that we have received from British Airways urging that the proposal be confined initially to carefully targeted and specific routes, so that we know how it works and can minimise the burdens that it imposes on the carriers.
It is true that the number of appeals to adjudicators went up between 2002 and 2003, as has been mentioned, but that is because they were reducing the

77
backlog. In the last three months of 2003, numbers were beginning to fall, and that trend is also certain to continue in 2004. In the absence of the Bill, that would mean fewer adjudicators. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to improve the quality of adjudicators, as well as the quality of first decisions. Neither is satisfactory, considering the success rate of appeals at both stages. That reduction would also feed through to the tribunal, if the present regime were not going to be altered by the Bill. The Government accept that, of the one-third of applicants who are given leave to appeal to the tribunal—they are only rough estimates, because the cases are not tracked through the system— three out of five are either allowed outright or remitted to an adjudicator for a fresh hearing.
The House is of one mind in wanting to see decisions on applications made as quickly as possible. However, if the initial decisions were more reliable, as has been said, many people would accept the adjudicator's decision, fewer applicants would get leave to appeal to the tribunal, and the upheaval in the system caused by the Bill would be unnecessary for the sake of a small proportion of important cases in which permission would still be given. In another place, Mr David Lammy told the Chairman of Standing Committee B that, of 78,000 adjudicated determinations before September 2003, 33,000 were appealed and, of those, 11,000 were granted. Miss Kate Eshun, a former adjudicator and now vice-president of the tribunal, told the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs that the level of appeals rose dramatically because,
"there were cases in which the decision written by the Home Office was very poor and, therefore, without the aid of the Home Office presenting officer at the hearing, the adjudicator was more or less left in the dark".
The evidence given by Sir Duncan Ouseley to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs in another place is also of some importance. He said that one-third of those who applied for leave to appeal to the tribunal and to whom it was granted cannot be said to have abused the system. Either they have an arguable point, or they have, at least, been told by their legal advisers that they have an arguable point. For the two-thirds who are refused, he said, the time taken to process their cases is a measure of the delay created by the existence of a second tier, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, explained, is necessary in every other context.
Sir Duncan Ouseley also said that applications for statutory review of refusal of leave to appeal to the tribunal under Section 101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, were being made at the rate of 35 a week and were being turned round within a week or so by the administrative courts. That alternative system, which the Government promoted enthusiastically two years ago and has operated for less than a year, is being confined to the dustbin, along with the existing tribunal, although it is working well.
Since adjudicators have been reducing the backlog, cases are still coming to the tribunal at the rate of 1,000 a month. At the end of February, there was a backlog
78
of 5,000 cases. That is causing delays. However, in the steady state, the tribunal would get 5,000 cases a year, a number that it can easily accommodate. From that analysis, it is clear that, with regard to the speed of decision making and the cost of the process, 2003 would not be a useful guide to future policy. No sufficient test has been done on the system in place, with the improvements that are acknowledged to be necessary by all concerned.
Before I close, I shall tell your Lordships about the case of a person who appealed through judicial review, Jacqueline Konan and her little girl, Thelma. The case was heard before Mr Justice Collins on 21 January. The judge said:
"It is a cautionary tale since it shows that … officials"—
the Home Office officials—
"and the appellate authorities can be wrong and that there is a need for judicial assessment … If the possibility of judicial review had not existed the claimants would wrongly have been returned to the Ivory Coast".
The judge described the Home Office's refusal to release Jacqueline and her little girl, Thelma, as "inexplicable". I certainly found it so, and I had written on 10 occasions to the Minister, Beverley Hughes, or to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, as well as to officials and adjudicators, up to the point at which the mother and daughter were finally released on bail, after 190 days in custody.
I put it to the Minister on 5 November that there were lessons to be learnt from the case, and I outlined what some of them were. I added that I hoped that she would not adopt the tactic so often adopted by the Home Office when faced with awkward problems and delay her response for as long as possible. By January, the Minister had not replied, so I wrote to her again, calling her attention to Mr Justice Collins's decision that Jacqueline and Thelma's detention had been unlawful and that Ministers' continued refusal to consider release was manifestly contrary to public policy.
Things can go so badly wrong, even when the case has been dealt with by an adjudicator and has been the subject of extensive correspondence with Ministers. By scrapping judicial review without, at least, replacing it with as effective an alternative, Parliament would make it inevitable that, sooner or later, many other Jacquelines who have been failed by the system were sent back to persecution and even death, because that right had been withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I see the need for the Bill and welcome many parts of it, but I am uneasy about several other parts. I shall concentrate briefly on three disturbing features of the Bill.
Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the unified appeal system and the ouster of judicial review that is proposed in the Bill. I share their unease. We must all acknowledge the problems involved with endless appeals, with all their cost and delay, and we can also concede readily that a system of endless appeals in which we cannot get rid of those who have

79
failed could easily make Britain a soft option and attract or invite dubious asylum applications. However, I do not think that the unified appeal system proposed here is the answer. As many noble Lords have said, it violates the rule of law. It also violates the principles of natural justice. If we consider the past few years, we will see that the system of judicial review has often been the only hope for securing justice for a large number of people. Although I cannot calculate it, I can imagine that many lives have been saved, simply because the system was in operation.
In the current system, one in five decisions is overturned at the initial decision stage—22 per cent. This figure rises to as high as one in three when Somalis and Sudanese are involved. Even when an appeal is made and the decision is taken by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 15 per cent of cases are either overturned or referred back by the courts. All this goes to show that judicial review has been the only guarantee of justice for victims of persecution.
I know that the Government intend to deal with this by improving the quality of decision making. I welcome that, especially the efforts being made, for example, to consult the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and to introduce training input by organisations with specialist skills and so on. I am sure that all this will improve the quality of decision making. I also welcome the formation of the Country Information Advisory Panel, on which I have been invited to serve.
But that only goes to show that the quality of decision making will improve. It does not guarantee that it will be perfect or that it will not be open either to abuse or to mistakes. Why not, therefore, retain the system of judicial review and see what happens after a couple of years? If the new system the Government want to put in place works well—one with improved decision-making and the input of the Country Information Advisory Panel—we shall be able to decide after a couple of years whether many appeals have been made against its decisions and thus whether it has succeeded. At that point we might take a second look at the process of judicial review. Until then, I see the case for it as inviolable.
I turn now to the proposal in the Bill to deny benefits to failed applicants. The hope here is that this will encourage them to depart voluntarily. I am afraid that I do not see the logic of this argument, or the ethics of it. As long as people are here, it is simply unworthy of us even to think in terms of denying them any form of maintenance. Although it may not be our intention to starve people into submission, this move will be seen as such by those outside and might have that kind of impact on the people involved. In any case, I am not entirely sure whether it has any chance of working. Children could be taken into care, which only makes them a problem. Devoid of parental support, children in care are not likely to do any better and therefore will become a problem for the Exchequer and the Government.
80
I turn briefly to my third point. Time is moving on and I know that other noble Lords wish to speak. I am a little surprised that not much has been said about Clause 27, dealing with the fees which the Government want to increase. These fees relate to the application for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode and an immigration employment document. The Government argue that fees could be charged considerably in excess of the administrative costs involved because the claimants, if successful, are likely to benefit from the successful application.
I know that the Home Secretary has promised to consult before laying the order before Parliament. I should like him to think very carefully about this measure. It would affect nearly half a million people. If successful, those people will get jobs and benefit us through the taxation system, therefore I do not see why they should be made to pay additional costs.
I also want the Government to appreciate that we already benefit from a high number of trained immigrants. Doctors and IT specialists come to us fully trained. Recently I produced some figures showing that if we had to train the 5,000 odd doctors who come to us from the Indian sub-continent here, that would cost us somewhere in the region of £900 million. A doctor who comes here fully trained saves us around £225,000 in training costs. Multiply that by 5,000 and you get an astronomical figure for the contribution made by the poor people of the Indian sub-continent. Given that we derive all these invisible benefits, I cannot understand why we would want to take into account such benefits as people may gain in the future by trying to collect more money through increasing the fees on their applications.
I am also worried about the increased fees that foreign students have to pay in order to extend their visas to complete their courses. Although it has now become an established practice, reference is made to it in the Bill and so I feel entitled to talk about it. This is punitive. Already overseas students pay hefty tuition fees. Many come from poor and low-income families and have to save every penny in order to receive a decent education here. Experts have calculated how much higher education fees contribute to this country. It brings in something in the region of £7 billion a year. Students who study here also generate an enormous amount of goodwill when they go home, thus providing a valuable network. Good sense and generosity require us to resist the temptation to make a few thousand pounds either by increasing the fees that students have to pay or by increasing the fees to be paid by those applying for employment and so forth.
I end by making an appeal to the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly pointed out, we should not allow ourselves to be panicked into taking decisions on a question of this magnitude. The number of asylum seekers is declining. Given that seeking asylum takes place largely as a consequence of political and economic instability in certain parts of the world, it is therefore not a permanent feature of the global landscape. Some asylum seekers do beat the system, but then who does not? Many of us have done so over the centuries, and those who colonise other

81
countries have not refrained from doing so either. I want to suggest that while desperate people struggling to outsmart the system deserve to be restrained, they must also be approached with a certain measure of compassion. Our asylum policy must be firm but compassionate.
Increasingly, as Bill follows Bill and legislation follows legislation, we have concentrated on tightening up the system, making it even firmer, rather than showing a little compassion. Let us ask ourselves this. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he is prepared to make concessions on the ousting of judicial review. But the question that puzzles me is this: how did the ouster of judicial review get there in the first instance, and why is it that those of us on the Labour side feel that we can even countenance a step of this kind? That is what worries me. If we are not very careful, the constant tightening of the screw and the constant sense of panic will easily coarsen our moral and even legal sensibility, trapping us into taking decisions of which we might be ashamed a few years from now.
6.47 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are not usually in the habit of thinking about Aristotle and Jo Grimond in the same breath. But in the 1980s Jo Grimond made a very interesting remark—that governments tend to suffer from a legislative stammer. They keep on and on legislating about the same subject. At the time it was trade unions, then it was local government, then universities and now it is asylum. When governments do this, it usually means that they are trying to do something which cannot be done. Aristotle remarked that it is essential, in passing good law, for legislators to go home and be subject to the laws they have made. Not many people in this House have been asylum seekers. When we listen to those who have, we hear immediately a wave of comprehension that we do not get from many of the speeches here.
I think that asylum policy is failing because it is directed towards achieving something which is, first, not under the Government's—control that is, reducing the number of applications. The biggest single increase in applications in my time was caused by the break-up of Yugoslavia. I have no inhibitions about blaming Tony Blair, but I do not blame him for that. So the Government are trying to do something they cannot do, and which would not be desirable if they could do so.
The central assumption of the restrictionist case is that the fewer people we have coming in from outside, the better the race relations that will result. I happen to have the honour of being president of the Liberal Democrats in the London Borough of Brent, where we have more Uganda Asians than in Leicester.
The borough is, I think, just behind Newham as the greatest concentration of ethnic minorities in the country. What is vital about Brent is that it is not just two or three groups. It is a mixture of everything one can think of. At the end of a by-election, one surname usually sticks in one's memory. From Brent it is
82
Ratnayake-Brederode, which is not merely cosmopolitan, but also a reminder of the days when Sri Lanka used to be a Dutch colony. I do not think reducing racial diversity is necessarily conducive to racial harmony.
I am delighted by what I hear about Clause 14, but since the compromise is not yet finished, it is necessary to say just a few words about it. If it had been successful, it would have had a claim to be regarded as the worst threat to the rule of law since Magna Carta. I know that plenty of other things can claim that; one could have a seminar on it. I say that of the clause, not because of the sharpness of its wolfish teeth, but because of the Jermyn Street smoothness of its sheep's clothing. I doubt whether 5 per cent of the population realise that there is a threat to the rule of law at the moment.
The device of making the arbitrary court the instrument of the rise of arbitrary power is, in its perverse way, nothing short of brilliant. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made clear by using Anisminic, it would also have the effect of bringing in an entirely positivist view of the law. It would cut us off from the wisdom of the laws of generations before Parliament, and from Glanville and Bracton. It would also cut us off from the 14th-century method of discovering the intention of Parliament by looking at the basic principles of the common law, from which a great deal of our present legislative thinking comes. That would be a very great loss, and all in order to avoid a delay, which—I agree with others who have spoken—emanates more from inside the Home Office than elsewhere.
For example, I once spent a large amount of time on the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, where the Home Office insisted that scars that the applicant claimed were the result of torture were in fact self-inflicted. Those scars were on his back. The Home Office fought that through several meetings with deputations of MPs. It is not in trouble for consumption of time.
On another occasion—a case discovered by Asylum Aid—an applicant was told by an adjudicator that his claim that he had been soaked in urine, beaten, stripped naked and locked in a cell by himself—all of which, he claimed, constituted torture—was so incredible that it deprived all the rest of his testimony of credibility. That seems to me to be a deliberate delay, and one for which I blame neither the applicant nor his lawyer.
The same goes for destruction of documents. From the same volume of Asylum Aid, Still No Reason At All, published to go with the previous Bill, the Home Office refused an application because the man came on his own passport and therefore, it said, could not possibly be in any danger. When the Home Office says all this stuff about destruction of documents, it knows better. I came to know quite well one person who came here from Pristina. She saw her house in flames, and she saw Serbs setting fire to it, but she could not prove that they had actually burnt her documents. Under

83
this doctrine of burden of proof, she could not make her case stand. It is, I think, a mistaken use of burden of proof.
The total denial of support is something that, frankly, I am astonished that any civilised government use as an instrument of policy. If I may, I should like to tell the House of my last fully rational conversation with my wife. She had been told she was dying in terms that I witnessed, and I can testify they were plain. She chose not to take it in, so I had to make it plain to her. When this had been done, and when all those things had been said which must be said, we had a few moments of lucidity left. I told her about an incident on the day I brought her in to Casualty.
When I went out for my breakfast coffee at half past three, it was cold in the way it only can be in January off Gower Street, the wind creeping into every doorway around. I saw a man crouched in a doorway like a dog, with his cap over his face to keep the wind off. I went up to him and gave him a pound. He said, "Oh, thank you. You are the first person who has come near me all day". I told my wife this, and I said that there was she, inside, full of fear and full of pain, but receiving care and warmth, and with people prepared to come round her with love and affection more than any hospital room could hold; and there was he, apparently in good health, but knowing that nobody cared whether he was alive or dead. I said that I wondered which of these people I would rather be. After a long pause, she replied to me, "Yes. I think perhaps you are right".
If that comparison can be made by someone who is on the point of death, one has here a policy which no civilised Government should ever adopt.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is never desirable to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I would much prefer to continue to reflect on what he has had to say to us.
Recent legislation has both dispersed asylum seekers around the country and put some into destitution. This has led many Churches in different parts of the country to have first-hand experience of encountering refugees and asylum seekers. Their response was, at first, cautious; then, occasionally, it was brave in the face of local, sometimes extremist, opposition. Many times it deepened concern about legislation such as that proposed to your Lordships' House today, and a recent debate in the General Synod very much reflected this concern. Let me quote from a letter sent to me from Sister Maureen Lynch, a missionary sister and a worker at Twickenham Refugee Welcome Centre. She writes this:
"I am dismayed at the devastating impact Government policy is having on people recently arrived in the UK who are seeking asylum here. I have witnessed the hardships caused by Section 55 of the Nationality [Immigration] and Asylum Act 2002. These people are not allowed to work. Many of them are completely destitute relying on help from other desperately poor asylum seekers, friends, charities, or are sleeping rough. I believe this cruel piece of legislation should be repealed".
84
Church people such as Sister Lynch all over the country have become more aware of the issues and challenges asylum seekers and refugees face, because they are there on our doorstep. With their fellow citizens they engage in the political arguments for, of course, this is a deeply political issue. But for us this is also a pastoral and perhaps a prophetic challenge. People fleeing oppression and persecution arrive at our ports and airports—vulnerable, desperate, in a strange and bewildering place—and find themselves confronted with processes that they may not fully understand or trust. Such people come to our church halls and vicarages because there are very few other places to go.
I live near to the Home Office immigration centre in Croydon and within yards of the Spires Centre through which local Churches provide resources for the helpless and the homeless. Day by day we are not seeing worthless scroungers or economic migrants ready to manipulate a lax system. We are seeing men and women who are anxious and frightened and trying to keep body and soul together in a strange land. Churches, faith communities and concerned people are providing food and clothing banks, language and induction classes, housing and legal advice, translation services and befriending. They are filling a gap in provision which the Bill will, I fear, worsen.
Clause 8 proposes to remove benefits from those whose claims have been turned down. One can see the hard-headed reasons for the proposals, but one must doubt whether such an action will diminish people's determination to stay.
As your Lordships have heard, both the Home Secretary and the Minister in another place have insisted that leaving families destitute or taking children into care is not the Government's aim. Provision to ensure that this undesired aim is not achieved by default would therefore be welcome. Along with other noble Lords, I look forward to examining the robust provisions to avoid this calamity, as promised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his introductory speech. Any government would be most unwise even to appear to bring in legislation in which it could be alleged that children were being used as a lever upon families to return to countries in which they fear to live.
While referring to children, will the Minister confirm in her response to the debate that under Clause 2(5)(c) being an unaccompanied child would always in itself be reasonable excuse for not being in possession of immigration documents? Surely it is not the Government's intention ever to criminalise such children.
Clause 8 raises concerns which I might call humanitarian. Turning to Clause 14, the concern would have become almost constitutional had not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sent earlier signals of considerable amendment.

