Sitting of 26 March 2004

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

PRAYERS
The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34 am
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased to be able to propose the Bill and I thank its sponsors, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who cannot be here this morning—my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), and finally the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).
  The Bill has cross-party support in the House and has a lot of support in the country among trade unions and people working in the retail trade, but it also has resonance in the faith communities and the Churches, from whom I have received many letters of support. The Bill resonates with ordinary people who want to protect Christmas day as that one day in the year on which they can come together with their families to cherish a special day.
  Christmas is about giving gifts, but many of us think it is more than just another shopping day. Certainly many in this House and the country do not think that giving gifts and the commercialism of Christmas should be at the expense of those who work in the retail industry. USDAW, the shop workers union, represents 2.6 million workers—not just in the retail trade, but in the distribution industry—and it supports the Bill, as do the main established Churches. Others, including campaigns such as Keep Sunday Special, support the Bill.
  That is why the Bill is important. It would allow shop workers and those in the retail trade in England and Wales to spend Christmas day with their families, something that many, including MPs, take for granted.
  1156
  The Bill would prevent large shops from opening on Christmas day and would simply correct an anomaly in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that allows shops to open on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday. As people would expect, the Bill is based on the provisions of the 1994 Act. The Bill will adopt the same exemptions from prohibition as contained in the Act; those will include farm shops, motorcycle supply shops, stands and exhibitions, pharmacies for the sale of medicines, shops at airports and railway stations, shops servicing oceangoing liners, and shops at petrol stations and motorway service stations. If the prohibition from opening on Christmas day is broken, the occupiers shall be liable to conviction by fine not exceeding £50,000.
  Larger shops are defined in exactly the same way in the Bill as in the 1994 Act. Therefore the definition of a large shop will be one with a relevant floor space over 280 sq m, or—for the traditionalists or Eurosceptics in the House—3,000 sq ft. In the same way, the definitions of retail customer and of shop are identical to those in the 1994 Act.
  Clause 2 of the Bill sets out the enforcement provisions, which will be the responsibility of local authorities, who will appoint enforcement officers. As is outlined in the explanatory notes, the enforcement will lead to a potential increase in expenditure for local authorities, but the cost will be relatively negligible.
  I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the inspectors who would enforce this Act would have the same powers as those under the 1994 Act. Those powers would allow inspectors to enter premises in a local authority area at all reasonable hours, to view them and to take copies of records relating to any business conducted there. It would be an offence for anyone to obstruct an inspector in carrying out his or her duties.
  The Bill applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, Christmas day trading is a matter for the Scottish Executive, and I understand that a similar Bill is currently being considered there.
  The principles underlying the Bill have the support of the vast majority of the country's people. Christmas day should be a unique day—the one day in the year when people can come together with their families. The Bill seeks to preserve the special nature of that day. It would also, very importantly, protect the interests of those working in the retail trade. It has been suggested that the Bill is simply a trade union Bill, promoted by USDAW. As a Labour MP and a former trade union official I would have no problem with that, but I must stress that the Bill in fact has wider support, including from the Churches and ordinary members of the public. People would be making a great mistake if they thought that the Bill was just about shop workers.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman knows that I want to support him later, in the Lobbies if necessary, but just before he leaves that point, and in order not to delay the House further, will he accept that a significant number of Members on both sides, who were present in 1994 and who are practising Christians, want to protect both Easter and Christmas day? That protection should be continued. All the Bill

  1157
  does, in effect, is to enforce what was the will of the House at that time—without which the original Sunday Trading Bill would probably not have been passed.
  Mr. Jones: As I was not in the House at that time, I cannot comment on the individual occasion; but I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Most people assumed that the 1994 Act covered Christmas day, and that was certainly the sentiment of the House and of those Members who supported that Bill.
  In December, I tabled early-day motion 327, which emphasised the need to protect and preserve the special nature of Christmas day and called on the Government to introduce legislation to do that. That early-day motion is supported by 199 right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions.
  Another question that has been asked is why we should introduce the Bill now. There is evidence, from the shop workers union USDAW and other sources, that certain shops are starting to test the market and open on Christmas day. There is a danger that we could get a domino effect: once one or two shops start to open, others might start to do so as well. The market pressures on retailers could become so intense that people had to open, and before long, Christmas day would be the same as any other trading day.
  This is the third time there has been an attempt to correct this anomaly in the 1994 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich introduced a similar private Member's Bill in 2001, which again had cross-party support but unfortunately ran out of time because of the general election that year. The Bill was subsequently introduced in the other place by Lord Davies of Coity, and promoted in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I put on record my tribute to those hon. Friends for their work to date to promote their Bill, although it was, unfortunately, unsuccessful.
  Following that failure, the Government went out to public consultation on the provisions, to find out what people thought about ending the anomaly in the 1994 Act. The consultation showed that the vast majority of supermarkets that would be affected by the provisions did not oppose them. Some 97 per cent. of respondents, of whom 15 per cent. were major retailers, said that they favoured the introduction of restrictions on Christmas day trading. Support for legislation also came from across the retail sector. Although the Association of Convenience Stores called on the Government to take the interests of small stores into account, its chief executive, David Rae, stated that the ACS supported the proposals to prevent larger shops from opening on Christmas day.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has carried out a regulatory impact assessment on the effects of introducing restrictions on Christmas day trading, and its report clearly states that the effects would be negligible. However, as I have said, we should not ignore the possibility that once certain large retailers begin to open, others might follow suit. That domino effect has already begun. In 2000, large stores such as Sainsbury's
  1158
  and Woolworth's broke with tradition and carried out Christmas day opening trials in London, and there is evidence that other stores will try such experiments.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We could reach the absurd situation, if that is the thin end of the wedge—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Let us see the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Skinner: I am trying to address my hon. Friend, and trying to get in an appropriate position for the microphone.