85
In the debate in your Lordships' House last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, remarked that the SIAC was like,
"Kafka played by the rules of cricket".—[Official Report, 11/3/04; col. 1356.]
The people of this country are a free people of a free nation built on the rule of law. It is not only lawyers who are concerned about this.
I can understand why the Government wish to speed up the appeals process and prevent its use as the means to justify the end of an indefinite stay. I also acknowledge that the Government have worked hard in improving the speed at which decisions on asylum claims are taken, most now within six months. But the Home Affairs Select Committee at the end of January emphasised the need to combine efficiency with fairness. This is also the concern of these Benches.
We need, at least, to raise the quality of early decision-making. We need to know who will make those decisions and how; and with what interview procedures, information and interpreters the decision will be made. What will be the training and professional development for those engaged in such important work?
We must seek a system which is rigorous, evenhanded and, above all, fair. A system which has all the appearance of quasi-legislation but which cannot be challenged in a court of law would surely give your Lordships pause for thought. Such a system would not work for it does not work in parallel situations.
I chair the governing body at Cuddesdon Theological College, a long-established theological college for training clergy associated with the University of Oxford. We have a long-standing twinning arrangement with a theological college in South Africa whereby two ordinands exchange places for a couple of terms every year. But not this year. The British ordinand was fine, but when the South African ordinand, carrying all the necessary documents, went to the British High Commission he was refused a visa. Why? He obviously was not a genuine student because he called the college "Cuddesdon" when its full name is Ripon College, Cuddesdon, and he did not know the timetable for the first week. On that standard of judgment we would have no students at all. But his application was refused and his appeal swiftly dismissed without any contact with the college.
The starting assumption is that the person seeking entry is lying. This skews the initial decision and requires an adequate appeals process. In this climate, the present system seems not so much excessive as necessary.
I understand from the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Government are prepared to make a move from their proposed position on Clause 14. Along with your Lordships, I look forward to examining the amendments that he promises.
The Bill comes before your Lordships' House when inflammatory reporting in some sections of the press has exaggerated public alarm and demonised claimants. In October last year, the Press Complaints
86
Commission warned that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts.
I am no Thomas Gradgrind, but I appeal to your Lordships' sense of the importance of facts in asylum cases and the damage done to humanity where an appeals system risks being ignorant of the facts and a welfare system acts in flagrant disregard of them. For the local Church, ignored facts soon show up in broken lives. Let us work hard to enable the Bill to emerge as an Act worthy of a free Parliament, which has always led the way in working for a world community built on the foundations of justice and humanity.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, asylum and immigration are controversial and highly charged issues. Debating them deserves—and I hope we will get it today—clear and objective thinking. The Home Office has an immensely difficult task in this area. It seeks a substantial reduction in immigrant numbers, at manageable cost with the least legal restraint. The objective has in-built tensions, the components of which, some might say, are irreconcilable.
The objective has four stages—entry, processing, decision and appeal. In assessing the task and determining the priorities, where does appeal come? At the end. The least important volumetrically; the least significant economically; and the most important in terms of justice.
Entry has been the subject of serious comment by the Home Affairs Committee in the other place; processing has been the subject of regular comment by our courts and even by the Chief Inspector of Prisons; and decision has been the subject of comment by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has called for better decision making. But appeals? Until this Bill arrived, in the legal world in which I practise I knew little of this degree of concern in the entire immigration system. But the issue has been raised and so we must deal with it.
Clause 14 conflicts with a basic principle of the rule of law, one eloquently enunciated by the previous Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he said that English—for that we can read "British"—courts attach great importance to the citizens' access to justice, and judges have now come to speak of this as a constitutional right. What is this constitutional right in relation to appeals in the asylum and immigration system? It is judicial review.
Judicial review is at the application of the person aggrieved; it is not triggered by a judge or a court. In order to obtain judicial review, leave has to be obtained. In other words, the applicant has to establish that he or she has a properly arguable case. If the case goes to judicial review, there are three basic reasons upon which the court will find that government action has been wrong if the evidence justifies it.
The first reason is illegality, meaning that the body or process in question was outside the law. The second is irrationality, meaning that within the framework of

87
the law, no reasonable person could ever have come to such a decision—it is beyond reason. The third reason is that there has been serious injustice in the process of inquiry or adjudication. So we have illegality, irrationality or fundamental injustice. Are we to deny a litigant the opportunity of showing, if he or she can, that he or she was subject to one or more of those aspects of wrongful government action? If we were to do so, we would divorce ourselves from the common-law countries which we founded—Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, the United States—all of which permit and promote a well controlled system of judicial review.
I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. To stop such a right in respect of a person who, when it is denied him, may face grievous harm—even death in the country to which he returns, would be a blot on our system of justice. I am sure that in the light of what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said this evening, the Government will not wish to be associated with such a state of affairs.
As this debate has progressed, clarity has been introduced into the analysis. Such legislation is ready to be amended, as I understand my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He called it a state of affairs by amendment that led to necessary judicial oversight. For me, that is a synonym for appropriate judicial review. He said that there would have to be new arrangements with the administrative court. I read that to mean access to the High Court. And if there is access to the High Court, then there should be access to the Court of Appeal, strongly controlled as it is by that court only giving leave to a case which has good prospects of success, and then to the House of Lords—three or four cases a year, if that. Is this a system about which we should have concern or fear? Is it one we associate in our mind's eye with scroungers, thieves, ne'er-do-wells? I think not. It graces our system of justice. It introduces humanity. It represents what my noble friend Lady Scotland is reported to have said yesterday in a newspaper article—that which is just and proportionate.
So when Clause 14 returns for our detailed consideration, I am sure that what we will have most in mind is not, at the one extreme, shallow populist rhetoric or, at the other, libertarian fears of some legal Armageddon, but, rather, a coolly analysed, clearly reached conclusion that there must be access to the courts, especially for the poor, the ill educated, the foreigner, the alien, whose rights are no less than ours to have access to our courts.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my learned friend, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not able to be here for most of this debate.
This is a mean-spirited and reactionary Bill. It contains some provisions that lack common humanity and others that fail to tackle the real problems
88
resulting from the Government's failed asylum policy. However, like others, I shall concentrate on Clause 14—a provision which has stained the reputation of the Government and of the democratically elected Chamber.
The clause's death may have been announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon, but it will long be remembered. It is difficult to understand how a Government who fashioned the Human Rights Act and who claim to respect the rule of law could ever have promoted a clause which is, in Churchill's famous words, "in the utmost degree odious".
Clause 14 has been universally condemned. It is the combined handiwork of the Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs. It has had the powerful backing of a Prime Minister who once practised at the English Bar—a Prime Minister who, I am very sorry to say, most regrettably, responds to the pressure exerted by the gutter press with knee-jerk reactions in a vain attempt to appease the right-wing tabloid newspapers' insatiable appetite for ever harsher measures against asylum seekers, the Roma and would-be immigrants.
Until today, Clause 14 received strong backing not only from the Prime Minister and his populist Home Secretary but also from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs who also practised with distinction at the commercial Bar. When the senior judiciary explained their objections about Clause 14, the Government's response was not to abandon the ouster clause but to widen it so as to prevent the courts maintaining the rule of law. I find it profoundly dispiriting that this clause was approved by the other place. Such a clause was not contemplated during the Second World War when this country faced Nazi invasion. It was not contemplated in the recent legislation to combat the barbarous scourge of terrorism. It is frankly outrageous that such a clause should ever have been introduced to curb judicial review by asylum seekers seeking refuge from persecution.
On 24 February, the Commons committee published its report on the Bill. It expressed its deep concern about Clause 14. On 14 February, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published its report. We wrote:
"Ousting the review jurisdiction of the High Court over the executive is a direct challenge to a central element of the rule of law, which includes a principle that people should have access to the ordinary courts to test the legality of decisions of inferior tribunals".
We said that the clause,
"seeks to make the immigration and asylum process operate outside normal principles of administrative law and legal accountability. This sets a dangerous precedent: governments may be encouraged to take a similar approach to other areas of public administration".
These unanimous criticisms from all-party committees of both Houses did not persuade the Government to withdraw the ouster clause. On the contrary, they used their dominant majority in the Commons to abuse their unbridled legislative powers.

89
When I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, during the debate on 12 February, on the Government's proposed constitutional reform proposals, whether he was aware that the Joint Committee had unanimously concluded that Clause 14 is incompatible with the convention, his reply was that he was aware of that report, but that the Home Secretary had signed a compatibility statement indicating,
"on the basis of proper and legitimate advice that the Home Secretary has come to the view that this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in the context of the Human Rights Act".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. 1317.]
I am saddened that the Minister was persuaded to make a similar compatibility statement when the Bill came to this House. I wonder who could have given that "proper and legitimate advice". Not, I feel confident, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, nor any human rights counsel worthy of the name.
The Joint Committee did not share the Home Secretary's view that Clause 14 is fully compatible with the convention rights, and this use of a Human Rights Act compatibility statement as a shield against criticism illustrates the danger of treating the convention rights as the only constitutional rights protected by our system of law and government.
The Human Rights Act was meant, in the words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, to enable our nation to have,
"a new birth of freedom".
It cannot do so if it is interpreted by Ministers with the austerity of tabulated legalism. My noble friend Lord Russell was perfectly right to condemn the Government for being guilty of legal positivism, which is the hallmark of authoritarian government.
Only two weeks ago, the noble and learned Lord's junior Minister David Lammy MP—another barrister—told the House of Commons that the ouster clause was central to the Government's objective,
"to deliver a streamlined appeal system".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/04; co1.695.]
Yet the Secretary of State now tells us that the Government have decided to abandon Clause 14. Of course, we are glad that the Government have announced their prospective surrender, but they would have faced inevitable defeat in this House. And if they had somehow forced the clause through, there would have been a constitutional crisis, a clash between the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts.
If the courts could not have circumvented the all too plain and ugly words of Clause 14, they would have been called on to decide whether the powers of Parliament are unlimited. Could Parliament lawfully abolish the courts altogether, or indefinitely postpone elections, or in some other way attack the fundamental principles of democracy? According to the Home Secretary and Mr Lammy—and presumably the Lord Chancellor—there are apparently no limits to the lawmaking powers of Parliament.
90
Our Joint Committee drew attention to the Commonwealth cases, where the Supreme Courts of India and of Bangladesh decided, under their written constitutions, that the legislature cannot destroy the essential features and basic structure of the constitution.
The maintenance of the rule of law is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, once observed,
"in every way as important in a free society as the democratic franchise. In our society the rule of law rests upon twin foundations: the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making the law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying the law".
Parliamentary sovereignty exists only because the courts interpret the constitution and the common law as conferring wide law-making powers on the legislature. But if Clause 14 had been enacted, our courts would have had to decide whether that provision could be refused judicial recognition as an unconstitutional abuse of legislative power,
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows, four centuries ago in Dr Bonham's case, Lord Coke said:
"When as Act of Parliament is against right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge that Act to be void".
Because of the Government's prospective 11th-hour surrender, the question of the modern application of Dr Bonham's case will not arise. But this unhappy chapter in the life of this Government will not be closed. It will be remembered by future generations as a warning against the arrogance of power, and of the need to protect minorities against the tyranny of an elected majority. It will leave an unsightly stain on the reputation of this Government, for adopting a measure for which they will always bear heavy and collective responsibility—each and every one of them. And it will serve as a warning against any further attempt by this Government—or some future government—to subvert the effective judicial protection of the rule of law.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the Home Office does indeed have a difficult task to achieve, but there seem to be people within it who think that real problems can be solved by legislation. What is really needed in dealing with refugees and other would-be immigrants is thousands of small improvements in daily practice, where officials have to deal with their fellow human beings. I shall expand that point later.
This very questionable Bill has one redeeming feature; namely, Clause 4. It creates an offence punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment of trafficking people to exploit their work or to sell their organs. The clause will enable this country to ratify the anti-trafficking convention, and I welcome it warmly.
I understand that a report from UNICEF to be published this week will show that there are some 3,000 street children in Sierra Leone extremely vulnerable to trafficking. The same may well be true of Liberia, Ivory Coast and Guinea, where there are war orphans

91
and many displaced young people. The Solicitor-General is reported to have visited Freetown. I trust that she will be able to convince her colleagues to take urgent preventive steps. Will it be made widely known in west Africa and elsewhere that trafficking for all purposes is an offence in Britain? Will our ports be put on the look-out for unaccompanied children and others who are travelling with people who are not their parents? When such children are identified as at risk, will the Government ensure that the care arrangements provide effective protection for the children?
In Sierra Leone, organisations such as Caritas have a good record in rehabilitating brutalised child soldiers. therefore ask whether our aid programmes will use that expertise to resettle the relatively small numbers of street children in west Africa and elsewhere at risk of being trafficked.
Victims of trafficking who co-operate in prosecution should be rewarded with residence and work permits if they want them. Victims should always be given both time and advice, before they decide what to do next. Will the Government draft amendments to cover these points?
As to the rest of the Bill, I notice that the Immigration Advisory Service says bluntly:
"There is simply no need for further legislation. These asylum driven reforms will have a massive and unwelcome impact on immigration cases, family visit visas, students and work permits".
This is all too likely, since the Bill had no preceding White Paper, no consultation and no pre-legislative scrutiny.
I am glad that I now have the support of the Home Affairs Committee and the Constitutional Affairs Committee of another place and of at least nine out of 10 of the numerous briefs on the Bill concerning the importance of correct first decisions in asylum cases. It is not difficult to see why many first decisions are wrong and, indeed, perverse. The applicants must start by completing a 19-page form, responding in English only. The replies on the form are then checked against Home Office information on countries of origin. That information, I am sorry to say, is quite often incomplete or out of date. It sometimes conflicts with Foreign Office or US State Department assessments. Then comes the crucial first interview, and often the applicant has had no legal advice or adviser present.
The applicant has to face the "culture of disbelief" all too prevalent among Home Office caseworkers and minor officials. Country information may be overlooked, and all sorts of assumptions may be used to invalidate the applicant's story. Caseworkers regularly ignore the prevalence of bribery in poor countries. They pretend to know how police and prison officers work in foreign countries. They ignore or discount the use of torture and casual brutality, including rape, by both official and non-official parties. Both torture and casual brutality in fact are frequently causes of general fears of persecution in individuals. Those who wish for more details on these kind of lapses should study the report on refusal letters
92
and interviewing techniques for asylum applicants from one country, the Cameroon, which was published last month.
The result of this poor practice is that 20 per cent or more of first decisions are being overturned. The rate for Somalia, Zimbabwe and Turkey has been up to 35 per cent. That is why greatly improved training and supervision is needed for caseworkers and supervisors. Given their stated wish to reduce the number of appeals, will the Government provide resources for training staff, for ensuring that their usually good guidelines are in fact followed, and for early legal advice and top-quality interpreters? These are the minute particulars so urgently needed, rather than the endless legislation with which we are faced.
In Canada, where I once worked, there is a refugee protection division. Would that we had something similar here. Our duty of protection under the convention might be better discharged if we had an independent asylum decisions board. That should be supplemented by an independent centre for documentation and information on countries of origin. I hardly expect that the present Home Secretary, or indeed the rightwing tabloid press which has been mentioned, will take such suggestions very seriously. Some future government, perhaps, may find them useful. Meanwhile, I plead for steady improvements in asylum practice and for close teamwork on all the issues thrown up by trafficking. I am certain that this Bill needs major changes and wholesale improvement.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I start by apologising to those on the Front Bench. I was slightly late in arriving for the debate because I was delayed in court. I apologise and I meant no discourtesy. Happily, however, I was able to hear the end of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I apologise to the Lord Chancellor.
I have great misgivings about the Bill. I urge upon those who are non-lawyers that this is not just a matter for lawyers; it goes to the heart of our legal system. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, put it so powerfully when he said that, coming from this Government, the idea of an ouster clause removing judicial review should never have seen the light of day. I want to reiterate that it is shameful that we even considered it and that it was pushed through the other place.
It is very difficult to explain to people why the removal of judicial review is so serious. For lawyers, it is built into our souls; for ordinary people, however, it seems so obscure and out of touch with their reality. Many people feel that the abuse of legal processes, which can be costly and time consuming, should be challenged. They do not like the idea of appeals being strung out on spurious grounds. They want to see that dealt with. We would all, on the surface, agree with that.

93
As many in this House have said, however, the ouster clause is an affront to the rule of law. The term "the rule of law" is used as a mantra by politicians the world over, but people are not really sure what it means. It means more than passing laws through Parliament. It means more than that because there is no discipline in simply abiding by laws which you yourself have passed. There have to be norms against which those laws must be tested. We now have those human rights norms, which are the template against which the rule of law should be tested.
The ouster clause is an affront to the rule of law because it takes away from us as citizens, and from those whom we should be protecting, the right to say, "There may have been an abuse of process here". We should keep telling people that we in Britain should be particularly proud of the rule of law. It was developed here in this country so many centuries ago, to prevent abuse by the monarch and those who governed us and to put checks on power. It meant no one is above the law. Today, that means all those who govern us and all those who make decisions that affect our lives.
We have exported that principle around the world, not just to common law jurisdictions but to everywhere. Every nascent democracy is being encouraged to embrace the rule of law. It has to be a full-blooded rule of law. What comes through in this legislation, however, is the fragility of the Home Office's hold on that concept.
When people ask me what judicial review is about, I try to explain that it is not a new invention but comes from our long common law history. For centuries, prerogative writs such as habeas corpus could be used to protect the liberty and freedom of the people. Over the past 30 years, however, it developed and got the new name of judicial review because—and this is a great credit to the labour movement—poor people were able to get good lawyers to defend their rights and to develop a body of case law around abuses of power. In recent times, we have also seen governments acquiring ever more powers to interfere with people's rights.
Judicial review has become crucial within our justice system. I say to my colleagues on this side of the House that it is being used to particularly good effect by those whom we have always said we were concerned to protect. Judicial review has been used to protect the right to protest, to quash police orders which prevented demonstrations in important areas of the freedom of speech. It has been used to supervise the meaning of criminal laws. In fact, I remember it being used to challenge the validity of by-laws at Greenham Common. It is used to review mental health detentions. It was used to quash the government attempt to ban trade unions in GCHQ. At a higher level, that situation was turned round. However, the challenge and the public debate on it were very important.
Judicial review has been used by trade unions to prevent a Conservative government amending criminal injuries compensation schemes to the detriment of emergency workers. It has been used to
94
protect the rights of women as part-time workers. It has been used to deal with death in custody and to develop systems. It has been used in relation to prisoners' rights, welfare and homelessness. So an erosion of judicial review goes to the heart of our commitment to human rights in protecting the most vulnerable. Yet, at the very same time, one cannot help but think that the ouster clause is being introduced in relation to some of the most vulnerable people in our society—asylum seekers— about whom public feeling might not be outraged because of the way in which xenophobic feelings are being enflamed.
We are faced with another example of something about which we should be very alarmed; namely, that legal principle is pushed to one side in the interests of short-term, attractive propositions. That abandonment of legal principle for short-term gain has long-tenn costs. It is a slippery slope, because where does it go next? The fact that we seem to have little grasp of what the rule of law means and of what principles are fundamental to our system is a matter that should concern us all.
Repeatedly, the Home Office tries to rectify problems that occur at first base, either in policing or in the immigration services, by interfering with justice processes. That is never the remedy for failure at the first decision-making point.
We see incredible schizophrenia on the issue of asylum. The Government have done many positive things in relation to racism, yet the rhetoric about false claims and abuse of the system feeds the very thing that we despise. The Home Secretary appears to believe that if you talk up a storm of toughness on issues, you can slip some decent change through under cover of darkness. He is wrong. That does not work. It only stimulates fear and intolerance among the general public. Even to talk of taking children away from their families, although we are told that it would be in the most extreme of circumstances and very rare, sent tremors of shock through the families of those who are awaiting decisions. The terror that that presents to people who have lived in abusive systems is quite disgraceful.
I fear that the Government are allowing the agenda to be set elsewhere. Right-wing tabloid newspapers are beasts whose hunger can never be sated. When the rhetoric that we have been hearing is insufficiently challenged by government, we see a shrinking of the space in which good things can be done, a shrinking of the space in which sensible debate can take place. I therefore urge Ministers to spend some time at charities such as Medical Aid for the Victims of Torture or the Refugee Council. They should spend time with people who are fleeing countries where they have been abused. That would remind them why the discourse of human rights should be filling our debate. Good politicians make the political weather. They do not respond to populist demands. I am afraid that the Bill is an example of the government responding to populist demands. We should revisit it, because many of its proposals are a source of shame to us.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall address my remarks to a particular aspect of the Bill and our debate; namely, legal aid and access to legal services for immigrants, whether they are asylum seekers or straightforward immigrants. In doing so, I should declare an interest because my firm has been active in that kind of work almost since I founded it in 1970 and we hold a legal aid franchise—at least we do at the moment, as, sadly, we are about to withdraw from it because of the proposed changes in the legal aid system to which I shall refer shortly.
I at least acknowledge the enormous difficulty of the subject that the Bill addresses. While, on the whole, I feel sorry that my political career started so late and is going to be so short, and wonder how I would have responded to the weight of office, I am quite glad not to be handling this Bill. It is an extraordinarily difficult collection of issues for any politician in any party, and particularly at this time, to have to confront. Strongly though I feel about some of the inadequacies of the Bill, I absolutely make no charge of racism or other unworthy sentiments on the part of the Home Secretary or his Ministers. What they are seeking to do with which I disagree comes from a lack of understanding of how the proposals work out on the ground, particularly in legal terms. However, I accept that the pressure on the staff of the Immigration Service is enormous. Many young and inexperienced people are trying to deal with matters of life or death for those concerned—life or death in terms of poverty; life or death in terms of abuse if they are forced back to whence they came. By the same token, I hope that the Government will accept—I know that the Minister will do so because she has experience of these matters—that it is a very difficult task for the lawyers. It is one of the most difficult areas of work in the whole calendar of legal services.
I made a note of the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about legal aid. He said:
"Reform of the appeals process goes hand in hand with reform of the legal aid system … We want to ensure that those who need advice because they have claims with merit will get it … We will target legal aid better".
The first bit of targeting will take place on Wednesday this week when the Community Legal Services (Scope) Regulations 2004 come before this House. I shall start, in case I forget at the end, by asking the Minister whether the Government will consider postponing consideration of those regulations because they go directly to the heart of the practicalities of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
"At present, funding is available for a representative (usually an agent or outdoor clerk)—
I wonder where they get that idea from—
"working for a publicly funded organisation—
that may be a solicitor's firm like mine—
"legally representing an asylum seeker, to attend the substantive interview with the Home Office".
For those who reasonably do not understand what happens, at the start of the process an interview takes place with an immigration officer. That is the only
96
occasion on which the claimant will be in direct contact with, and directly answerable to, anyone from the Home Office. On the basis of the paperwork emanating from that first, substantive interview, the decision will then be made by the senior immigration officer on whether to allow or refuse the claim. Any subsequent appeal, whether under the present aegis—the Immigration Appeal Tribunal—or under the proposed aegis—the asylum and immigration tribunal—will be wholly dependent on that first interview. The memorandum continues:
"However, the Government believe that in the majority of cases, this is unnecessary, of no benefit to the client and a waste of public funds. It is therefore proposed that in all but exceptional cases, (unaccompanied minors; applicants going through fast-track initial decision processes; those suffering from a recognised and verifiable mental incapacity…funding for attendance by a representative at the substantive asylum interview will not be authorised".
There is to be some exceptional power, but that will be confined to that narrow band of cases.
I turn now to another statement, made by somebody who has spent many years dealing with asylum cases. I thought it would be helpful to the House and to the Government if I were to read out what he says about that first substantive interview. He states:
"The effective exclusion of reps will have a significant impact on the fairness of and efficiency of the procedure. For asylum cases in particular, the Home Office is the most important stage in the pre-decision process. The information provided by applicants at their interview forms the basis upon which the Home Office decision is made".
He goes on to state that representation is particularly important because applicants,
"are not given an opportunity to read or have their statements read back to them at the end of the interview. It is also recognised as good practice for representatives to bring independent interpreters to observe the interview, as it is not uncommon for the Home Office to supply interpreters who speak a different dialect or even a different language to the applicant. Although the Home Office do not formally permit representatives to intervene during the course of the interview, in practice representatives often intervene to iron out the not infrequent misunderstandings between the applicant and the interviewing officer or to remind a nervous applicant of an overlooked point".
I do not need to expand on the fact that a lot of claimants are traumatised, or, if not traumatised, extraordinarily unsettled. They do not know the country to which they have come, do not speak the language fluently or at all, are often in need and cut off from their relatives and friends. They are in a high category of legal need.
That is one change proposed under the legal aid regulations. Another is to confine the amount of legal service that can be rendered to a claimant to three hours in respect of an immigration case and five hours in respect of an asylum case. That may sound a lot of time to those who are not lawyers, but in that time the legal representative will have to get to the interview, as one often has to do; try to coax from a worried, frightened and often inarticulate person, who is usually not fluent in the language, his or her story and case; find witness statements to back it up; get evidence, which he or she may not have kept with him or her for all sorts of reasons; get reports from doctors if it is a case of torture; get reports from other

97
countries; and get details from the country to which he or she is to be returned as to the true state of things there. In future, all that is to be dealt with within five hours, unless one can prove exceptionality and go to the Legal Services Commission, which, believe me, is an extremely cautious preserver of public funds. I have to say, too, with no disrespect to the many conscientious people who work there, that they are sometimes vastly inexperienced, with no idea what it is like to do a proper legal job.
The point that I am making is that the Bill cannot sensibly be passed by this House unless we have much better legal aid provision than is currently contemplated. If the regulations are passed on Wednesday, I shall in effect seek to strike them down by introducing clauses into the Bill to do something about that.
One may compare the procedure for immigration and asylum processes with that for any domestic criminal case. We all know that the PACE rules entitle anyone to be represented by a solicitor when he or she is interviewed by the police and when a first statement is taken. Crucially, that will be denied under these new rules. But that is only the first step: afterwards there is a court case, in which the person concerned has the right to go before a bench of magistrates or a Crown court and give evidence and make his or her case. That right will not be available in the cases that we are discussing; the interview is the last chance that a claimant will have to put his or her case personally. If one contemplates that process, and all that can ensue from a decision that can be perverse or simply wrongheaded, I believe that most of the points made against the Bill have been well founded.
Finally, I hope that the House will have regard to the provisions of Clause 7, which relate to claimants' credibility. In my view, that clause provides a presumption of incredibility as regards anything said by or on behalf of any claimant. I shall return to that matter when there is more time, but I commend it to your Lordships' attention.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, whenever there are terrorist outrages or new anti-terrorism measures are proposed, asylum seekers tremble at the prejudice that enters society and threatens their very survival. In approaching this Bill, which contains very specific new measures to control and even to criminalise asylum seekers, legislators and adjudicators must remember that those affected are already living in a climate of hostility and considerable ignorance. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has already referred to the constant tightening of the screw. Those who are persecuted, or claim to be so, demand at least the same standards from our judiciary as the rest of our population, who, under the new anti-terrorism terminology, now seek security from others almost as a form of privilege.
That said, there are one or two very important elements in the Bill. I particularly welcome the new trafficking offence in Clause 4. As a council member of Anti-Slavery International, I am very pleased that the
98
Government have at last come forward with this legislation to curb traffickers. Admittedly, the Home Office was pushed to some extent by the EU Council framework decision of 2002, but, even so, there is genuine dialogue and even partnership with the specialised NGOs on this subject. It is no longer enough to rely on the amended Sexual Offences Act 2003, which deals mainly with trafficking of prostitutes and is very limited in effect. According to the vice unit, only five people received two-year sentences or more during the three years from 1999 to 2002.
However, as my noble friend Lord Hylton said, what about protection? Why has that been left out? It is no good concentrating on the crime if one is not also paying proper attention to the victims. Countries such as Italy are far ahead of us. In the United States, victims are even given residence and work permits in return for co-operation. What are the Government planning in that regard? There should be better balance in legislation and a new clause introduced. For example, are there plans for more Home Office support for those excellent non-governmental organisations providing safe houses, at the very least?
On the larger question of migration, I am sorry that the Government's plans for managed migration form no part of this Bill; indeed, they seem to have stalled. I understand how difficult it is to proclaim a positive agenda against the current media background. I hope that there will be some opportunities at Committee stage.
The passport offence in Clause 2 is a retrograde step, as has been argued, because, by definition, many persecuted claimants in a first interview either do not have access to documents or have come in with false papers. Some are simply in the power of traffickers. The Government are simply ignoring Article 31 of the 1951 convention.
Many people feel strongly about the matter of failed asylum seekers in Clause 8, so I shall not say much. There is a question of local authority funding when social services are already under pressure. It is a moral issue that no one in this community should be left destitute. Under Section 55 of the 2002 Act, 200 more destitute people have arrived every week in London. Two out of three asylum seekers are still in-country applicants, so the Government's deterrent strategy is plainly not working. There is also the matter of the reduction in the access to legal aid, as has been mentioned, which is bound to increase destitution. The Medical Foundation has brought up some good examples, which we shall refer to at Committee stage.
Clause 14 and the matter of appeals is the major concern today. We are all relieved by the removal of what amounted to a dangerous precedent, although it is very unclear whether the concession means the wholesale deletion of the clause, as it should—not least, because so many eminent judges and lawyers have spoken against it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, has made the ultimate comment that the Bill attempts "to immunise manifest illegality". Several have referred to the poor quality of decisions,

99
which I believe is a matter of unanimity in the debate. ILPA's list of 38 recent Court of Appeal judgments is itself evidence of the necessity for a proper appeals procedure. The Conservative amendment in another place does not go far enough, but at least it calls for the revival of statutory review, which has hardly been given a chance to work. It is no wonder that people say that policy is made on the hoof.
Like others, I picked up a much more fundamental concern about the continuing culture of disbelief in the Home Office—and, indeed, in the tribunal itself. That atmosphere will not go away with the replacement of the tribunal. Some adjudicators feel that the public climate turning against asylum seekers is actually affecting judgments. One adjudicator, to whom I have spoken personally, said:
"Many adjudicators and members of the Tribunal bring an even-handed and judicial approach to their work. Unfortunately there are many others who see themselves as the 'last bastion' against the 'hordes waiting at the gate'.
"Despite this, I can continue my work because I know that a final appeal lies from the worst excesses of the Tribunal. If Clause 11 is allowed to go through, there will be no such appeal".
That may be one person's view, but it is a serious indictment. That adjudicator, who has also lived in some of the countries of origin of asylum seekers, goes on to claim that the IAA,
"is not up to the task of being the final tribunal in the process of asylum".
In other words, it is not just the principle of the ouster clause that is wrong, it is the intrinsic quality of the decision-making in the system which has caused concern to many people and is the very reason for which an independent judicial review and appeal procedure exists.
That is not just a worry of a few adjudicators. In Arshad v Secretary of State in 2001, Lord Justices Laws and Waller both refer to the lack of evenhandedness and consistency on the part of the IAT. Lord Justice Schiemann cited that in Oleed v Secretary of State 2002. Those references do not amount to an open criticism of bias but at least they suggest an unease inside the judiciary about the validity of some of the judgments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to the quality of the adjudicators themselves. Whether the continuing culture of disbelief is driven by new government policies of deterrence can be debated, but given the general direction of those policies, it seems fairly obvious to me that it is.
Clauses 18 and 19 concern removal and detention. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to update us on improvements in the detention estate. For example, what progress has been made with accommodation centres and the new smaller model proposed by the Refugee Council? As a patron of the Haslar Visitors Group, I remain seriously concerned about conditions in so-called removal centres.
The word "removal" is still a misnomer. The average length of stay at Haslar is still five months and some stay more than a year. The improved accommodation proposed is welcome, but it does not reduce the waiting time or guarantee quality.
100
Education standards at Haslar are high and must be preserved. Incidentally, the rise in the number of successful escapes—there were 11 last year at Haslar—suggests that detainees are getting more desperate as the Government place more pressure on asylum seekers.
Improving initial decisions means better information. I hope that the Government will consider the proposal for an independent documentation centre. White lists have not helped; they can even hinder. The most up-to-date information is essential. Even in safe third countries, there are always threats from non-state agents. I give the example of the Kurdish people, who may easily be returned from Germany, although Germany is classified as a safe country.
So consultation on the Bill has not been nearly as good as it was last time. Nevertheless, on some issues, it is fair to say that we have a listening Government. They have backed down over Zimbabwean nationals under UN pressure. The trafficking clause has already been mentioned. There is a possible rethink of accommodation centres. So it is reasonable to expect that they will listen today and in Committee and amend the Bill. I also appreciate that governments have to be seen to be active, although they cannot always convince themselves that their actions are legitimate.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, undoubtedly, there have been major problems with initial decision-making on asylum and immigration issues over the years. Undoubtedly, it is the Government's job to ensure that any asylum and immigration system operates fairly, competently and robustly. Undoubtedly—it should go without saying—there must be no knee-jerk reactions to those who voice popular prejudice. Any policies in the field must be well thought out and capable of meaningful implementation.
Yes, the Bill has its flaws, which many of your Lordships have emphasised today. But that is nothing new. All legislation is flawed when we first receive it in this House. Indeed, it is our key and important job to improve it, and we will. Perhaps it should not be, but it is.
The Government have told us that they are in a listening mood and this Second Reading gives us the chance both to raise the issues about which we are worried and to point out where it strengthens current legislation and fills gaps in it. It is always easier to criticise than to praise. Therefore, before I turn to the Bill proper, I shall pay a brief tribute to those at the sharp end of our legislation—those whose job it is to assist it bona fide a sylumseekers and immigrants by sifting the genuine from the mass of overall applicants. That is not an easy job.
Recently, with other parliamentary colleagues, I visited the fast-track reception centre at Oakington and saw its procedures in action. Together with my noble friend Lord Dubs, I sat in on an interview with