  We could finish up in the absurd situation not only of having shops open on Christmas day, but there being the likelihood of a reality TV programme showing the Member for Kensington and Chelsea working in Asda on Christmas day.
  Mr. Jones: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the present right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) or the future one.
  I draw the House's attention to the fact that certain non-food retailers such as Woolworth's are experimenting with Christmas day trading—so this is not just a matter of catering for people who find on Christmas day that they have run out of the odd jar of cranberry sauce or packet of stuffing. The main products of a store such as Woolworth's are non-food. Of course, we all agree that essential services must operate all year round, but I argue strongly that the opening of large supermarkets on Christmas day does not constitute an essential service. I do not know of any recorded instance of anyone starving to death because Sainsbury's was not open on Christmas day. If I, or any other hon. Member, had forgotten the Brussels sprouts or brandy butter, that would be a minor inconvenience, and we would have the option of eating something else. I do not see why families of shop workers should have to sacrifice Christmas day to avoid the inconvenience that I and others might suffer. I do not think that it is worth destroying the unique nature of Christmas day to cater for someone's slight inconvenience or absentmindedness.
  Today, 12 per cent. of employers give employees time off for Christmas shopping, so there is not a strong argument for giving people an extra day of the year—Christmas day—to complete their Christmas shopping.
  The House and the nation need to ask whether the public price of ruining a unique, special day is worth paying to allow larger shops to open. Christmas day would then become just like any other day of the year. If it did become an ordinary shopping day like any other, there would also be a ripple effect in terms of costs to the taxpayer, because there would be an increase in traffic.
  There would obviously be extra transport needs, and the ripple effect would go beyond retail into distribution and the manufacturers who supply the retail trade. Thousands of people could have their Christmas day ruined.
  Obviously, in a free society, we need consumer choice, and the Bill retains that by allowing local convenience stores and stores under 3,000 sq ft to open, but it will protect what is a special day of the year.

  1159
  Some argue that retail workers should have the choice to work voluntarily, but my experience and the evidence of shop workers suggest that voluntarism is a mythological concept. In practice, pressure is put on people, and if they do not volunteer to work on Christmas day they are victimised or made to feel that they are less committed to the company than fellow workers.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the role of the trade unions, and USDAW in particular, in protecting their members? I refer to the provisions of schedule 4 to the 1994 Act, which refer to Sundays, but which I believe are also relevant here. If there is victimisation, what is the union doing about it?
  Mr. Jones: The union does sterling work in protecting its members in the retail trade, and I congratulate Sir Bill Connor on his campaign to protect workers in the retail trade from the attacks that they suffer every day. It is fine to say that people should be free to work on Christmas day, but many of the large stores are not unionised and employ very low-paid women workers, and it is not acceptable for them to be forced to work or face victimisation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a libertarian, and we could discuss the hellish view of society that he favours, but I want to ensure that people have a genuine choice about whether to work on Christmas day.
  Christmas day is a Christian holiday, but it also has a resonance for other faiths. It is a traditional time for families to come together and enjoy a special quiet day. It is right, in a predominantly Christian society, to recognise the Christian holidays. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made that point eloquently last time this was debated in the House. There have been calls for other faith days to be celebrated, but I think that that would be impractical, and as a Christian nation we should recognise the Christian holidays first, allowing people of all faiths to enjoy them.
  Phil Sawford: My eldest son worked in non-food retail for about eight years. On Christmas eve, he would arrive home shattered—exhausted. On Christmas day, all he wanted to do was rest and get some sleep before the mayhem of the sales that would start on Boxing day. That had an impact on the whole family. It is not just about trade unions, the Church or religion. Does my hon. Friend agree that the family is at the heart of this legislation?
  Mr. Jones: I totally agree, and it is also about the individual. My hon. Friend is right to point out that people in the retail trade work very hard in December. They work long hours, seven days a week, and to add the further burden of Christmas day would be intolerable not only for their family life but for their health.
  Britain was once described as a nation of shopkeepers, and some may argue that we have become a nation of shoppers, but I do not accept that this should extend to Christmas day. Christmas day trading would mean the end of the peace and quiet of people living in towns and near out-of-town retail centres. Surely people should be allowed at least one day of the year to enjoy their peace and quiet, even in modern Britain?
  1160
  I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and ensure that we not only protect those working in the retail trade but preserve the unique nature of Christmas day—something that we have all taken for granted for a very long time.
  9.56 am
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to support the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in his promotion of a very sensible and moderate measure. I am one of those anti-libertarian, old-fashioned Tories who rejoiced when Mrs. Thatcher's attempt to impose Sunday trading was defeated, and who deplored the fact that the—in so many ways—admirable John Major brought that Bill back. I voted against it again.
  During the period before Sunday trading was imposed on us, we had a series of big stores flouting the rules, just as the hon. Gentleman described Woolworth and Sainsbury's doing on Christmas day. We all knew that it was the thin end of the wedge. We knew what would happen, and it did. I opposed Sunday trading as vigorously as I did because the one thing I did not want in this country was a high street Sunday. I said that if we passed the legislation, we would have one—and we have one.