101
a young man who was claiming asylum. He also claimed to be under 18, and so should not be dealt with under the same procedures as the adults in the centre. It was difficult to assess his age, but it was not too difficult to understand that his story had large holes and inconsistencies in it from beginning to end. The young woman lawyer who was assisting him with his case was patient and kind. She gave him every opportunity to expand on and further explain his story. The translator was also conscientious and attentive.
The atmosphere at Oakington was not one of oppression or fear. The workers in Oakington and other centres and the agencies involved in the field of asylum and immigration are carrying out difficult work on our behalf. We should not forget them in our deliberations. Nor should we heap all the blame for weaknesses in the system on them. If there are weaknesses in the system, it must be more the fault of the politicians than those who work in our asylum and immigration services. It is too easy to criticise those who work in establishments. Yes, I think that we must accept some responsibility ourselves.
Whether we like it or not—I do not—many of our fellow citizens believe that there are still too many immigrants arriving and staying in the United Kingdom. Emotive words, such as "flooding", are still bandied about freely and most irresponsibly. There is still a great deal of muddle about legislation relating to asylum seekers and immigrants, economic or otherwise. I believe that some of that muddle may be deliberate.
Certainly, some of the muddle has been fuelled by lurid press headlines and less than accurate media reporting. Irresponsible and sensational headlines designed to sell newspapers rather than impart accurate information obviously have an effect on readers. Of course, the worry is the disturbing impact that such reporting can have on the lives of those who are currently members of our community.
I have the pleasure of knowing a prominent person and his family who came to this country 30 years ago. Since then, they have worked within and on behalf of their local community. Recently, they have experienced the impact of negative feelings about asylum seekers and immigrants. The family has felt a backlash against and prejudice towards them from people they have known for many years. A hostility has entered their everyday lives. Obviously, it is unnerving for them and, both in race relations and economic terms, it is bound to be detrimental to the community as a whole. That example and others serve only to reinforce the necessity for accurate reporting, coupled with a clear understanding of what we wish to achieve through our legislation.
Clause 4 was mentioned by two noble Lords, but it has not been highlighted by the media. However, it has been warmly welcomed by a number of organisations, including the Refugee Children's Consortium, which includes many prestigious organisations. This is new legislation to cover a growing problem throughout the world; that is, the trafficking of people for
102
exploitation. I want to emphasise the plight of young girls and women used by traffickers for their own financial gain. The stories of the girls' plight are horrendous. They are enticed to the UK by false promises and end up in prostitution and slavery.
I first became more knowledgeable about the practice when I visited a number of organisations, including the National Criminal Intelligence Service, while taking part in investigations by EU Sub-Committee F on which I served, which looks at issues surrounding immigration, among other matters. I learned how the trafficking of women and girls in Europe has greatly increased over recent years. I heard that all the organisations involved in fighting that evil recognise that they are only scratching the surface in their efforts to catch the traffickers.
The story of one young Romanian woman illustrates the plight of the girls. She was a bright student in her late teens. In Romania, she met a young Romanian man who had recently returned from England. He told her about the opportunities in the UK and offered to help her enter the country—illegally, as it turned out. She came, and within a week she found herself in a seedy house with other young women, some of whom were very young indeed. She was imprisoned and a succession of men visited her day and night. If she did not provide the services required, she was severely beaten. She was one of many, many young women without hope and without help.
The Bill tackles that evil. Clause 4 covers the trafficking of people for exploitation, who are referred to as "passengers". It also covers those who assist traffickers to carry out their horrific crimes and those who arrange the departure of the passengers from the UK when the trafficking ring is discovered and, therefore, there is a need to transfer the passengers to another country to carry on their vile trade.
The Bill also covers illegal activities surrounding organ transplantation. It outlaws any inducement or pressure on individuals, many of whom are impoverished, to sell their organs to those people rich and unscrupulous enough to buy them. The Bill is designed to protect the most vulnerable; that is, people with little to sell except parts of their body and those who are desperately in need of protection from brutal and manipulative people who feed off the plight of unfortunates.
I support the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I welcome Clause 4 and look forward to its implementation. I only wish that the media had chosen to highlight it or had given it even a little positive coverage. This clause brings hope and help to extremely vulnerable people. Surely, that is worthy of plaudits.
8.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am happy to associate myself with the noble Baroness in welcoming the provisions against the trafficking of children particularly, though noting that the Refugee Children's Consortium draws attention to other

103
features of the Bill which are less child-friendly and which will need to be addressed as the Bill goes through this House.
However, I have a more fundamental—and perhaps less useful—contribution to make to this debate. Every few months I meet the person in my diocese whose job it is to provide counselling services for clergy under stress. She provides me with the raw statistics of the number of referrals: sometimes they go up and sometimes they go down. Every time, we have a conversation about which would be good news. This came to mind as the widespread welcome was given to the decline in the number of asylum seekers coming to this country. Is it good news? I am not so sure.
If it means that the world is a safer place—that there is less suppression and violence, that fewer people live in fear of their lives—that is a very good reason for being glad that the number of asylum seekers is going down. If, however, what it means is that this country, in common with many other countries, is constantly ratcheting up the fear involved in the process of migration and acceptance, and that people in oppressed countries are reflecting on whether their fear of that is greater than their fear of what they are enduring, then that is not such good news. I am far from sure that it is the former.
Just before the last general election, three groups of 10 Church leaders went to visit the three leaders of our main political parties in order to talk about the subject of race and how it might affect the coming election campaign. I was in the group that visited the Prime Minister, and remember saying then that I wondered whether the Government should do more to enlist public support by providing real education about the character of the asylum phenomenon and migration in the contemporary world. He and the then Home Secretary seemed to think that this would be a good idea, but I do not think anything along those lines has yet happened. What concerns me is that, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that we need finality in the asylum process at an early stage, I long for some finality in the production of asylum laws. This Bill provokes in me the reflection, "When will this end?".
I welcome of course the provisions against trafficking. However, when my grandmother spent the Second World War in hiding in occupied France—and, when her husband died, had to bury him illegally in the garden—she had to pay an awful lot of money to the people who were hiding her, because there were people making money out of that. If we suppose this was entirely unjustified in the circumstances of the Third Reich, we need to remember that the rhetoric being used in this country at that time was not altogether friendly, and governments had to find resources of courage to be welcoming.
When I read the clause about the withdrawal of support, I remember the story I grew up with as a child—that of my mother arriving in this country and being told to go to the bank with one of those large, white £5 notes (the only money she had), to have it changed into £1 notes. The bank clerk made the
104
insensitive error of tearing up the white £5 note before he had given her the pound notes in exchange. It is a story that has always stuck in my memory and imagination.
The account of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of what the process is actually like—together with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—is something into which we need to enter with imagination as we contemplate a Bill of this kind. What concerns me is that this Bill is one in a series of constant mis-statements of the problem. Of course there is a problem about trafficking, and about illegal and uncontrolled migration. These problems exist, but they pale into insignificance against some other problems to which I wonder who is giving attention.
Who is giving attention to finding how many people are sitting trembling in refugee camps in distant places, or enduring unbelievable oppression because of what they have heard about the processes which they will have to go through if they are to attempt to flee and come to a different country? Is not that a problem? How many people have been returned as a result of the draconian procedures we already have in place? Do we know and do we mind? Is that a problem about which we need to concern ourselves, and about which the public need to be educated?
The Refugee Children's Consortium rightly says that refugee children—the children of asylum-seekers—are, before anything else, children. The Disability Action Group rightly says on the subject that asylum seekers with disabilities are first and foremost people with disabilities. I do not accept, most fundamentally and perhaps least usefully for the deliberations of the House, that the Bill correctly states the problem. The problem is a world in which, for some people, migration seems the only option.
Of course, on the periphery of that ministry assembles itself a dark penumbra of criminality and sheer profiteering—but it is not the problem. It is the symptom. Those symptoms that the Bill addresses are only symptoms, and the problem remains not only unaddressed, but substantially undiscussed in the society of which we are a part. I regard that with the utmost seriousness.
Too many people have needed to speak already about Clause 14. I will say only that I am glad that it can be done away with, but I hope that it will never be forgotten. I feel quite sick that it was ever suggested.
I have wanted to say that I confront the Bill not only with some personal experience of growing up in households that talked about what migration was like. I speak also as someone who was briefly chair of the asylum committee of the Refugee Council, and as someone who has close friends working with scant resources in the west Midlands in the area of integrating, helping and supporting asylum seekers and refugees. That kind of experience leads me to say of the Bill that it simply mis-states the problem.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for coming at the Bill—dare I say it?—not as a lawyer, but with experience from another angle. I do not believe that the Bill belongs to lawyers; it has another dimension. I suggest to noble Lords that the Bill needs to be seen against the background of widespread and sustained public perception that the present system for handling asylum claims is failing. I did not state that as a fact; I said that it was a public perception.
In one recent poll, 36 per cent of respondents named asylum as their main concern. That is almost unbelievable. Every other poll tells us that the main concern is the National Health Service, education or transport. I want to say to your Lordships, particularly those who are lawyers, that those are the realities that Members of Parliament face day by day and week by week as they go back to their constituencies and meet members of the public. It is a challenge for us as well. The Government and Members of both Houses of Parliament have a duty to respond to such concerns. Unless we do, the mood of cynicism, falling voter turnout and all the rest of it will follow and accelerate.
It is not enough to condemn those who fish for votes in these waters as racists and bigots, although many are. It is not enough to condemn the bias and deliberate misreporting, day by day, of such issues by the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and others, although we should do so. We need better to understand what tempts and pushes voters into the clutches of the British National Party, not least when we prepare to mark the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings, which presaged the destruction of the fascism that bodies such as the BNP embrace.
Too many people outside of these walls feel unheard and unrepresented on this and associated matters. There needs to be an open debate around these matters, so that we can try to reconnect with the public and their concerns. Those of us here have a responsibility, as those in the media do—as well as the faith groups, the trade unions and the voluntary organisations—to encourage and enable an honest, informed and mature debate, and I hope that this can begin to happen around this Bill.
I share with many noble Lords admiration for the work of the Immigration Advisory Service, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and other sundry groups working in this area. In turn, they need to acknowledge public perceptions about asylum claimants and help to meet and explain them.
Clause 14, which, as we know, would have removed all supervision by the higher courts of all immigration appeals and not just asylum, has rightly attracted considerable opposition. In terms of public perception, many people do not understand how appeals can go endlessly on and on with the taxpayer seemingly footing the bill. It is the perceptions that matter. So the Government, like their predecessor in November 1992, are right to try to find a way of shortening the appeal process consistent with it
106
remaining fair. I welcome the Government's willingness to listen to objectors, but if the legal brains and experience in this House cannot find a way, no one will. It should be possible to meet public concerns over often considerable delays, and give a proper role to the courts.
Much has been made of proposals in Clause 8 of the Bill to remove benefits from asylum claimants who have exhausted all appeal stages and declined the offer of an assisted return home—where this can be safely achieved—usually with the help of the International Organisation for Migration or the UNHCR.
Again, in terms of public perception, many people do not understand why people are not automatically removed when asylum claims fail. This is not straightforward, and I do not think that there is enough explanation. Some countries refuse to accept returning nationals. We rightly insist that it is safe to return failed claimants. There are difficulties in confirming a claimant's nationality and getting it confirmed by the country against which it is claimed, and so on.
If we are to win better support and understanding for the way in which we carry out our responsibilities, as we should under the 1951 UN convention, there must be a better system to return failed claimants. I ask my noble friend Lady Scotland to confirm my understanding that voluntary returns will be offered only to countries, or parts of them, where it is safe and that unless this can be achieved, no returns will be made and benefit will continue until alternatives have been found.
I do not want for a minute to sound harsh or uncaring, but those whose claims have been refused also have responsibilities, not least where children are concerned. It would be wrong to allow people in this position to seek to use children as a shield against safe return. It would also send a misleading signal to the people traffickers: if you stay around long enough in the United Kingdom, despite your claim failing, you can stay anyway. Building and sustaining a fair and efficient asylum system depends on a number of factors, not least the quality of the initial decision. The Government are aware of that and, as the UNHCR says, they deserve to be commended for their,
"willingness to engage in arrangements to review first instance procedures".
The UNHCR adds:
"This willingness deserves to be commended because independent scrutiny is an important first step towards achieving sufficiently high standards in this area".
I hope that in the same spirit we can work together to improve the present system, both for the benefit of asylum claimants themselves and to better acknowledge and respond to public concern in this area.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I welcome the intentions of the Bill, as put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to increase public

107
confidence in immigration and the process involved, and to promote the successful integration of immigrants into communities.
Like several other noble Lords, I welcome the introduction of Clause 4, which will punish people who traffic. I understand that, in organised crime in Europe, the trafficking of humans has superseded drugs trafficking in terms of financial remuneration and importance. This is therefore a timely initiation into legislation.
The principles that should govern the immigration procedures include the need for an effective initial decision on the applicant's case and an expeditious and fair process. If applicants are found not to have a valid claim, it is important that they be returned to their home country, if public confidence in the system is to be maintained. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has just referred to that.
We must also be cautious in our approach and remember that the predominant reason that immigrants come to this country is conflict in their home countries, as evidence adduced to the Commons Select Committee showed. Immigration flows follow conflict in countries; they do not depend so much on the level of poverty or development in a country. We should bear in mind that conflict is the predominant feature.
We need to act sensitively. I remember well speaking to a young woman from Sierra Leone who described to me how her sister had been toyed with by men in uniforms with guns. The men threatened to cut off the woman's hand or arm; in the end, they decided to kill her. The young woman to whom I spoke was still very, very upset by what had happened.
I used to play Scrabble with a young man, who I knew for a while. He was an excellent Scrabble player because he had been kidnapped in Sierra Leone and kept in the jungle for several months, where he and the other captives, who were doctors and so on, passed the time by playing Scrabble. He was an intelligent young man but had been clearly damaged by the experience. He fell back very much on the Koran, always listening to it on tape and finding succour through that means. Many such people have had traumatic experiences and must be dealt with extremely sensitively.
I welcome the principle of returning to their home countries applicants whose claims have been found to be false, where it is safe to do so. In principle, therefore, I welcome Clause 8, but I am very concerned about how it would work in practice and the consequences. I look forward to reading the correspondence from Beverley Hughes to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to gain reassurance in the area. However, I am very concerned that real consideration is not given to how the provision will work in practice. Several noble Lords referred to the lack of consultation on the Bill. The withdrawal by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the central piece of the Bill during today's proceedings indicates that not enough thought has been given to these proposals. We need to look very carefully at the implications of Clause 8 and the
108
provision to remove NASS support to families in certain circumstances, and at what consequences that might have for the care system.
The Government have acted admirably as regards the care system in introducing much greater funding to this long-neglected area. The latest programme is entitled -Choice Protects". It is entitled "Choice Protects" because each child has a different need and should be in the right placement, whether it is the right foster carer or the right residential children's home. The problem is that we are short of 6,000 foster carers, just in England. We have high ideals about what we want to do, but we are stuck with the work force—there are not enough people to take in these children. What implications does this measure have for that? We need to think very carefully about that.
Noble Lords have referred to Section 55 of the previous immigration Act. We received much literature about how that has been implemented. While that Bill was proceeding through the House, many assurances were given that people would not be made destitute and that there would be sensitive application of the law. But it appears that many people have been made destitute and we need to reflect on what has happened there as we think on this clause.
I remember another young man whom I knew for several years and with whom I studied for a short time. He came to this country from Eritrea at the age of 10 and lived with his sister and cousins here. He was a very bright young man—a member of MENSA. He went to University College, got a degree in engineering, led the college football team—a very gifted young man. Sadly, at the age of 20, when I saw him again, he was drinking and taking drugs, and really going to the dogs. My perception was that this was because he had been without his parents for so long. I would be very concerned if this clause led to children being separated from their families and their parents.
We need information on the numbers of families that the Bill is likely to affect. We need to know that the Government will have exhausted all the other possible means of removing these people. The Commons committee emphasised that more needed to be done by the Government to encourage voluntary returns and it put forward a number of proposals to encourage that. I hope that we may discuss those proposals and see what the Government's response has been. I look forward to working with the Government on this legislation. As was recognised, there was a single lack of consultation leading up to the Bill, so I hope that proceedings in your Lordships' House may allow for greater thought to be given to these very important measures.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Gibson, I think there are some good things in the Bill. I want to concentrate on the things I found troubling in the same way as other noble Lords have done. I should say that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I endorse the report made by that committee on the Bill in February.