  Anyone who drives into London on a Sunday, as I frequently have to do now that we have these absurd new hours of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have some support among Government Members. I find that London, which used to be quite pleasant on a Sunday, is now congested and crowded with people shopping.
  That has all happened, and 1 am not so starry eyed as to believe that we can reverse it, much as I would like to do so. It is all part of the increasing secularisation of our society, with so many people living up to the old Oscar Wilde dictum of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I deplore that. We do, however, have Christmas day. Occasionally, it falls on a Sunday—but only occasionally. The Bill is designed simply to carve out that one day.
  It was the intention of most of my colleagues who supported Sunday trading that Christmas should not be invaded. The Sunday Trading Bill was, like so many Bills, not as well drawn as it should have been, so Christmas day, if it does not fall on a Sunday, is vulnerable. The Bill will redress that. It does so not only in the interests of the Christian Church, although I make no apology for saying that that is a good thing. We are, as the hon. Member for North Durham said, a Christian society, and we have an established Church. I am pleased that we do, and I hope that we will have one for many long years to come.
  I might add that that is a view shared by many Muslims, Jews and people of other faiths. They respect the fact that we have an established Church. It is appalling that a country with an established Church should say that on one of its two greatest festivals, pressure—however direct or indirect—will be put on certain people to go to work, thereby driving a nail into family life.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman mentions the pressaure on family life as a result of shops opening on Sundays, but is it not true that most shop workers are women, and that they already experience phenomenal pressure on Christmas day as a result of getting the meal ready and ensuring that their families have a nice day—let alone having to work on it?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course they do, but it is the sort of pressure in which most families rejoice. It is the big meal of the year, and they enjoy preparing it and having their families around them. They want to be free to celebrate a traditional Christmas, and I want them to be free so to do, if that is their desire.
  The Bill simply provides a safeguard for some of the least well paid in the community. Of course, it can be argued that there are those who always work on Christmas day. For example, a son of mine managed a hotel for some years and he was incredibly busy, but that was a matter of choice. I might say that there was always the opportunity for the guests—and indeed the staff—to go to church, but that is another point. But many shop workers are among the lowest paid, and although my libertarian right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might say in his interjection, "What are the unions doing to protect their workers?"—
  Mr. Forth: I did.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: There are two answers to that question. I believe that they genuinely try to protect them, but there are insidious pressures, as we all know. The other answer, of course, was given to my right hon. Friend by the Bill's promoter: a lot of shop workers are not members of a union.
  Mr. Forth: Why not?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As a libertarian, my right hon. Friend should jolly well welcome the fact that they are not. He tries to have it both ways all the time. He is the arch-maverick wrecker of Parliament.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Had he not been so indiscriminate in his wrecking tactics when first we had a Labour Government with a large majority, keeping the House up night after night for spurious reasons, we would not now be suffering the current sitting hours. Frankly, he should realise that he, more than any other individual, has destroyed the parliamentary pattern, and he has destroyed enough. Now I shall give way.
  Mr. Forth: I am glad of this opportunity to allow my hon. Friend to calm down a bit. He says that I am having it both ways. That is what I try to do all the time here, and I succeed at some times but not others. I am rather intrigued by his saying that the unions are doing their best to protect vulnerable workers, but that vulnerable workers who are being exploited choose not to join a union. There is a circularity in that argument that I find
  1162
  difficult to follow. If workers believe that unions can help them, they are free to join them, and if the unions are any good, they should be able to help them.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend knows full well that that is not the reality of life. Many who work in such places do not necessarily wish to be members of unions, and others are subject to the insidious pressures to which I referred. We all know how that can be exerted; if someone will not do a certain thing, they will not get overtime. Or if the question of who is going to be laid off first arises, the answer is, "The person who is least flexible. We'll put them to one side."
  This very modest Bill merely seeks to protect the people in my constituency, and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who are most vulnerable. But it is not about the trade unions; it is about the fact that Christmas day is one of very few days of the year that are truly special for the vast majority of our people. It tries, very modestly, to ring-fence that speciality.
  The hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) spoke about his son in the retail trade, and in doing so he illustrated just how commercial our society has become. Only a few years ago, not only Christmas day but Boxing day was special, and the earliest date for the sales was 27 or 28 December; now, throughout the country it is 26 December. [Interruption.] As we all know, the 24th has traditionally been a day of great commercial activity, and nobody objects to that, but when the tills closed at 6 o'clock on Christmas eve, they did so for a good two clear days. Now, they do not.
  All that we are seeking to do is to put our constituents first. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to do the same, and to say that they deserve this one day. Whether one lives in Bromley and Chislehurst, South Staffordshire, Bootle or Bognor, one is entitled to have Christmas day as a special day, and Parliament has a duty to ring-fence it. The Bill is modest and moderate and I hope that it will pass on to the statue book with great alacrity, and be enforced long before Christmas 2004. I hope that the Minister will, with commendable brevity, give his unreserved support to it. When my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) speaks, I hope that he will endorse—with perhaps even greater brevity—what the Minister says, and when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) speaks, I hope that he will do the same. This is not a party issue but a national issue. It is a very small national cause. but an extremely worthy one, and I warmly commend the Bill.