109
Before coming into the House this afternoon, I was planning to concentrate on the issue of appeal in Clause 14. However, following the speeches of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and the elucidation of the role of administrative courts made in the remarkable speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—with which I very much agreed—I am now much more settled over the issue of appeal. That is on the assumption, which I took from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—that the administrative court as a high court will be independent of the tribunal. Therefore, on that basis, I think I am reasonably happy.
There are some issues that I want to take up. I will return to the issue of the role of the administrative court. In paragraphs 67 and 68 of the Joint Committee's report, published in February, we drew attention to the fact that it was perfectly possible to imagine that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal might, in specific cases, act in a way that was incompatible with convention rights. Even if we accept the Government's view that the number of such cases will be low, it seems to me that numbers are not of the essence in the context of rights.
If rights have been infringed, there ought to be some kind of remedy, either under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights or under Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and a determination that a public authority—in this case, the tribunal—has infringed convention rights. That process should be carried out by a body independent of the public authority—the tribunal—that has infringed the right. On the assumption that we are talking about an independent review, it seems that that qualm expressed by the Joint Committee is laid to rest.
That leads me to a second issue. Although it may be argued there are few immigration and asylum cases that would be concerned with civil rights, as understood in Article 6·1 of the ECHR, Articles 2, 3 and 8 impose a positive obligation on the state to take reasonable steps to protect rights against infringement. Mistakes are possible, given the conditions in which the Immigration Appeal Tribunal works, and that, again, is a good case for having access to a higher court.
I am not a lawyer, but to my mind the issue goes slightly broader than just the review by the court. I fully accept that the Bill will be amended by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but Clause 14(7) says that the appeal tribunal may entertain,
"proceedings to determine whether the Tribunal has acted in a way which is incompatible with a person's rights under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention (liberty and security)".
In a sense, that is a restrictive understanding of the sort of rights under the convention that can be appealed. Given that the whole idea of the Government's approach to the tribunal was to create a sort of self-contained system, does that mean that, if there is to be an appeal to the administrative courts—essentially, a form of judicial and independent review—those courts will be able to entertain the range of ECHR rights, or does it mean that the courts will be able to entertain
110
only the two rights specified in the Bill? That was something that exercised the Joint Committee. On page 27 of our report, we said:
"It seems to us that this"—
the restriction to liberty and security—
"would leave many cases in which there could be a serious threat to fundamental human rights yet [this] clause would exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. For example, habeas corpus protects only the right to liberty of the person. There would be no access to courts to protect other Convention rights from being violated by immigration and asylum decisions. Some of these rights are of even greater importance than the right to liberty of the person, including the rights to life and to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to say nothing of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for family life".
So what I am interested in is whether the proposed changes to the appeal system will allow the administrative court to entertain claims on that broader range of rights, as the Joint Committee suggested it should. It is an important issue and I am unclear about what the consequences of the announcement made by my noble and learned friend at the start of the debate would actually mean in that respect.
To conclude, I want to say a few words about what seems to be the general constitutional position in relation to the Bill, a matter which has been discussed quite widely and critically in the debate. I want to dwell for a moment on the claim made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about constitutional values which, it might be claimed, Parliament would have overridden in passing this legislation. I very much agree with what he said because at the root of that claim is, I think, the role of the common law. The claim is twofold. First, the sovereignty of Parliament itself is a product of the common law; and, secondly, the common law, as both customary and judge made, has over the years embodied principles of constitutionality which, over the past generation or so, have been made much more explicit by judges exercising judicial review. Hence both parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional constraints are equally products of the common law and therefore Parliament should accept that its own sovereignty is in some sense constrained by the principles of constitutionality enshrined in the common law from which it derives its own authority and sovereignty.
I am pleased that, in respect of the ouster clause, the Government themselves have decided to operate within conventional understandings of the constitutional position. In my view, one of the great successes of this Government, although there is a long way to go, has been in the field of constitutional change. It would have been a tragedy if this Bill had ridden roughshod over basic constitutional principles derived from both the parliamentary and the legal aspects of the common law.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am immensely flattered that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has chosen my speech to be the first that he will hear in full. I am sure that he will take

111
every opportunity tomorrow to read the speeches of all other noble Lords, in particular that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He made the very important point that immigration has been a "success story" in this country.
Not only has immigration been a success, but so has integration. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, pointed out that we have had economic migrants coming to this country for centuries, some of them with swords and axes the Anglo—Saxons, as I recall. In addition we have had waves of people fleeing political and religious persecution. We have all integrated and benefited from that. I note that among the noble Lords who have spoken, nine have a Celtic background, nine have an Anglo-Saxon background, and the rest hail from a kaleidoscope of backgrounds which has added a great deal to this debate. I am alarmed when I read about fears of a plague of Roma people coming to this country because my Gypsy ancestors came here in the 16th and 17th centuries. They quickly integrated by adopting the harp as a way of earning a living. They would take harps around north Wales to play in pubs and clubs. Indeed, at night my friends have to restrain me from twanging the odd string in the Bishops' Bar.
We have all integrated and it has been a success. We are facing a problem only over a limited period of our history. All are agreed in this very informed debate that what is required is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, a "humane but efficient system". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to a "fair and efficient system", which would sort out asylum seekers from economic migrants. May I just say this for emphasis: there is no reason necessarily to reject these economic migrants as failures. We ought to reflect that they may well have much to contribute to this country, even though they do not pass the asylum seeker test. They are risk-takers whose energy and drive to surmount obstacles to reach their goals is paramount. Such people have created successful and democratic societies in the United States, Australasia and elsewhere in the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was right to remind us that unfortunately the reform of immigration rules and policy has, for the moment, stalled. Coming to the subject matter of the Bill, surely this debate illustrates that the quality of the decision is crucial. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, finality is less important than the correct and just decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, pointed out to us the various stages of processing that an applicant for asylum has to go through. Under pressures of time, because there are very strict time limits placed upon applications, the applicant must first of all understand the procedures that he has to operate, and that may require interpretation. He then has to marshal his case, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury reminded us that medical reports may be required to prove that the applicant has been subject to torture. He may have to prove, for example, that he is a member of a particular tribe in Somalia, because the Home Office will accept that if one is a member of one tribe
112
in Somalia, that is the end of the issue—there is no further question. Very often that is an issue at that stage.
The applicant may have to show what the activities of a particular government are—for example, the current position of the government of Zimbabwe towards people of a particular political persuasion. He may have to deal with the loss of his documents and provide explanations for all that. Then he has to present his case to an unsympathetic interviewer. His legal aid, which your Lordships might think should be increased by a humane system, is now to be reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out.
So that is the first step. Then there is the decision itself, and that is where the greatest delay arises: the initial decision is in the name of the Home Secretary, but it is in fact taken by a caseworker on the basis of the papers that are placed before him or her. My information is that such caseworkers are paid something in the region of £15,000 a year, which indicates to your Lordships the experience that such people have in taking these particular decisions. Some of them, I am told, are graduates who cannot get another job, and produce very good decisions. Others are less fortunate. Some are immigrants themselves, who, having come into the country in this particular way, are thought to be good to help in these decisions.
So an appeals process is clearly necessary. This is the third stage of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: the appeal to the adjudicator. The scandal—because it is a scandal—is that the Home Office is represented in only about 60 per cent of those cases, and, with the limitations now being placed on legal aid, there is now a considerable chance that the applicant will be unrepresented as well. I am told that adjudicators have been instructed, if they are presented with an applicant in person and nobody from the Home Office, to do the best they can. In such circumstances, as is the tradition of this country's legal profession, the judicial figure will do his best to ensure that the applicant's case is properly put.
But that takes time, and points that may be made by the Home Office against an applicant are not made because there is no one there. I was amazed to be told that 40 per cent of appeals from the adjudicator to the tribunals are by the Home Office. Those appeals are brought because, very often, points adverse to the applicant have not been made and therefore the applicant has been successful. No doubt I shall be told if that statistic is wrong, but if it is right that is a disgrace.
There is a danger that if the principal indicator of the quality of a decision is the rate of success of asylum appeals, that will lead to cuts in legal aid, a single tier of appeal and an extension of the safe country concept. All those matters, plus the other problems to which the Bill gives rise, will make it more difficult to overturn the bad initial decision, and so the success rate of appeals will fall.
The logic the Home Office will then apply is, "If the success rate of appeals falls, that shows that the initial decision was a good-quality decision, so why do we not

113
abolish legal aid altogether and then all appeals will fail?". That is the sort of danger that exists under the whole panoply of the reforms—I use the word with question marks around it—proposed by the Government.
I have criticised the initial decision making and the problems that arise on appeal but, at the other end of the process, only 15 per cent of failed asylum seekers are returned. That is not the fault of the lawyers. Many people say, "We are not lawyers; we are not inflicted with that particular plague", but it is the Government's failure to organise a fair and just system for dealing with people who do not pass the asylum test that, again, is a matter of deep concern.
How does the Bill improve the position? The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has given the history of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Under the prerogative writs, under the judicial review system, the court does not purport to take away from the decision-maker the right to decide in a particular case. But, traditionally, on judicial review the court ensures that the procedures have been just and fair; that the higher courts—whether the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords—set standards and that the standards they set affect the whole system all the way down to the initial decision. It is quality control; it is acting as a regulator. If they were called "Ofjudges", that would go down very well with this Government, who have "Of" this and that in almost every field.
But the Bill as drafted makes the tribunal the judge of the fairness of its own procedures. I know that someone in the pub in Gresford will say to me, "Does Parliament have no regard to the principle nemo iudex in sua causa—no one should be a judge in his own cause—because for 2,000 years it has been accepted that a tribunal is blind, or may be blind, to its own errors?". Therefore the proposals initially set out in the Bill conflict with the principles of the English common law which, where it is old enough, go back to the very start of the legal systems that we know about.
In addition, there is in the Bill an attempt to coerce people to do things. It will be an offence to enter this country without a passport, although the true asylum seekers are the least likely to have passports and papers in the first place. It will be allowed for support to be withdrawn from people in an attempt to encourage them to get out of the country and make them indigent. We are saying, "We don't want you". We are threatening to take people's children away from them to coerce them to do things.
I entirely agree that it is a difficult problem. But the Bill, I suggest, has been formulated in a climate of prejudice and bigotry. We look to the Government for leadership—for resources of courage, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, said that the public perception is that the system is failing. Notice that he did not say that the system is failing, only that the public perception is that it is failing. The public perception depends upon leadership. If the public
114
think it is failing it is because the Government lack leadership. Let us have an open debate on these issues, and let us use the Bill as an opportunity to do so.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I cannot think of a worse area of the law to make the basis of an ouster clause than immigration law. We, mercifully, abolished the death penalty many decades ago; but the consequences of making bad asylum decisions are often to send people to their death. I am therefore greatly relieved that the Government have decided, on mature reflection, to think again about the ouster clause and Clause 14.
The Government's attempt to persist with the clause until now has had, I think, one lasting benefit to the country, which has been reflected in a number of speeches made this afternoon. If I mention only those of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, from the Labour Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, from the Cross Benches, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern from the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, from the Liberal Democrat Party, I hope that other Peers will not feel that they do not deserve an association with what I am about to say.
Tonight we have had an important constitutional debate which was, if I may respectfully say so, very effectively summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. He reminded us that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is not an assertion by politicians—it is a doctrine of our courts. It is our courts that say that Parliament is sovereign. And in saying so, it is also our courts that determine what the limits of parliamentary sovereignty are. I would like to think that, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor began to reflect on Clause 14, this factor played a part in his subsequent decision.
I suppose that in a free society there are two cornerstones: one is democracy and the other is the rule of law. The essential component of democracy is access to the ballot box for everyone. The essential component of the rule of law is access to the courts for everyone. Underpinning both these concepts is a society's deep belief in equality. Everyone has access to the ballot box; everyone should have access to the courts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has listened in the past few weeks to many things the judges and others have been saying about Clause 14. I should like to think that he reflected on the constitutional limits of parliamentary sovereignty; and if he did, I congratulate him.
Whatever motivated the Government's decision, it has illustrated to the country—and to all political parties—what the limits of parliamentary sovereignty should be. The debate this afternoon has brought that out in an extremely effective way, and I believe it will have deep, long-lasting and beneficial implications for the quality of legislation in the future.
I want to look ahead now to the Committee stage and make some suggestions to the Government—they may think rather impertinently—about the direction in which they ought to travel.

115
I have always believed that the ouster clause—quite apart from being constitutionally improper—is also unnecessary: if the Government can devise a statutory scheme which is fair, then the courts will exercise their discretion not to grant judicial review; and, therefore, the Government will not be faced with a series of re-applications to the courts on what is essentially the same issue.
There are three components to a fair statutory scheme. The first one is that, on matters of law—on alleged errors of law—there ought to be an appeal from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, to the House of Lords. This is particularly important in asylum matters because the law is so complicated. We not only have a large number of primary legislative measures, but we also have detailed rules—the immigration rules, and immigration and asylum rules on appeals. Behind this, we have two very important public international conventions, the refugee convention and the human rights convention. This is a complex web of legal measures which will, inevitably, test the appeals tribunal, on occasions, beyond its capacity. It is, therefore, vital that the role of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords is reinstated whatever else the Government propose to do with Clause 14.
I do not believe that this will be an additional cause of delaying the system. The statistics indicate that, last year, there were between 50 and 60 appeals to the Court of Appeal, and very few beyond that to the House of Lords. It must be right that that situation—which is in the existing legislation—is preserved in the Bill.
Secondly, as a number of noble Lords said—I recall particularly the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington—it is vital to reinstate in the Bill the supervisory powers of the administrative court to deal with applications for leave to appeal from the decisions of the adjudicator.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, was perfectly right. He mentioned a statistic that over the past seven to eight months about 550 applications were considered. He also said that a rather high proportion of those were allowed, a little over 20 per cent. That is a reflection, I suspect, of the quality of decision making at adjudicator level. The lesson that ought to be drawn from this is that the main focus for the Government in devising a new scheme for Clause 14 ought to be at the adjudicator/appeal tribunal level.
What the Government want to do here—and there is evidence for this because it is on the face of the existing Bill—is to concertina the existing adjudicators with the existing appeal tribunal. In principle, we on the Opposition Benches are not against that; but we are against a solution which does not improve the quality of existing decision making. If we are going to have a one-stop shop rather than a two-stop shop, then it is vital that the institution that emerges does better than the combined effect of the two institutions that we have at the moment.
116
It is premature to make detailed comments about what we think that ought to be. I think it better to wait for the Government to come up with their proposals. However, it would not be satisfactory to the Opposition simply to keep the adjudicators and abandon the tribunals. Something new has to be produced which meets the weaknesses of the existing adjudicator system. As a number of your Lordships have said, in my view quite rightly, what we want is a system that is both just and at the same time effective.
The other area that I hope the Government will look at—again, this has been mentioned by many of your Lordships—is the various earlier stages in the procedure between the asylum application and its consideration by the Home Office, and the period between the consideration of the Home Office decisions and the consideration by the adjudicator. Those are areas of great delay. I am convinced that, with better administrative procedures, the delays could be substantially reduced.
So the ouster clause is gone. The Government are going to think again. We must now all look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoting the right reverend Prelate, who said that leadership needs courage. I think that your Lordships have had no lack of that this evening.
I very much welcome the tone of this debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that perhaps we all need to apply a deal of humility in looking at the history of how this issue has been dealt with over a period of time and a number of years. I was a little more doubtful about the title he gave me as "chief charmer" for the Government.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice says, and I think he said it well, that the system needs to be fair and just and not readily susceptible, I think he said, to abuse. We respectfully and wholeheartedly agree. The truth is that we all want a balanced, fair and just determination; in that, the Lord Chief Justice and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford are absolutely correct. We have acknowledged that delay and abuse have to be removed. The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied holds particularly true in cases dealing with asylum seekers who are subject to the anxieties and trauma of having to resettle after a period of real disadvantage.
Much has been said about the quality of the initial decision-making process. That was a theme taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, among others. We appreciate that fact. The Government have made strenuous and successful strides to reverse the figures so as to demonstrate an enhanced quality of assessment and determination.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the issue of presenting officers. We accept that the average level of representation for January to

117
December 2003 was 70 per cent. That figure covers both presenting officers and counsel. By the end of March 2004, an additional 65 presenting officers will be in post, representing the Home Office at adjudicator appeals. We very much hope that that enhancement will assist us.
I can also reassure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and give him the assurances he seeks that our current arrangements on discipline and removal of judicial officers will continue and will not be removed without his concurrence. We also appreciate the Lord Chief Justice's anxiety about the provision in relation to the practice direction. We very much hope that this issue can be settled in a way that is satisfactory to him.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised the issue of legal aid, as did the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and others. I can assure the right reverend Prelate and noble Lords that five hours refers to the time provided to ascertain whether there is a valid case. If more time is merited, more time can be provided. I know that noble Lords will have a full opportunity to debate those matters with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he comes to address them in due course.
The legal aid regulations and provisions are of course extremely important, but they do not go to the root of many of the issues that we have been discussing today. I assure my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that the Bar Council and the Law Society have not been backward in coming forward with their comments. They have written to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on that matter and their views will be taken fully into account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is one thing to make written representations. Will my noble friend, on behalf of the Government, ensure that Ministers and officials have meetings with the Bar Council, the Law Society and with the immigration authorities?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is no resistance to that if it seems to be appropriate. I cannot speak from the Dispatch Box to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as he is no longer by my side, but I am sure that he would be delighted to do that. I see him nodding his assent.
It is important that we all have an opportunity to debate and discuss those matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said clearly that it is not an easy issue to deal with. From the experience that he had in government, he must appreciate the enormity of the task with which we are all faced.
However, the adherence to the rule of law, and equality and parity of treatment before our courts, are principles that the Government are determined to maintain. We accept that we must address the delay and difficulty presented by those who wish to take advantage of what they see as loopholes in the process, but that will not be at the sacrifice of other issues of fairness.
118
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the Government recognise the great advantages of diversity and we rejoice in it and are enriched by it. I heard the noble Lord's reference to a report of the comments in America of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but the theme of that speech was the huge benefit in diversity. It was said that problems had occurred between communities and that the challenge for us is to maximise the benefits and to minimise the difficulties. The Home Secretary said at Harvard that he was convinced that we can combine diversity with integration and therefore with stability, thereby maximising the benefits. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would agree with those sentiments.
The balance that we have sought to strike is between safeguarding those who seek and deserve to receive succour as a result of being seekers of asylum and penalising those who seek to delay and to obfuscate. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, felt that in our efforts to provide a fair and just system, the Home Office may find itself castigated as a vexatious litigant. We have no such intent and our behaviour, which has been proportionate in the way in which we have addressed litigation, assisted as it is so ably by Treasury counsel and others, would not justify us being so categorised.
Noble Lords raised issues about what further changes we can make to the system, and rightly identified some of the difficulties that we face in relation to legal aid and the approach of a limited number of practitioners. The noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Avebury, questioned whether the change to a single tier was merited. The noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Avebury, asked whether as lawyers they could make an appropriate contribution. I certainly join my voice to that of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in saying that all voices are welcome in this debate, and the lawyers by no means have the balance all in their favour.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, the proposed model for the tribunal has built into it a number of safeguards. It has starred determinations, which will be made by a panel in conjunction with the president and deputy president. That will provide authoritative case law that is binding on members of the tribunal. It will bring together the expertise of the two tiers and the judiciary and the tribunal will be mutually supportive. We shall consider all those issues together, and shall be able to hone them in a way that will, I hope, inure to the benefit of the system. I join with the comment made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in saying that I am confident that we can find a solution that meets the needs of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, specifically raised issues about the numbers going down, so that we do not need a single tier. That was the thrust of one of the comments that he made. Even if the numbers in absolute terms fall, the percentage of people seeking to review decisions would be unlikely to alter. We have all