  10.6 am
  Ms Ann Coffey: I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his choice. I agree with all the points that he eloquently made in support of it. When we passed the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which enabled large shops to open on Sundays for six hours, the House debated carefully the question of shops opening on Easter Sunday, and it took the firm decision to protect that as a special day. I do not recollect our discussing Christmas day, but perhaps that was because the legislation focused on Sundays, and because it was inconceivable to Members that large

  1163
  shops would open on Christmas day and that it would become just another shopping day. That was an oversight on our part. The Bill does away with that possibility by protecting Christmas day, which is the wish of the majority of people. In supporting the Bill we have the support of the British people, and I shall vote for it in the Lobby.
  10.8 am
  Lembit öpik: This is a free vote issue for Liberal Democrats because it is a question of moral judgment, but I side with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). He simply seeks to emulate existing legislation by extending it to Christmas day, so the question is merely whether one agrees with the underlying principle. In my contribution, I shall focus on why I do.
  Members may be relieved to know that I, too, am a libertarian—in fact, I have been defined as such by the University of Hull. It determined that I have the most libertarian voting record of any member of my party, which in itself should be fairly liberal-minded, given its name.
  In essence, libertarianism is defined as the freedom to live life and to harm oneself—as long as one can show that one is conscious of the harm that is thereby being done—but not to harm others. The harm principle is the core of this discussion, because it applies to those who are compelled by others to work on Christmas day. It is not intellectually rigorous to pretend that there is no harm involved in making people work on Christmas day. I should tell those who oppose the legislation that it is not about unions.
  We certainly could have a debate about what the unions have done and want to do, but that would be a sideshow and distraction from the Bill. Furthermore, the debate is not really about deciding whether other creeds or religions should have the same representation—not least because we are discussing a clearly defined issue here. We can always debate those issues—they are not mutually exclusive—in different circumstances. Given that Britain already has fewer public holidays than just about any other European country, there is heavy pressure on us to support the Bill on the two main bases of the harm principle and equalisation of free time between countries.
  Finally, I would like to reinforce the point that it is not possible to have it both ways. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to announce with satisfaction that he tries to have it both ways—sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing—but that is somewhat disrespectful to the general public, who do not regard these questions as a game. It is not reasonable to assume that postponing or preventing the Bill's passage is anything other than a personal—and, I have to say, somewhat—egotistical victory. It is an important Bill and should be treated as such.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows that I often agree with him on matters associated with freedom, not to amention on the new hours of the House. He should therefore reflect seriously on the fact that someone who is predisposed to share the same libertarian values as him has a totally different view on this Bill. I counsel him to think with some humility about his motives in trying to postpone the Bill. I hope that he will think again.
  10.11 am
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I declare an interest from the outset, as I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. My details are in the register, and I am also the chairman of the USDAW branch in Parliament. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on persisting with this fairly long-running debate, which has been knocked back—perhaps by nothing more than coincidence—in previous years. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on his excellent contribution to the debate.
  I shall be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already covered the main points. We must remember that we are talking about many thousands of shop workers who are already under a great deal of pressure. They are not well paid and they are often regarded by the public—including themselves, I suppose, when they are shopping—as part of the furniture in stores. USDAW has had an extremely successful campaign over the last 12 months in drawing attention to the large amount of aggression and abuse that is directed at shop workers. The union has uncovered a hidden problem, and it is trying to highlight in the public mind the fact that shop workers are people with human rights.
  The Bill is about one single day in the year. It is designed to nip in the bud the practice of large retail outlets opening on Christmas day. For all the reasons that have been mentioned, we need to stop that now. It is not only workers in the large stores who are affected; the people who have to supply the large stores, who have to carry out waste disposal, who have to manage the traffic and so forth are all affected by the opening of large stores on Christmas day.
  Competition is also relevant. The irony is that virtually all the stores that USDAW consulted said that they did not want to open, but if one of them opens, the competition and margins are so tight that all the competitors will want to open up, too. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire explained, the problem will escalate. The stores are saying to us, "We do not want to open, so will you please legislate to stop us doing so?" That is ironic, but that is the position.
  It is no use saying that the matter can be left to volunteering—that the workers in the stores can say yes or no. We all know what volunteering means in this place when there is a one-line Whip: we are free to attend or not, but as every Member who has ever run into a Whip knows, it is not as easy as that. Large stores cannot be staffed with many hundreds of volunteer employees: it is an impossibility As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire described perfectly, the reality of volunteering is heavy pressure on each shift in the light of how much business has been generated at the end of the month or year.
  People outside the House would be truly astonished if this modest and moderate measure were objected to. The Bill is simple, just and proper, and I believe that about 99 per cent. of the population would be astonished to find any opposition to it.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Pickthall: I am about to finish.

  1165
  I urge support for the Bill, whose passage will be met with acclaim by everyone outside Parliament.
  10.16 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: I greatly support the Bill, conscious of the fact that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I gave full support to the Conservative Government's Shops Bill 1986, which was intended to allow shops and other businesses to open on a Sunday. The House will recall that that Bill did not succeed. It was the largest revolt by Government Back Benchers ever, until the Higher Education Bill this year—and, perhaps, until next week! Opposition to the Shops Bill was encouraged by an unholy alliance between the Churches and the trade unions, which both wanted the law to restrict what people could do on Sundays. I supported the Shops Bill because it included protection for those who did not want to work on a Sunday.
  The Bill before us today confirms the protection that this country has always given to the special place of Christmas day in our society. Such protection is much the same as that which every Christian country gives to Christmas day. Many more Christians go to church for mass or a service on Christmas day than attend church regularly on Sundays. As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, Christmas is the one day of the year when most families come together and when good people go out of their way to find and provide for those with no families. There is therefore no case for our high streets to be busy on Christmas day. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I believe that few people in this country would wish other than for it to be passed.
  I felt one hesitation when the hon. Member for North Durham announced his Bill, following his good fortune in the ballot. It arose from my own experience in my first job, which was working in a family business in the motor trade. It had two petrol filling stations and was a small business with an enviable reputation for fair dealing and service to customers. To provide such service, we opened to supply petrol every Christmas day. I well recall opening Chalkwell motor company in London road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex at 9 o'clock on Christmas day for several years, closing at 1 o'clock to speed home for Christmas lunch. We provided a service that was appreciated by our regular customers and by many others who found that most filling stations were closed on Christmas day. I am encouraged by the fact that the Bill excludes petrol stations, as well as small convenience stores.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on introducing the Bill, and I congratulate USDAW on its campaign in support of the Bill. Half the union's members appear to be in the House today. I hope that the Bill succeeds.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall be brief, because I want to see the Bill go through as quickly as possible. However, I wish to give a little support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He is old enough, and certainly
  1166
  ugly enough, to look after himself, but to attack him for seeking to wreck the parliamentary process is undeserved. He is probably one of the greatest proponents and defenders of parliamentary democracy on either side of the House, and always has been. He and I disagree honourably on occasions, as on this, but I defend his right to use such parliamentary measures as he sees fit to promote what he believes in, as I now propose to promote what I believe in.
  In that context, I hope that my right hon. Friend will retain his seat for the rest of the morning and not see fit to intervene on this occasion. I am one of those who proudly and—I hope—honourably voted against the Shops Bill in 1986. It was not so bad. My toenails grew again, after the Whips' attentions. I was equally proud to have my name on the list in the handbag for several years afterwards.
  When the Sunday Trading Act 1994 went through, it was on the clear understanding that as there was an established Church in this country, we had two specific, very holy days in the calendar. One was Easter Sunday, which is protected because it always falls on a Sunday, and the other was Christmas day. It was wrongly and—it transpires—naively assumed that Christmas day would also be protected. Setting aside all the other arguments that have been made this morning, all the Bill seeks to do is to correct an error in that Act.
  My right hon. Friend is acutely aware of the fact that those hon. Friends of ours who helped the 1994 Act go through—I must say that I voted against it—did so on the clear understanding that Easter Sunday and Christmas day would be protected. This morning's debate is about the restoration of that tiny piece of democracy, to put right what is now perceived to have been a wrong and to reinforce the will of the House at that time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that and give the Bill the fair wind that it deserves.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I do not wish to get involved in arguments that our party may have had in the past—which are still obviously very much alive—so perhaps I could find a third way: I wish to take issue with the definition of a large shop. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on coming so high in the ballot and bringing this Bill before the House. It is a great opportunity.
  However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the case of Stan's Shop in my constituency. It was started by a gentleman called Stan Faulks, with his demob money, shortly after the war. At the time, it was a little shop. It has been a tradition that the shop opens for a couple of hours on Christmas morning, originally to provide batteries for disappointed children whose parents had forgotten to buy them when they bought electronic toys as presents. It was a community service and there was no pressure on staff. I endorse everything that has been said about preserving the nature of Christmas and would not want to see any compulsion on people to work.
  The problem is that Stan's Shop is no longer a little shop: it is a large shop. It now covers an area of 22,500 sq ft, having been developed by Stan's son and grandson. The family work in it and it is—in terms of the

  1167
  Bill—a large shop, but it has all the attributes of a little shop. It provides a wonderful local service and it is very popular. It also maintains the tradition of opening for two hours, from 10 to 12, on Christmas morning. Does that really impinge on the nature of Christmas in my area? It is a strong farming community, where the cows have to be milked on Christmas morning and evening. Stan's Shop is a family enterprise. Half a dozen girls and boys come in to help in the shop and, although I have not been there on Christmas day, I understand that there is a festive atmosphere. As I said, it also provides a useful service. For instance, last Christmas, a lady in Shrewsbury found when she defrosted her turkey that it had gone off. Her Christmas would have been spoilt, but she drove up from Shrewsbury and Stan's Shop provided—as always—what she needed.
  I entirely endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack); I do not want to see Christmas being spoiled. I also agree with him about the nature of Sunday having changed in London. However, I hope that we can look at the Bill a little more carefully with regard to splendid institutions such as Stan's. It is a small family organisation that provides a valuable local service, but it would be swept up in the Bill as if it were a monster multiple. I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham will reflect on that point and be willing to tighten up the definition of a large shop.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I oppose the Bill and I shall explain why. I hope that those Members who do not often grace us with their presence on a Friday will understand that taking a position on a Bill is part of the parliamentary process and that Members are always free to turn up on Fridays and express their views one way or another on private Members' Bills. I am slightly surprised—although not shocked—that my attendance every Friday the House sits to express my views on private Members' Bills should attract such opprobrium. I thought that that was what we were here for, but perhaps I am a little old-fashioned and things have moved on.