119
said that we do not want there to be a slow system that was unfair in which genuine asylum seekers were delayed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, presumably, if the Government are claiming to improve first decisions, people will not feel so inclined to appeal and the percentage will go down.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have said that we agree with that. I by no means seek to undermine the comments that we have made in the past, that the improvement of the initial decision-making process is of real importance. We have made strenuous strides to improve that, and it is a matter of some mild satisfaction that the level of appeals has been affected as a result.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to have to ask my questions of the Minister and not of the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved his usual invisibility in donning the wig and sitting on the Woolsack. However, could she make two points clear to the House? First, are we to understand from what was said at the beginning of the debate, that when the Bill says that the tribunal's jurisdiction will be exclusive and final, those words will no longer represent the Government's position because there will be judicial review? Secondly, does the Minister accept the view expressed on all sides of the House that Parliament's sovereignty depends upon the common law and is not absolute and unlimited if it violates democracy or the rule of law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can say an unequivocal "yes" to the first question. I hope that we have made it clear that the provisions that we are minded to introduce will replace the current Clause 14 with a new system. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made it plain that he hopes that in crafting something between us we shall be able to involve the administrative court in a satisfactory way. I also bear in mind the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others, in relation to the number of cases that will be subject to judicial review if it is replaced by an alternative. One possibility being discussed by a number of noble Lords is statutory review—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, among others. That is what we are considering now. At this stage, we cannot look at the precise details because we are in the process of formulating them. But it was important that that statement was made by my noble and learned friend at the beginning to set the scene for the direction in which we all hope to go.
I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not only listen to everything that has been said in the debate but also read every word about the issues raised with great care. In particular, I noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Plant. My noble friend Lady Kennedy said that good politicians make the weather. We do, and we are.
120
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor set out the sort of weather that he intends to develop. As I said, the difficulties that we face have been set out in the debate. My noble and learned friend also set out the course which we—all of us—are now jointly embarked on. I hope that this opportunity will be grasped by all; that is, those noble Lords who may not have wanted any change whatever and those who are accused of wanting too much change.
My noble friend Lord Corbett said that we have a duty to respond to these concerns and to encourage informed debate. I respectfully agree. I understand the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester about discouraging genuine asylum seekers, but that is not the intent behind these procedures. If we manage to improve the procedures, we shall assist in reducing the anxiety that many asylum seekers experience as a result of the delay and help to ensure that they can settle and start to address many of the problems which they inevitably will face.
Despite some of the deeply held arguments put forward about Clause 14, we have found a lot of common ground on these complex issues. Most of us agree that public confidence is essential for the successful integration of refugees and for maintaining good community relations in towns and cities across the United Kingdom. The country's long tradition of welcoming genuine refugees and legal migrants should be encouraged to continue. We are fortunate to live in a diverse and tolerant society that, by and large, welcomes and embraces inward migration.
We have dwelt considerably on Clause 14. It is right that I seek to address other issues that have been properly raised by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Clause 2, which deals with the difficult and serious problem of individuals who are undocumented seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. We know that many of those individuals have documents when they begin their journey. By the time they arrive in the United Kingdom, they claim not to have them, despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to get on many airlines without a passport or equivalent.
By introducing a criminal offence of being undocumented, we are sending a clear message that it is unacceptable for people to dispose of their papers in order to frustrate the consideration of their claim and, should the claim be refused, frustrate their removal. I can assure the House, as the Government have done on many previous occasions, that the clause is not designed to catch, for example, refugees who are fleeing their country without papers. Where people do not have a passport during their journey to the United Kingdom, that will be a reasonable excuse for not having it when they seek leave in the United Kingdom. Therefore, they will have a defence under Clause 2.
I also assure the House that we have taken full account of our obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. Following an amendment we put forward in the other place, we have provided an exception to the general provisions that it will never be

121
a reasonable excuse to dispose of one's passport just because one is instructed or advised to do so by an agent. The exception will cater for the rare situation where, for example, an individual is so vulnerable or dependent on the person giving the instructions that he or she cannot reasonably be expected to ignore them.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the burden of proof. Where a person is shown to be undocumented, the onus is on the individual to show on the balance of probability that he or she has a good reason for being undocumented; for example, that they never had the document. Given the special nature of the offence and that it will be uniquely in the knowledge of the individual to explain how he or she came to be in the United Kingdom without a passport, we are satisfied that it is right for the onus to be on the person to show that. I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights shared our view.
I was asked a specific question in relation to children. I think it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who raised this issue and asked specifically what happens when a child does not have a passport. The defence of "reasonable excuse" would include situations where, for example: the child never had a passport; the child travelled with an adult who was in effect in control of the passport and took it away; the child was pressurised into releasing their passport in circumstances where he or she could not reasonably resist that pressure. It would be a very rare case indeed for the offence to apply in practice to an unaccompanied child. However, it would not be right to exclude them from the scope of the clause since there will be situations where the offence might properly apply —for example, a 17 year-old child who chooses to dispose of their passport with a specific aim of ensuring or enhancing their claim.
A number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Parekh, the noble Earls, Lord Russell and Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—all raised the issue of withdrawal of family support. Clause 8 has been subject to some misunderstanding. The policy is not designed to make families destitute; it is to encourage a family whose asylum claims and appeals have been rejected to take up the more dignified option of a paid, voluntary flight home with some reintegration assistance at the other end, instead of having to enforce their removal and sometimes detain them. The choice for these families is not between staying in the United Kingdom and going home; it is between returning voluntarily with some integration assistance, or having their removal enforced.
Withdrawal of support will not be an automatic process. We will put in place a robust procedure to make people aware of the consequences of failing to leave and what they need to do to avoid withdrawal of support. We continue to assess the best way to implement these propositions and have really listened to the points raised. That is why we amended the Bill to allow a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator and this will provide further confidence in
122
the overall process we envisage for Clause 8, and further reassurance that, where support is withdrawn, the decision is the correct one.
Compulsory removal is, of course, one of the options open to us. We will intensify our programme of these removals where possible, although it is clearly preferable for families to take up the more dignified option of voluntary return. Where a family does not have travel documentation, compulsory removal simply cannot take place. If a family do not have a document, we need to apply on their behalf to the relevant embassy to obtain one. Necessarily, this requires the family's co-operation as an embassy will not issue a travel document unless it is satisfied of the family's true identity and nationality. There remains, therefore, an incentive for some to fail to co-operate with the steps we have applied to take and, ultimately, this would thwart their removal altogether.
It is that incentive we must tackle, and of course we do face difficulties in returning failed asylum seekers to particular countries when there can be practical problems in obtaining travel documentation or secure routes back. It is important to keep in mind that these difficulties do not mean a country is unsafe simply because we are not in a position immediately to enforce removal. That should not mean that a family remains entitled to support at the taxpayer's expense indefinitely, when there are other options available.
I would also draw attention in particular to the voluntary assisted returns and reintegration programmes operated by the International Organisation for Migration. It is open to all failed asylum seekers to apply to the IOM to take part in this programme and we would expect families to take up this opportunity to make a dignified return home.
My noble friend Lord Corbett asked what would happen in relation to voluntary returns to unsafe countries. Each individual claim is considered on its merits. Therefore, we would only expect a person to return to a given country if we believed that it was safe for that individual.
No doubt we will return to many of those topics when we come back to the debate, but I hope that I have time to touch on the issues of trafficking for exploitation. My noble friend the Chief Whip is giving me the nod, so I shall speak as quickly as I can.
A number of questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friend Lady Gibson, and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, about the offence of trafficking for exploitation in Clause 4. I give warm thanks to those who commended the Government on that. The Government are committed to tackling effectively the crime of human trafficking, and that new offence is an important step in ensuring that sufficient legislative measures are in place. However, we of course recognise that that alone will not solve the problem of trafficking. The Government's efforts on the issue therefore go substantially wider, to tackle the range of problems presented by trafficking. Our work includes prevention, identification and support of victims, and prosecutions.

123
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a question about spreading the message internationally of the serious nature of trafficking as a crime. I assure him that there are a number of schemes in source countries and regions involving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development aimed at raising awareness of trafficking. One example of that is the support given by DfID to Anti-Slavery International's work with civil society in west Africa to raise awareness and stop the trafficking of children.
The noble Lord and others raised an important issue about identification of victims and the need for the Immigration Service to be aware of trafficking as an issue. I can again provide reassurance that the immigration officers are aware of trafficking as an issue. One example of that in practice is that officers throughout the United Kingdom have been made aware of the trafficking toolkit, a publication that aims to raise awareness of trafficking and help those concerned to treat its victims appropriately. It is of course important, once the victims have been identified, that appropriate support is given to them, and social services will have a key role to play in that provision.
An issue was raised about reflection periods and residence. We are satisfied that our current practices have due regard to the effect of removals on all persons who have breached immigration law, including those
124
who may be victims of trafficking. The Immigration Service will treat every application from a victim of trafficking on its individual merits, and will consider all relevant information. We therefore do not consider that separate and specific provision needs to be made.
The Bill contains a number of important measures to ensure that we are able to achieve all those aims. I commend it to the House.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness address a question that I raised in relation to the Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations, which are before the House later this week? If passed, they will pre-empt the very debate that she was looking forward to with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to legal aid matters.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that such matters usually have to be dealt with through the usual channels. Noble Lords will see that the debate is listed in the Forthcoming Business. I have had no indication that the Government are minded to remove it therefrom, but all will obviously have heard the comments that he and others have made. They will be able to make whatever decisions are deemed appropriate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
  The Committee met at four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): We shall adopt the usual procedure. Therefore, I think I may be excused for not reading it out. I move to the first Question that the Title be postponed.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Payment of Class 1 contributions: Great Britain]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 15, at end insert "but only in the next succeeding pay periods in which there are sufficient amounts of monetary earnings"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. Both amendments are in identical terms, but the second amendment is necessary to cover the situation in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill has had a somewhat unusual history in that no amendments were moved in another place. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented on that at Second Reading. Even more remarkably—and I think probably totally without precedent—the proceedings were concluded in another place well within the limit set by the programming Motion; whereas nearly all other programming Motions have not allowed adequate time for full discussion and scrutiny in another place. One might perhaps express the hope that the days saved might be allocated to the Pensions Bill—or at any rate that the programming Motion for the Pensions Bill will give the other place time for such discussion and scrutiny, rather than leave your Lordships to straighten out various points which have not been considered.
  Amendment No. 1 is in addition to measures discussed in another place. However, it is worthwhile spending a short time sorting out a few loose ends resulting from representations which we, and I imagine others, have had and which I think the Inland Revenue has had from the tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister about two points that arise from the Explanatory Notes. The Explanatory Notes are extremely helpful and most certainly necessary. Paragraph 6 deals with the liability for national insurance contributions. It states that this is a measure,
  "to simplify employers' administration"—
  I think you could have fooled me. It goes on,
  "by: extending employers' ability to recover Class 1 contributions…by allowing the employer, with the agreement of the employee, to withhold an amount of the securities equal to the contribution liability".
  I am slightly puzzled by the word "amount". I would have thought that it should be "value" of those securities rather than the amount, which I presume refers to some identifiable quality.
  The other point that was not entirely clear is under paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Notes, which refers to the current position. It states:
  "The current limits on recovery from the employee may result in the employer being left unable to recover the primary contributions from his employee when the employer has paid them on the employee's behalf".
  That brings me immediately to the amendment, which is essentially concerned with the question of timing.
  The ability of the employer to recoup the payment that he has made on behalf of the employee, in the rather complicated circumstances described in the Bill, would appear to depend on him being able to secure a monetary amount within the same tax year. Consequently, if he is not able to obtain such a monetary amount from the employee, because the employee does not have any remaining monetary amounts that are due to be paid to him by the employer, it would seem that it would not be possible for the employer to recoup the amount from the employee.
  Presumably there are two ways around that. One is to say that it does not have to be a monetary amount, in terms of an amount due from the employer to the employee, and another is simply to give a concession as regards timing, which is why the amendment reads:
  "but only in the next succeeding pay periods in which there are sufficient amounts of monetary earnings".
  I have been provided with very elaborate arithmetical calculations on this matter but, as a blackboard is not provided on these occasions, I do not propose to go into them. It appears that such a situation can arise, so it would be true that the objectives of the Bill set out in the Explanatory Notes—namely, that the employer should be able to recoup the amount that he has paid on behalf of the employee—may be frustrated. I hope that the Minister agrees that this amendment and the one related to Northern Ireland are appropriate in these circumstances.
  However, I was somewhat surprised when I looked at some of the examples that have been given to me. I assumed that the whole issue was related largely to stock options, and so on. I believe that it is common ground between ourselves and the Government that in particular circumstances that would be an appropriate

  GC 3
  way of incentivising employees. Apparently problems may also arise with regard to national insurance contributions in the circumstances that I have just described; namely, that the employer has paid them on behalf of the employee and recoups them from the employee. It would seem that that may also apply, for example, if the employer were to pay a telephone bill, which would count as his income, on behalf of an employee. The employee would be liable for national insurance contributions and the employer, having paid them on his behalf, would have difficulty in recouping them if there were a timing problem of the kind that I described earlier.
  There may also be further complications if, for example, a pensions payment, properly known as FURBS—a funded unapproved retirement benefit scheme—were made immediately before the end of a tax year. If such a payment were made under FUR BS at the end of a tax year, which may not appear to be inappropriate timing from the company's point of view, it could run into the problems that I have just described in terms of recoupment.
  These amendments are entirely consistent with the objectives that the Government have sought to set out. Alternatively, instead of the amendments, the Government could give a commitment that paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 would be reviewed to enable employers to reclaim from employees beyond the end of the year, and that could be achieved by way of a statutory instrument rather than these amendments. The amendments appear to be consistent with what the Government have in mind. There may be circumstances in which their objectives are frustrated if the amendments are not accepted. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of his amendments. I gather that these are probing amendments essentially to try to put the situation on the record so that it is clear for the professionals involved as these matters are obviously very technical.
  I shall try to explain some of the conceptual contexts and then seek to address the points that the noble Lord has raised. It may be useful to make clear how an employer can recover national insurance contributions that he has paid to the Inland Revenue on behalf of the employee. I hope to explain how recovery is made; why we limit the ability of the employer to recover; and why some specific forms of earnings have extended recovery provisions but others do not, about which the noble Lord was particularly concerned.
  The employer is liable for secondary class 1 contributions and the employee is liable for primary class 1 contributions. However, the employer is liable to pay the primary contributions to the Inland Revenue on the employee's behalf in the first instance, although he may recover them from the employee subject to certain conditions. If an employer cannot
  GC 4
  recover the contributions from the employee under these conditions, he will have to bear the cost of the liability himself.
  As the noble Lord will take for granted, in most cases recovery will not be a problem because the employer pays the employee in "cash". Contributions can therefore be deducted directly from these cash earnings before they are paid over. However, when an employer makes a payment of non-monetary earnings there is no cash directly to make the deduction from. This is where the issue arises.
  It is convenient to turn to the issue of telephone charges in that situation. If an employee pays a telephone bill and is reimbursed by the employer, there is a class 1 A NICs charge—that is, the employer's charge—on the personal element of the telephone bill. This is an employer-only charge—a secondary NICs—so there is no problem with recovery of primary NICs from the employee. There may be other situations that the noble Lord has in mind, in which case perhaps he will reflect on them or write to me. Essentially the employer would be liable for the NICs only where there is a benefit in kind, which is the personal element of the telephone bill, because there is therefore no liability for the employee to pay.
  At the time that the employer makes a payment of non-monetary earnings he will have to pay the primary contributions to the Inland Revenue. He can then choose to recover the primary contributions from the employee, within the limitations applying under the legislative framework.
  It is necessary to apply some rules to the way in which an employer recovers primary contributions from employees to ensure employees are not subjected to hardship because of unreasonable deductions from their earnings. For example, if there were no restrictions an employer could deduct a year's worth of primary national insurance in one go, potentially leaving the employee with no take-home pay in that month.
  To ensure that this does not happen the employer can only make "catch up" recoveries: from cash earnings; in the same year as the earnings are paid; and at an amount that is no more than the normal primary national insurance due on that month's earnings. In all cases with one exception, which I shall come to in a moment, recovery can be made only from an employee's subsequent cash earnings. In most circumstances this framework ensures that the employer will be able to recover the primary contributions while protecting the employee from economic hardship.
  As the noble Lord explained, these "catch up" deductions are most commonly used for non-monetary earnings, where the deduction of the primary contributions cannot be made at the time the earnings are paid. The amendment would seek for extra flexibilities to extend the time even further when "catch up" deductions can be made. We could extend this time limit further in regulations—and we have done so for share-based earnings because we think these are a special case. Share-based earnings are often