  I wish to discuss the Bill under several headings. I shall not speak at excessive length, because that would be of little relevance on this occasion, given the time of day, although it has extreme relevance on other occasions. I have a good feel for the way in which such days work. I will, if I can persuade any of my colleagues to assist me, seek to divide the House at the end of the debate, because I wish to discover how many Members of Parliament, of the 659 of us, have taken the trouble to be here today to support the Bill. It is always important to demonstrate that and I am sure that Labour Members will also wish to do so. Those who have taken the trouble to be here would surely like that to be a matter of record, and I am sure that the public would wish to know just how much support there is for the Bill. It has been claimed repeatedly in this short debate that there is enormous support for the Bill, but I am in favour of quantifying that support, and the only way to do so is to divide the House.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before my right hon. Friend takes too much criticism for the time that he takes to discuss these matters, will he
  1168
  reflect on the fact that one of the longest speeches we have had in recent times on a private Member's Bill was made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), when he attempted to stop a Bill making progress? My right hon. Friend does not hold the record: it is held by a Labour Back Bencher, who may have been acting on orders.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I am a fan of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is my role model and I sometimes wish that I could do half as well as he does. [Interruption.] Here he is, to enjoy my praise. It is no good Members turning up once in a blue moon to support a Bill that they happen to favour and to criticise regular attenders, like the hon. Gentleman and myself. It will not do. For that reason, all the personal criticisms that are aimed at me from time to time bounce right off. Being here every Friday inures one to such comments.
  I shall press on with my attempt to analyse the Bill and its background. I have a few introductory remarks, then I shall address the Bill itself, and I shall then indicate appropriate amendments for subsequent stages of the Bill, which I hope will be helpful to colleagues. I shall start head on with the proposition about choice and freedom. Of course, it is important, that we consider how to balance individual personal freedoms in a mature society—even, dare I say it, in a mature consumer society. I use that term—I hope that it will appeal to Labour Members—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made little secret of the fact that it is the consumers in our society who have provided the economic growth that has contributed to the fall in unemployment of which the Government are so proud. Let us not decry the role of the consumer in our society.
  There is a danger in debates such as this that people start to talk about consumers as though they were pariahs, but in our modern society—where, sadly, manufacturing sector employment has shrunk to less than 20 per cent.—employment has been generated in the retail and service sectors. Any attempt that we make to restrict the activity of those sectors, on this day or that, or for this reason or that, must be weighed very carefully indeed. That consideration has been missing so far in the debate. Let us bear in mind that we live in a consumer society and that the consumption of goods and services and the retail and hospitality sectors are extremely important components of our economy; we interfere with them at our risk.
  That is a general background for the preference I always maintain and for which I have already been criticised this morning, although I make no complaint about such criticisms: I always try to come down on the side of choice, freedom and individual action, as against the arbitrary use of the law to interfere in that freedom—the Bill is an example. That is my starting position and it tends to inform my attitude to legislation such as this.
  Let us look for a moment at multiculturalism, something that rather fascinates me. I am not by instinct a multiculturalist; I do not think that any of my friends will ever have heard me refer to the concept—except, perhaps, in critical terms. I believe in monoculturalism, and I wish that those who choose to join our society would freely accept its mores and traditions, because that is the way a sound society is built. The melting-pot

  1169
  concept, which built that great country the United States, was based on that very principle and premise. I welcome that. None the less, there is a problem in relation to the Bill. Members and other people outside this place who praise the concept of multiculturalism and constantly urge on us the fact that we must respect other religions, views and beliefs, are in difficulty when it comes to provisions of the kind that we are talking about.
  I should have thought that we wanted to respect those elements in our society that are not Christian. I took the trouble to look up the 2001 census to try to put some numbers on that. Among people of working age—the 16 to 74 age group—the Christian element is 72 per cent., but the number of people with no religion, or no stated religion, was 22 per cent. The figure for the other defined religions was 4.1 per cent., and I shall run through them in order. Because we are talking about Christmas day, it is relevant for us to understand how many people in our society are not Christians and for whom that day might not be of the same relevance as it us to others. The number of Muslims was 2.6 per cent; Hindus, 1 per cent; Sikhs, 0.6 per cent; Jews, 0.4 per cent; other, 0.3 per cent; and Buddhists, 0.2 per cent.
  I mention those figures because we must not make the glib assumption that our law has to be directed in such a way as simply to satisfy the Christian element in our society. If we are serious about multiculturalism, and about acknowledging the beliefs and the freedom to act of those who follow other religions, we must take that into account.
  Incidentally, in case anyone is curious, the census figures for the religion of the wholesale and retail element in the working population are broadly the same as those I gave earlier. Christians are 72 per cent; no religion, or no stated religion, 23.5 per cent.; while the other religions that I listed comprise 6.5 per cent. If we are to follow our words with action, we must be careful not to legislate so that we prohibit the activities or behaviour of those who are not of the Christian religion. We have to meet that challenge head-on when contemplating legislation of this kind.
  Furthermore, we must not forget that many members of other religions own or operate retail outlets. At present, they are free, and should be free, to close their stores on the days that they regard as important and holy, and to open them on other days. That is important. In the Sunday Trading Act 1994, to which the Bill refers, the Jewish religion is, properly, singled out for recognition, and—as a passing thought—if we update the law on these matters we should revisit those provisions and consider whether we should identify other significant religions in our society in the same way as, at that stage, we singled out the Jewish religion. I leave that thought in the air, because that is an anomaly.
  We have heard talk of anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out that the Bill deals with an oversight in the previous legislation, although, given the parliamentary focus on Sunday trading legislation in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, I find it slightly difficult to understand how such an oversight was possible. Amendments could and should have been made to deal with it. It is interesting that we are revisiting the matter in 2004 when so much
  1170
  time has passed, but we must deal with the Bill as it is and not as it might have been—although I shall come on to the might have beens as I develop my argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) noted an interesting aspect: the anomalies that are inevitably created as soon as one makes distinctions in legislation between this or that category of item—between larger or smaller stores, in this case. I am surprised, and almost disappointed, that the anomaly created by the 1994 Act is being repeated in the Bill, because apparently the Bill wants to provide a degree of protection to those who are privileged enough to work in large stores while ignoring those who work in smaller stores. That is in itself discriminatory, which I find disappointing.