  GC 5
  very large relative to cash earnings and can quite often make up the majority or a sizeable portion of an employee's annual remuneration package.
  In such cases it may not be possible for the employer to recoup primary contributions on such earnings from subsequent cash earnings before the end of the financial year. Therefore, to ensure employers are able to recover contributions on such earnings in full, last year we amended regulations with respect to share-based earnings so that employers have an additional year in which they can deduct primary contributions from the employees' earnings—that is, in the year after payment of the share-based earnings. This is particularly helpful where the gain from the shares arises towards the end of the financial year. And the limit on the amount that can be recouped from the employees' future earnings is removed.
  However, we did not think it appropriate then to apply this extension to other non-monetary earnings. We singled out share-based earnings for these additional recovery provisions for specific reasons. The value of earnings paid in the form of shares, and indeed the timing, is often not within the employer's control. For example, in the case of share options, there is usually a period of time during which the employee may exercise the option to acquire shares.
  More significantly, the unpredictability of movements in share values means that the employer cannot, when the option is granted, predict the size of the employee's gain on exercise. And, as mentioned earlier, it is also not unusual for share-based earnings to form a very large proportion of cash earnings.
  All those factors clearly distinguish share-based earnings from other non-monetary earnings in terms of the employer's control over the value and timing of the payment. In addition, share-based earnings, unlike other non-monetary earnings, give the employee a stake in his company, which we want to encourage, and allow him to share in its success. Evidence has shown that this acts as a great performance incentive and helps to increase the productivity of the economy and the company.
  The Government are therefore keen to encourage employee share ownership. But our concern is that, if employers are unable fully to recover contributions paid on behalf of employees, they may decide not to use shares as a means of motivating employee performance. The Government have therefore amended regulations and are introducing Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill so as to remove that potential disincentive to the use of employee share schemes.
  The changes introduced by the Bill will be implemented by amending both primary and secondary legislation. There is flexibility and scope to extend the provisions to other forms of non-monetary earnings where appropriate without further primary legislation as the changes can be made by regulation. So amending the Bill is not necessary.
  Furthermore, the amendment, as it stands, would actually prevent us extending the time period for recovery of contributions beyond the next available cash payment. As I explained earlier, we have already
  GC 6
  made regulations extending the time period for recovering primary contributions on share-based earnings to the next tax year. Those regulations would have to be remade to restrict employers' choices, thus completely defeating the objective of extending employers' ability to recoup primary contributions on share-based earnings.
  I have listened to the noble Lord's argument and am not convinced that the problems that he believes exist for non-monetary earnings require this amendment to the Bill. I do not wish to restrict the Inland Revenue's ability to react to new types of payments by restricting the primary legislation, as he proposes in these probing amendments. I am also not sure that the case for extending recovery provisions in regulation, as has been done for share-based earnings, is justifiable for all forms of non-monetary earnings.
  But—and I hope that this will be helpful—I am advised by Inland Revenue officials that they are ready to listen to particular concerns raised by employers' representatives about the regulations. The Inland Revenue wishes to review the provisions applying to the recovery of primary contributions by employers and, in doing so, will invite comments from employers and their representatives. The review will look at the regulations governing recovery at paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 and whether they could be more clearly set out; at the guidance given to employers about how and when they can recover contributions from their employees; and at problems that employers may be encountering in recovering primary contributions.
  I hope that that addresses the general issues raised by the noble Lord. He asked in particular about "value" and "amount". Apparently, in drafting they are used interchangeably and they mean the same and so no weight should be attached to that.
  The noble Lord also asked about FURBS—funded unapproved retirement benefit schemes. It is true that an employer, when making a payment of £30,000 into a funded unapproved retirement benefit scheme on the last day of the tax year would not be able to recover the £300 primary national insurance contribution from the employee. To ensure that that situation did not arise, the employer could conduct his pension review and payment in an earlier month. However, the review which the Inland Revenue will be carrying out, as I have mentioned, will look at the guidance issued by the department to employers on recover to see whether anything can be done to make it clearer and to ensure that such situations do not arise.
  The noble Lord may be pleased to know that the Inland Revenue announced a consultative document on pensions issued in December 2003; and that there will be no national insurance liability on employer contributions to non-registered schemes—the successors to FURBS—in future. Therefore, the issue relating to the recovery of NICs will cease to be problematic.
  I hope that I have addressed the noble Lord's points and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I thank the Minister for that extremely comprehensive and sympathetic reply. We are grateful. I was slightly puzzled by the argument that acceptance of the amendment would mean that the recoupment could take place only when the next cash payment was available rather than during the course of the year. I shall read carefully what she said about that. We are pleased that she is, prepared to review the problems we have raised and we are grateful for her clarification on telephone calls.
  We tabled these proposals in relation to share options and share transactions, which we are all anxious to encourage. I am reassured on that by her answer both with regard to the statutory instrument amendment, which she mentioned, and on Clause 1, line 16,
  "In sub-paragraph (4) (contributions in respect of ex-employees)".
  That covers the next tax year and relates only to ex-employers. I presume that the provisions relating to share options will be in statutory instruments. I shall read the Minister's answer carefully, but that was my understanding of it.
  The FURBS issue may be important and I am grateful for her answer on that. It may be that at the end of the tax year a company has reasons for making a FURBS payment at the last minute. We would all want to encourage more pension provision and if that can be covered in the consultations she has kindly agreed to undertake, that, too, would be an advantage.
  In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Payment of Class 1 contributions: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Agreements and joint elections: Great Britain]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 46, at end insert ", or
  (d) a gain represented by the acquisition of securities which would fall within section 4(4)(a) above on the assumptions that the employee's earnings fell within section 15 (earnings for year when employee resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in UK) or section 21 (earnings for year when employee resident and ordinarily resident, but not domiciled, in UK, except chargeable overseas earnings) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (c. 1) when the right was granted and that the gain resulted from the exercise or satisfaction of a right to acquire securities.""
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4, which covers the situation in Northern Ireland. The measure is
  GC 8
  designed to simplify matters of somewhat mind-boggling complexity. I apologise if I tend to refer more copiously to my notes than normal, as I usually make it up as I go along—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But based on profound experience.
  Lord Higgins: On profound experiences, having survived 33 years of Finance Bills in the other place. I find this clause as difficult an example as I can remember coming across.
  At all events, the amendment extends the election facility to employers with internationally mobile employees from abroad who are resident, but not ordinarily resident—those are terms of art within the tax legislation—who pay class 1 national insurance contributions. The Revenue is currently reviewing the tax treatment of share awards to such employees. The class 1 NICs liability was imposed last year. I forgot to say that this is all due to the appalling increase in national insurance contributions made by the Chancellor, but I would not have introduced an overtly partisan element into the matter. The liability to pay those contributions will not be removed, I presume, and it therefore seems appropriate to take this opportunity to introduce an election facility in the Bill. Owing to other pressures in the legislative timetable, it may not be possible to do so later on.
  The Bill has been delayed for four years, following earlier changes, and obviously such a change requires primary legislation. It is desirable that we should do that now, rather than find that we must wait another three or four years before we can sort out the matter. The amendment is linked to Section 4(4)(a) of the Social Security Benefits and Contributions Act 1992 and while it uses the general language of Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, it does not refer to any specific part of it. We believe that the change we are proposing ought to go ahead, whatever the outcome of the review being undertaken by the Revenue.
  The amendment applies only to the award of a right followed by subsequent acquisition of shares some time in the future—the situation of future uncertainty which the elections machinery in the Bill is designed to address. It would not, for example, apply when shares are immediately acquired and so forth.
  The amendment would also apply only where the employee actually acquires shares. It would therefore operate where the share plan rules allow the employer the discretion to award cash in lieu of shares. However, in practice, the employer awards only shares. It is designed, in effect, to ensure that an election can be made in respect of restricted share plans and, as the Bill stands, some of those plans are covered and some are not. We see no justification for that. We believe that in all cases they should be made available in respect of shares acquired from a conversion of units on a later vesting date.
  That meets the basic test of a contingent, but unascertainable, obligation of the employer to deliver the shares at a future date. The difficulty is knowing

  GC 9
  what value the shares will have when eventually the transaction is completed. It is a narrow point as it covers only people who are moving in and out of a country, who are resident but not ordinarily resident and who pay these contributions. It would be desirable to adopt the amendment as it would enable that group of people to operate within the framework and objectives which underlie the Bill. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I thank the noble Lord. I shall again seek to put on the record what we are doing in this respect in the hope that no ambiguity will arise for the organisations most obviously affected by the technical detail.
  The purpose of the noble Lord's two amendments appears to be to extend the scope of Clause 3 in two ways. First, it seeks to allow the transfer of secondary class 1 national insurance liabilities which may arise on payments of security-based earnings to persons who are internationally mobile but working temporarily in the U K. Secondly, it seeks to allow the transfer of any secondary class 1 national insurance liabilities which may arise on earnings derived from employment-related awards of restricted stock units.
  On the first point, while the Government understand why that outcome is sought, we strongly believe that this is not the right way, or time, to address the issue. The amendment attempts to achieve its objective by introducing a statutory fiction that assumes, for national insurance purposes—this is usually where the noble Lord tells me that national insurance is a statutory fiction, too—that the earnings arise under statutory rules that simply do not apply to such earners. We do not believe that the amendment would work.
  In addition—I believe, importantly—no evidence has been provided to suggest how widespread or significant is the problem that the amendment seeks to address. In fact, only one substantive representation has been received on this issue—from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. But they have provided no evidence of the scale of the problem in terms of numbers of employers and employees affected. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any such information that he can share with us.
  As I am sure the Committee is aware, the Inland Revenue is already undertaking an extensive review of residence and domicile rules as they affect the taxation of individuals. The way in which the tax, and therefore national insurance, legislation applies to payments of security-based earnings to internationally mobile employees is clearly closely related to that work. Therefore, it would be inappropriate and premature to introduce unnecessary complexity and confusion—when we all want simplicity and transparency—by making piecemeal changes, such as that sought by the amendment, to the national insurance legislation in isolation and before any review has been completed.
  Our objective, which I know the noble Lord will share, must be a coherent, well thought-through and clearly structured set of rules applying to this form of
  GC 10
  remuneration. That cannot be achieved by tinkering with legislation which is peripheral to, and follows from, the core set of tax rules applying to security-based earnings. However, I can assure the Committee that any review of the tax treatment of security-based earnings for internationally mobile employees will look carefully at the issues which this proposed amendment seeks to highlight.
  In addition, in line with the Government's ongoing objective of aligning as far as possible the national insurance and tax treatment of earnings, any changes that may in the future be made to the tax rules applying to security-based earnings will continue to determine the national insurance treatment of such earnings.
  On the second objective of the amendment, we do not consider that the amendment is necessary. The question of whether earnings from "restricted stock units" should be within the scope of the NIC transfer facility was addressed in the other place. As my right honourable friend the Paymaster General clearly explained, the term "restricted stock units" is used to refer to a variety of arrangements for paying earnings to employees by way of securities. Therefore, it is clear that the exact nature in which a restricted stock unit provides an employee with earnings will determine whether the employer's national insurance liability on those earnings may be passed to the employee.
  If the earnings so received do not fall into one of the three categories of relevant employment income, as defined by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, we do not believe that allowing the employer to pass his national insurance liability to the employee is justified. For example, if a restricted stock unit is a right to acquire securities, earnings derived from it may already be the subject of a national insurance transfer. But restricted stock units which are, in fact, rights to acquire cash rather than securities are not subject to the same tax and national insurance rules and may not, therefore, be the subject of a national insurance transfer.
  The Government's policy objective in introducing the national insurance transfer facility, and the extension of that facility in Clauses 3 and 4, is to remove a barrier to wider employee share ownership, which, as I said earlier, research shows has a link to improved productivity. As the noble Lord accepts, that barrier is the requirement to account for the future unpredictable national insurance liability—an issue which, we understand, almost by definition, does not arise in respect of restricted stock units.
  I must stress that the ability to transfer the employer's national insurance liability to the employee is an exception to the fundamental principles of the UK contributory system—that employers must pay their own national insurance liabilities rather than pass those costs on to employees.
  It is an exception that is justified only in a small set of circumstances in which an employer wishes to award shares to motivate employees' performance, but faces real problems in terms of accounting for an unquantifiable national insurance liability that will arise on certain future chargeable events.

  GC 11
  Extending this facility to other forms of earnings where perhaps no such problem arises would allow employers to reduce their contribution to the cost of funding the NHS and contributory benefits system. That would be unjustifiable and unacceptable as it would significantly increase the financial burden on employees and undermine the fundamental basis for funding the NHS and the national contributory benefits system.
  I hope that my explanation as to why we do not feel the amendment is appropriate will satisfy the noble Lord. I do not know that there is anything else I need to say in response to his amendment. If there is, I am sure he will come back to me. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able, particularly when he has had the chance to scrutinise the words in Hansard, not to pursue the matter further after today.
  Lord Higgins: We are most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. understand her to say that in the review of residence and domicile and so on currently being undertaken by the Revenue, the kind of point I have raised today on restrictive stock units will be considered so that an overall view of these issues is taken. As regards the narrow issue, the Minister's reply leads me to withdraw the amendment.
  Having said that, I suddenly realised that we move from the enormous complexity of these issues into some wider philosophical issues. In a debate which followed the debate we had on the Floor of the House, the whole question of national insurance was discussed: whether there really was a National Insurance Fund; whether one should continue, given that the Chancellor himself has integrated the national insurance system—and indeed the Bill helps to integrate the national insurance system into the general tax structure of this country; and whether it is appropriate to retain the present structure other than by way of passporting benefits and so on.
  However, when the noble Baroness was speaking, another point suddenly occurred to me. As I understand it, national insurance contributions are being paid by people from overseas who are resident—but who are not normally resident—in the UK; for example, a German working in a multi-national company who happens to be based in London. I think that is probably—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Where would the company be based?
  Lord Higgins: I was going to be really awkward and use a company like Shell which is based both in the UK
  GC 12
  and elsewhere in Europe. That may well be a case in point. However, I do not want to go into specific company situations because I am not familiar enough with the details of those extremely complex company structures.
  I was taking an example to make a point. Let us take a German working in the UK who is normally resident in Germany, but at the moment is resident in this country. He is therefore liable for national insurance contributions. What does he get in exchange for those national insurance contributions? He certainly will not build up a sufficient contribution record, so it is a straight tax that he is paying. He does not get anything at all. The noble Baroness shakes her head.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A company's location will determine whether it pays contributions in the UK or in the country where the employee is working. Under accession there is, so to speak, a knock-forknock situation. Therefore, paying contributions here will add to an employee's contribution records at home. Employees will have such an entitlement. In that sense, a knock-for-knock situation on national insurance is part of worker rights. Therefore, in the same way that a worker can pay national insurance contributions and tax while working here, if he were sufficiently low paid he would be entitled, for example, to tax credits. Equally, he would be entitled to build up a contributory benefit towards a pension which he would not be able to draw, but it would allow him to have a complete record in terms of his ordinary residency in Germany. In that sense, the knock-for-knock situation is a consequence of the free migration of labour.
  Lord Higgins: That is a very helpful comment. I am not sure that the use of the expression "knock-for-knock", which implies that there has been an accident, is necessarily appropriate. Be that as it may, in regard to my main point, the Minister's comment that the consultations will take these very difficult issues into account is extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Agreements and joint elections: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Committee adjourned at eighteen minutes before five o'clock.

  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Northern Ireland Electoral Office
  Northern Ireland Electoral Office
  Abu Hamza
  Abu Hamza
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  British Overseas Territories
  British Overseas Territories
  North Korea: Human Rights
  North Korea: Human Rights
  China: North Korean Refugees
  China: North Korean Refugees
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Victims Advisory Panel
  Victims Advisory Panel
  Chechnya: Asylum Applications
  Chechnya: Asylum Applications
  Police Service: Staff Support Associations
  Police Service: Staff Support Associations
  Computer Misuse Act 1990
  Computer Misuse Act 1990
  Speeding
  Speeding
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  Police Vehicles: Road Accidents
  Police Vehicles: Road Accidents
  Internet Child Pornography
  Internet Child Pornography
  Football Hooligans
  Football Hooligans
  e-Crime Strategy
  e-Crime Strategy
  Anthrax
  Anthrax
  Obesity
  Obesity
  NHS: Falls Services for the Elderly
  NHS: Falls Services for the Elderly
  Healthcare Professionals: EU Accession States
  Healthcare Professionals: EU Accession States
  Clinical Trials
  Clinical Trials
  Ministry of Defence: Right to Roam
  Ministry of Defence: Right to Roam
  Support Vehicle Project
  Support Vehicle Project
  Law Officers: Advice to Ministers
  Law Officers: Advice to Ministers
  Sports Clubs
  Sports Clubs
  Winter Olympics
  Winter Olympics
  Space for Sport and the Arts
  Space for Sport and the Arts
  Sport: Lottery Expenditure
  Sport: Lottery Expenditure
  Coin-operated Telephone Boxes
  Coin-operated Telephone Boxes
  Single Farm Payment Scheme
  Single Farm Payment Scheme
  Common Agricultural Policy and Digital Mapping
  Common Agricultural Policy and Digital Mapping
  Imidacloprid and Bees
  Imidacloprid and Bees
  A34
  A34

  Northern Ireland: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Science Service
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I am today announcing my decision to extend the role of the new non-departmental public body, which will take over responsibility for the functions of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's Science Service in 2006.

  I previously announced the Government's decisions in response to the O'Hare report on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's arrangements for the provision of agrifood education and R & D in Northern Ireland on 31 March 2003. Within that Statement, I announced that provision was to be retained within DAR D to provide emergency response and surveillance. However. following further analysis and consideration of the functions and organisation of the new NDPB, it has become clear that this emergency response capability should also transfer to the new body.

  I am confident that this extended role for the NDPB will enable DARD, working in close co-operation with the body, to handle any future emergencies in the animal health sector. Furthermore, I believe that the decision which I am announcing today will ensure a more coherent organisation, without duplication or overlap, and better placed to provide the services required by its customers. It is estimated that around 220 staff who would have been retained within DARD will now move to the new NDPB, bringing its total staff numbers, including those moving from the Agricultural Research Institute for Northern Ireland (ARINI) to around 850.

  The decision to place ARINI in the NDP13 is unaffected by this change.

  Penalty Notices for Disorder
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Home Office research findings summarising the main findings of the interim evaluation of pilots for penalty notices for disorder, which ran for 12 months from August and September 2002 to 2003, have been published today. The findings show that police officers have welcomed the scheme and are making good use of penalty notices for disorder. In particular the pilots showed that the police find penalty notices for disorder a quick and effective tool for tackling the low-level, drink-related nuisance offending which occurs late at night in city centres.WS 2
  Using a penalty notice for disorder saves police time and there has been a demonstrable switch from cautions and prosecutions in the pilot areas.