  A trade union point is relevant in this context. Employees of large stores are more likely to be trade union members and to enjoy trade union protection than those in small stores but, ironically, the Bill seeks, in effect, to give greater protection to people who are probably already protected by their union, and by the law, whereas those who have the misfortune—in these circumstances—to work for small stores appear to be completely unprotected. That is an anomaly and, in a sense, discrimination, and I am surprised that the House and the Bill's supporters apparently want it to be continued. When will we have a level playing field?
  I should have been much more sympathetic to the Bill if it had included a provision that offered the schedule 4 protection for Christmas day provided in the 1994 Act. That is a weakness that I do not understand, so perhaps when the sponsor of the Bill replies to the debate he will explain why he has not included schedule 4 protection.
  On the subject of anomalies, there is another point that has not yet been mentioned. We should not assume that Christmas day is an oasis of peace for every member of our society. Health workers, the police, the people who provide our transport and utilities and large parts of the hospitality sector are all expected to work on our behalf, providing us with support and services, on Christmas day—to say nothing of the list of exemptions to be carried forward from the 1994 Act, about which I shall speak in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) told us an emotional story about the provision that he and his family were prepared to offer the public at large on Christmas day. I welcome that and congratulate him. That story shows that there is a demand for services on Christmas day. We do not all necessarily sit in our homes, go nowhere and use no services of any kind. When we pick up the telephone on Christmas day, we expect it to work. Indeed, a large proportion of all long-distance calls are made on Christmas day. That is yet another example involving people who would not be protected by the Bill, because we simply assume that they will be working.
  We are singling out a specific section of the work force for protection under the Bill, while—apparently—glibly assuming that all those other people will be available to provide the services that we expect on Christmas day.
  Mr. Paterson: May I reiterate a point that I made earlier? There is a case for carefully considering the definition of such premises in rural areas. As I pointed out in an example from my constituency, a small

  1171
  enterprise can become a big one, and large areas of countryside with nothing else often surround such premises. They provide a valuable service, without impinging on the nature of Christmas. In a rural area, a small enterprise can become a big one and still provide the same valuable family services as before.
  Mr. Forth: That may well provide the opportunity for my hon. Friend to seek to amend the Bill, either in Committee or, as I would expect, on Report. His intervention rather neatly leads me into mentioning the exemptions in schedule I to the 1994 Act that are carried forward into the Bill, apparently uncritically and on the basis of acceptance. I wonder whether he has looked at that list of exemptions because it has a bearing on his intervention. The lists starts with
  "any shop which is at a farm and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of produce from that farm"
  That is a nod in the direction of the rural dimension that he mentions. It presumably does not cover the case that he mentions, which is why an amendment may be relevant. Let us remember that such stores can open on Sundays and that that provision would be carried forward into the Bill, as I understand it.
  Then, intriguingly, the list of exemptions continues:
  "any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor".
  That is an interesting exemption if ever I saw one. We are starting into that list of activities—either on the part of the shopper or the provider of the service—that we think are acceptable on Christmas day, as opposed to the other activities.
  The schedule then goes on to list
  "motor supplies…cycle supplies…pharmacy…medicinal products…surgical appliances…railway station…petrol filling station"—
  to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East referred—and
  "any shop at a service area"
  related to a filling station and food stores for vessels or aircraft. So we have a large list of exemptions. Let us not therefore imagine that the protection originally provided by the 1994 Act—I am told that the Bill seeks to close a loophole in it—was all-encompassing. In fact, a large number of exemptions exist, covering both the size of stores and, in that explicit list in schedule 1, the type of stores.
  Let us put aside all the tear-jerking and emotional appeals that we have heard in this morning's brief debate. What we are really saying is that we want to single out a group of people in the retail sector who we believe deserve special treatment—those working for large stores—but there is a probably an even larger group who will not receive that protection. Why? On the one hand, they happen to work in a small store, while on the other, they happen to sell booze. That strikes me as an interesting, perhaps even a rather odd, approach. Why so many people want to argue that such protection is so effective is somewhat beyond me. I do not think that it is effective.
  USDAW, which is the union that has driven the whole thing, has targeted a modest campaign at me in my constituency. I have no complaint about that. We
  1172
  are all used to bizarre little interest groups targeting us from time to time, and another one has popped up. It is pity that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) is not still in the Chamber. He proudly claimed to be the chairman of USDAW in the House, so I thought that I would tell him the figures to show how effective his union is in targeting me in my constituency.
  I checked my post this morning and my telephone. I shall give the figures for the amount of interest in the Bill among USDAW members in Bromley and Chislehurst: phone calls, five, one of which was extremely abusive, but I do not mind that as I am used to it even in the House; pre-printed rather glossy postcards, 17; and proforma letters, 16. So of the 70,000 voters in Bromley and Chislehurst, most of whom are proud shoppers and consumers—I am happy to say that we have one of the best shopping malls in the country at Bromley, and I am even happier that it is open on Sundays—and of the massed ranks of USDAW, pumped up by their union and invited to contact me for my wicked activities in the House today, the grand total so far is 37 people. I hope that that message will be passed on to the hon. Member for West Lancashire. He wants to gee up his people a bit if he wants to try that sort of thing.