  The issues raised by police officers about repeat offenders, flagging on PNC and taking of fingerprints and DNA have already been addressed. A programme is being developed which will identify repeat offenders on the computer database. A facility now exists to record penalty notices on PNC and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains powers for the police to take DNA and fingerprints on arrest for recordable offences. These powers will be introduced on 5 April.

  Copies of the research findings have been placed in the Library.

  Growth Areas
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In February last year my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister published the Communities Plan. That plan was not simply about housing, it was about creating sustainable communities in all parts of the country and we are following it up with a detailed programme of implementation. In July last year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Making it Happen—Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas and in February this year we set out our plans for the north in Making it Happen—The Northern Way. I am now giving Members a further update on our plans for the growth areas.

  One of our key objectives is to help to tackle the long-term shortage of housing and particularly affordable housing. Based on the potential set out in joint studies with partners, we are now working to deliver the additional 200,000 new homes identified in the Communities Plan for sustainable communities in the growth areas and London. This is in addition to the 930,000 already planned in the wider south-east by 2016, and subject to testing and examination through the regional planning guidance (RPG) process.

  These additional new homes are a key element in our response to the housing affordability problem which is seriously affecting the wider economy, business competitiveness, and the delivery of public services. Failure to respond to these pressures is directly harming communities and means that young people cannot live near their parents.

  Constraining growth in order to divert it to other regions is not a solution. We are committed to enabling every region to perform to its full economic potential, and to narrow the gap in growth rates between them, but displacing investment in the southeast means it might well go abroad or not happen at all.

  Later this week the Government intend to publish Kate Barker's review of housing supply which will consider the need for additional measures and on which we will consult. In the mean time we need to

  WS 3
  ensure that we and our regional and local partners are on course to deliver the full potential of the growth areas programme.

  The regional Planning Framework

  The growth areas will in part help to meet demand close to London, and in part provide new opportunities in the north and east of the wider south-east, where there is substantial capacity for sustainable growth in new and expanded communities. The growth areas policy will also strengthen links between the south-east and its adjoining regions, particularly the east Midlands, through Northamptonshire and the inclusion of Peterborough, and with Europe.

  The areas that we are now taking forward were confirmed in RPG9 (for the wider south-east) published in 2001, because of their potential to take further sustainable growth, and to exploit major transport investment. The potential of Thames Gateway was established in RPG9a, and is being further developed in the interregional planning statement which is being prepared by the three regional planning bodies which cover the Gateway. The potential for the newer growth areas has been independently assessed in studies which were published last year. These studies and supplementary local assessments have been key inputs to the preparation of proposals by regional partners for new regional planning guidance for each area, which is then subject to public consultation and testing in public examination. The current position is tabled below:

  Milton Keynes/ South Midlands

  Mini RPG proposals published for public consultation July 2003; public examination starts 23 March 2004

  Ashford

  Mini RPG proposals published July 2003, public examination held in December—panel report submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister February 2004.

  London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough

  Growth area proposals are included in draft RPG14 for the east of England—proposals agreed by regional planning panel February 2004 subject to further work on the growth area for completion by September 2004.

  Thames Gateway

  Interregional planning statement being drawn up by regional planning bodies puts forward outline growth potential for confirmation by regional planning statements.

  A more sustainable approach

  The growth areas programme is about sustainable communities not simply about housing. We are looking to create places where we integrate from the start a more sustainable approach to health, education, transport, the environment and natural resources. Jobs growth needs to balance housing rather than simply add to long-distance commuting. Where there is an urban extension, growth should
  WS 4
  strengthen the existing town centre, enabling it to offer a wider range of services, and where there is to be a new settlement it needs to complement not weaken its neighbouring centres. The challenge is to make the most of these opportunities to create communities which are better designed, more attractive to residents and investors and which will stand the test of time. There are good examples of this quality of development currently being delivered in Cambridge, Northampton, Milton Keynes and in the Abode scheme at Harlow, and in Thames Gateway in the Royal Docks and Kent Thameside. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is working extensively with local partners across the growth areas to help to realise this potential.

  Infrastructure and services

  One of the critical issues for new communities is ensuring that provision of infrastructure and services takes place in step with growth. Failure to do so places additional pressures on hard-pressed existing facilities and will make the growth itself unattractive to investors, new arrivals and existing residents. Our task as government is to put in place mechanisms with local and regional partners and the private sector to ensure that we tackle these issues together and give partners, investors and communities the reassurance they need. The approach we will follow is based on the following principles:

  (i) that funding allocations for major services, such as health and education, respond effectively to rapid population growth;

  (ii) that we will support the development only of individual growth locations which can be adequately supported by committed or planned transport services and infrastructure;

  (iii) that for the major growth locations, we recognise the need for additional funding for local infrastructure services and environmental improvement to unlock key sites, alongside strengthened local delivery arrangements, established in consultation with local partners.

  I can now report to the House on some of the early action which colleagues and I are taking to help to deliver this approach.

  Health

  Creating new communities offers substantial potential for health benefits—through better design promoting healthier communities, responding to key worker shortages in the health sector and providing health services more effectively from the outset. To support the development of sustainable communities, and reflect population growth, the Department of Health is announcing a new funding package for the growth areas which will enable the NHS to increase local service capacity, including:
  An additional £20 million of revenue funding per annum for 2004–05 and 2005–06, for those primary care trusts (PCTs) that are already experiencing considerable population growth as a

  WS 5
  direct consequence of development of the four growth areas;
  An additional £20 million of capital resources for allocation in 2005–06 to the four growth areas;
  A growth areas adjustment as part of future PCT allocations. This will apply from 2006–07. The detail of this adjustment will be worked through as part of Department of Health's review of its allocations policy, which will take place later this year. It will ensure PCTs have the resources to put in place the additional capacity that planned population growth will require.

  The aim will be to ensure additional health and social care capacity (both primary and community and hospital-based services) is ready to open as new populations move into the areas. NHS and social care organisations will need to play a key role in each of the delivery vehicles being set up in the growth areas. Early engagement will ensure that they can respond positively to population growth; planning innovative services integrated where possible into other aspects of the public and civic infrastructure (e.g. health facilities with local libraries, schools, or shops) and to help to design urban developments so that they promote healthy sustainable communities and tackle health inequalities. Staffing the extra service capacity required in the four growth areas will also be a major challenge for Health Service and other delivery partners. The optimal solution is to train and employ local people, both to aid regeneration and to promote healthy, sustainable communities, but also as housing and travel difficulties are minimised.

  Education

  Improving education standards is a key objective of the Government, and of concern both for local communities and partners, and for prospective residents and investors in all the growth areas. The total capital funding available nationally for investment in school buildings has increased substantially—from less than £700 million in 1996–97 to £3.8 billion this year, and it will reach £5.1 billion in 2005–06. For example just over £400 million (including £104 million private finance initiative credits) has already been allocated to authorities, and their schools, covered by the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area, over the period 2003–06. Within this over £200 million has been allocated largely by formula, and delivered through the single capital pot, to meet modernisation and pupil needs. As part of the move to simplify the arrangements for allocating capital for pupil places, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is introducing a mechanism whereby local education authorities can apply for additional capital support to meet exceptional circumstances, including unusually high levels of growth. The DfES will be discussing with rapid growth authorities their plans and funding needs.

  Within the total capital support a major component that will address capacity and help all four growth areas is the Building Schools for the Future programme. This is a programme of rebuilding and
  WS 6
  refurbishment to ensure that secondary education has facilities of 21st century standards. The aim is to deliver this goal successfully within 10 to 15 years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions. £2 billion is available for the programme from 2005–06. An announcement on the first wave authorities was made on 12 February, and a further announcement about future waves will be made later this year.

  Local government services

  More generally, rapidly growing populations can place substantial additional demand on services provided by local government. My right honourable friend, the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has agreed to consider the impact of ceilings on rapid growth areas in the local government revenue support grant system and to do this in advance of the 2005–06 allocations.

  Transport

  Planning for large-scale growth also offers opportunities for a more sustainable approach to transport through integrated decisions on development—location, design, density and mix of uses, linking with policies on the environment, health and education to create more sustainable travel choices.

  The local transport settlement in December 2003 included approval for a number of important schemes in the newer growth areas including the Cambridge to Huntingdon guided bus £65 million, Luton-Dunstable guided bus £78 million, Milton Keynes integrated transport £15 million (including ODPM funding) the Northampton quality bus network £8 million.

  On strategic transport the newer growth areas will benefit from major commitments on rail such as west coast main line and on strategic roads, such as the M 11 junctions 8 to 9 widening, and the A 14 in London-Stansted-Cambridge. In Milton Keynes/South Midlands the schemes added last year to the Highways Agency programme included (M1 widening from Luton (Junctions 6a to 10) and Luton to Milton Keynes (Junctions 10 to 13), A421 dualling (M1 junction 13 to Bedford) and the Dunstable northern bypass (A5 to M1 link), (in total over £820 million of investment), and Ashford M20, Junction 10A on the M20—decision last December.

  In terms of other possible transport infrastructure schemes, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Department for Transport on the interface between growth and transport capacity, as in the study commissioned to look at these issues in the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough area. Decisions on specific proposals and priorities clearly need to be informed by a robust evidence base. On the proposal for an east-west rail link between Oxford and Bedford, we are carefully considering the business case developed by the consortium and its potential in relation to future development and in supporting east-west strategic direction across the growth area. Future decisions on any new rail projects and announcements

  WS 7
  will be taken in the light of the results of the Department for Transport's review of rail industry structure and organisation and the outcome of this year's spending review announcement.

  Significant progress has also been made over the past six months towards realising enhanced transport infrastructure to support growth in the Gateway. This includes consultation by the Strategic Rail Authority on an integrated Kent franchise that incorporates Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic services to Stratford, Ebbsfleet, Medway, Sittingbourne and on to Ashford and east Kent; a provisional offer (subject to conditions) from the Department for Transport of £200 million of private finance initiative credits towards the construction of the Thames Gateway bridge; agreement between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Transport for London to jointly fund the improvement of the A206 in Bexley; and the approval by the Department for Transport of a Transport and Works Act application to extend the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from the Royal Docks under the River Thames to Woolwich. The first phase of the west Thurrock regeneration ring road will shortly be completed, the DLR extension to City Airport is on site and on programme, and the construction of the second Swale crossing in Kent will commence this year.

  Water and natural resources

  We are committed to household growth that is located and designed in ways that respect the environment and minimise resource use. New homes and neighbourhoods should be built to new and exacting standards of resource efficiency as an investment for the future. The Sustainable Buildings Task Group has been asked to make recommendations to government on how this can be done in new and existing homes.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the growth areas have the water they need and necessary sewerage infrastructure. The relevant water undertakers and environmental regulators have been involved in the development of the growth area proposals. Opportunities for developing sustainable new water resources in the south-east are very limited, so improving the management of water demand by improved conservation of existing resources will be crucial. Water companies will need to identify options for demand management, including better leakage control and higher levels of water efficiency. And we will support innovative solutions for water management. In Ashford, for example, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing funding for an integrated water management strategy (covering water supply, wastewater treatment, and flood defence and alleviation) by the Environment Agency.

  Additional funding for local infrastructure

  Through the Growth Areas Fund administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Government have made £446 million available to the Thames Gateway and £164 million available to the three newer
  WS 8
  growth areas for the three financial years 2003–06. A key objective of the funding is to remove the barriers to implementation in the major growth sites.

  In the newer growth areas examples of recent funding include £20 million to support infrastructure and site works for the new communities around Cambridge, £5 million to progress the Bedford western bypass which has the potential to unlock 3.500 dwellings and similar projects in Northampton, Wellingborough and other locations. We are also funding preparatory work to plan new services; for example £0.8 million has been awarded to plan local healthcare services and better health across the subregion and funding has been provided for a range of master planning and economic visioning studies. We are improving the environment. Overall in the four growth areas, around £30 million has been allocated to greenspace projects, to create new strategic green buffer areas and improve countryside access around key growth locations, for example, Rainham Marshes, the new Nene Valley Regional Park in Northamptonshire, and extensions to the Forest of Marston Vale. Funding post 2005–06 will be determined through Government's expenditure review this year.

  In the Thames Gateway funding has been allocated towards land acquisition and site preparation in key brownfield areas including lower Lea, and Rochester riverside, and the completion of the A206 Thamesmead spine road in Bexley. Support has been provided for the renewal of key town centres at Barking, Dartford and Gravesend, and to expand the University Campuses at Southend and Medway.

  Delivery Mechanisms

  To deliver all this needs a concerted approach between partners. Within government a Cabinet committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, brings all the key departments together to consider issues around growth in the south-east. In the newer growth areas we have established, at the sub-regional level, a new inter-regional board for the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area which brings together regional and local partners across the three regions to focus on strategic issues and implementation. At the local delivery level we are establishing six new vehicles after consultation with local partners—local authority-led vehicles at Cambridge, Ashford, Bedford and Aylesbury and subject to consultation, an urban development corporation (UDC) for west Northamptonshire and a urban development area for Milton Keynes. Further discussions are under way for other growth locations.

  In the Thames Gateway we are establishing a new gateway delivery office to manage the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funding programme, and local partnerships which will focus on the key development and will co-ordinate partner inputs around an agreed framework. These include two urban development corporations, one already established in Thurrock, and a second (subject to parliamentary approval) in east London, a URC in Southend and partnerships in Kent Thameside, Basildon, Medway, and Swale.
  WS 9
  For many key locations in the growth areas, development is already under way, implementing existing plans. We want to ensure early delivery and the measures we are taking will support this as well as laying the foundations for future growth. The scale, location and timing of that future growth will be determined through the regional planning guidance process, including independent testing and examination, which will begin shortly for the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area and the Government will revise their plans as necessary to take account of that process.

  Doctors and Dentists Remuneration
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health made the following Written Ministerial Statement on 11 March.

  I am responding on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the 33rd 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.

  Mortgage Market
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Gordon Brown) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
  WS 10
  Professor David Miles's report, The UK Mortgage Market: Taking a Longer-term View, Final Report and Recommendations, is published today. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.

  Low Pay Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Statement.

  In July 2003 I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to report on the national minimum wage by the end of February 2004.

  The Government are today publishing the commission's 2004 report and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair of the commission. Adair Turner, and its other members for their work on this very important issue.

  We asked the commission to consider two issues. We asked it to look at possible fine-tuning of the minimum wage rates proposed for October 2004, in the light of the latest economic position; and we asked it, following the recommendation in its fourth report last spring, to look at the possible introduction of a new minimum wage rate for 16 and 17 year-olds.

  The commission has concluded, first, that the overall economic outlook remains favourable, with growth being slightly higher than forecast last year and the labour market remaining robust with high employment and very low unemployment. In addition, employment across low-paying sectors as a whole is continuing to grow and there seems to be little or no evidence that the minimum wage is having an adverse impact on these sectors. On the basis that the commission believes these recommendations are affordable for business and will not have any significant effect on levels of employment, the Government have accepted the recommended rate increases for 2004.

  The commission has also considered whether to introduce a new minimum wage rate for 16 and 17 year-old workers. It has found continued evidence that some jobs in this age group offer very low rates of pay and little or no training, and concluded that it is important to introduce a minimum wage for 16 and 17 year-old workers in order to stop exploitative rates of pay.

  However it is clearly important to set any rate for this group cautiously. Unemployment and employment levels for 16 and 17 year-old workers are substantially worse than those for those aged 18 to 21. The commission believes that a rate of around £3.00 per hour would have negligible impact on young people's decisions on whether to remain in education, and the national implementation of education and maintenance allowances this autumn will encourage young people to stay on in education after they have completed compulsory schooling. The commission has therefore recommended that a rate should be

  WS 11
  introduced for 16 and 17 year-olds, at £3 in October 2004. The Government have accepted this recommendation.

  The commission has also considered the position of young apprentices. Many young apprentices earn less than £3 an hour at 16 and 17, and many 18 year-old apprentices earn less than the development rate of £4.10 an hour. We are very concerned to ensure that employers continue to offer apprenticeships and, recognising the need for caution, the commission has recommended extending the current exemption for apprentices aged under 19 to cover 16 and 17 year-old apprentices as well. It has also recommended extending this exemption to cover participants on specified pre-apprenticeship programmes. The Government have accepted this recommendation.

  I have placed copies of this Statement, the report from the Low Pay Commission and our regulatory impact assessment in the House Libraries.

  Summary of recommendations in the Low Pay Commission's 2004 report and the Government's response

  National Minimum Wage Rates

  The adult rate of the minimum wage should be increased from the present hourly rate of £4.50 to £4.85 in October 2004.
  WS 12
  Accept. This increase will take place on 1 October 2004.

  The youth rate (which applies to 18 to 21 year-olds) should be increased from the present hourly rate of £3.80 to £4.10 in October 2004.

  Accept. This increase will take place on 1 October 2004.

  Young People

  The Government should introduce a minimum wage for 16 to 17 year-olds, set at an hourly rate of £3 in October 2004.

  Accept. We will introduce a new minimum wage rate for 16 to 17 year-olds on 1 October 2004.

  Apprentices aged 16 and 17 and participants on specified pre-apprenticeship programmes should be exempt from the new rate.

  Accept.

  Awareness

  The Government should consider specific channels to promote awareness of the minimum wage for young people.

  Accept. We will consider this point when developing the publicity campaign to inform people of the new rates this autumn.