  We now come to inspectors. This is another interesting one because we will create a small category of people who must work on Christmas day, as a result of the Bill. Inspectors have not been mentioned much so far. They are an honourable group of people. Until now, probably except for one Christmas day in seven, which happens to fall on a Sunday, they have Christmas day off, but not any more. Funnily enough, I have not received any representation from local authority trading standards inspectors so far. They are obviously a pretty compliant bunch—or perhaps they want the overtime, who knows? I have no idea, but they will have to be out there, pounding the streets, ensuring that no store of over 3,000 sq ft opens on Christmas day, as a result of the Bill. By the way, that must inevitably involve an extra cost. It will not be very substantial, but it will be incurred.
  I always try to be fair to the explanatory notes. I always like to put in this point in passing at some point during such debates. The explanatory notes state that they
  "have been prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry with the consent of"
  the promoter of the Bill. I am always a bit suspicious about such things. It is interesting how some private Members' Bills receive no help from Departments, yet others do. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government were neutral when such a Bill was last considered in the House and failed because only 37 Members bothered to vote for it. That is something obviously burned on the conscience of Labour Members as they have been dragooned in today to ensure that that does not happen again. I hope that we get the numbers if we have a Division. I would be fascinated to know the provenance of the explanatory notes.
  The explanatory notes state:
  "In view of the current practice and plans of large retailers"—
  an interesting comment, given what follows—
  "the effect of the Bill on local government staff numbers (in relation to enforcement) is expected to be negligible."

  1173
  So the explanatory notes predict that there will be very little activity on that front, but they confess that there will be an effect on local government staff numbers—the poor inspectors—and a cost because they must be paid either overtime or, if they are salaried, for an element of additional expenses.
  While I am on the subject, the very next paragraph says:
  "the vast majority of large retailers do not currently open Christmas Day and have no immediate plans to do so."
  What about all the scare stories that we have just heard from Labour Members? The explanatory notes themselves—the Department, the Minister—tell us that
  "the vast majority of large retailers do not currently open Christmas Day and have no immediate plans to do so."
  That is somewhat at odds with the scare stories that Labour Members have tried to peddle, so we need a bit of clarification about that when the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That small but significant category of people would be disadvantaged if the Bill were to reach the statute book. They would have to work on Christmas day, as opposed to the other people who would not have to do so.
  Lembit öpik: I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman. He said at the start that he was informed by libertarian principles. He has made no comparison of the harm principle in respect of the relative benefits to those who would not be made to work versus the small number, as he says in the quotation that he cites, who would be. Will he spend a moment or two explaining his view of the Bill's libertarian consequences and why he is against it for libertarian reasons?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, we have had enough.
  Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to expand—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is getting my hon. Friend over-excited already, and that is just by an intervention. I am now caught between two colleagues. The hon. Gentleman, who urges me to expand on some of my remarks, and my hon. Friend, who will become over-excited if I am tempted to do so. Subject to guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which I do not seek, I hasten to add—I find myself in a bit of a quandary.
  In friendship to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik), I point out that I said briefly at the beginning of my remarks that there is always a tension between the entirely liberal approach that his party, sadly, rarely follows these days and the costs. My preference is always to leave the maximum freedom to, in this case, the shop owner, the shop proprietor, the shop worker and, most important of all, the consumer. They are by far the largest majority in society. That is my view on the balance of things.
  The hon. Gentleman has led me easily into the next part of my brief analysis?the applicability or not to this Bill of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act. I remain puzzled
  1174
  because of what was said by one of the USDAW members, who telephoned me at the instigation of her union and with whom I discussed the matter. When I asked her, "What about your union? What are they doing for you?", she replied, "Oh, they're useless?absolutely nothing." I asked, "What about your shop steward in your store?", and she said, "He's just left and gone off to another job." That is in an interesting comment. In this era of full employment, people have many more options as to where they choose to work than they might have in other circumstances.
  I believe that the role of the trade union is worthy of exploration. It seems to me that it wants to use the law to do what it should be doing already. The hon. Member for West Lancashire is back in his place, but he did not feel that he had time to give way to me earlier. If he is going to tell me that the provisions of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are inadequate or inoperable or that his union cannot make them work effectively, that should be the target for the amendment to legislation. We should not have this heavy-handed Bill that is trying to stop people doing what they might reasonably want to do on Christmas day. We should ask what protection is provided by a combination of the existing law—the 1994 Act—and the trade union. If the trade union is falling down on the job as badly as its member, who was instigated to call me, said—I am glad that she did—the union should look seriously at itself, what it does, how it does it and why it does not protect its members adequately.
  The provisions of schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are lengthy, detailed and comprehensive, but I will not attempt go through them in detail. That is for another day and a subsequent stage of the Bill when we will want to get into the nitty-gritty, but the question is hovering unseen in the background to the debate. What has the union been up to? Has it been serving its members effectively? Why is it spending a lot of time sending out glossy postcards to its members asking them to send them to their Members of Parliament instead of doing the job that it should be doing, which is to make itself available to its members, perhaps to recruit more members and to make sure that the proper protections that were provided in schedule 4 of the 1994 Act are made available to shop workers and to retail workers? That question has to be answered.
  Having trotted through the preliminaries, I shall take a brief look through the Bill. I do that to provide an introduction to its subsequent stages. It will be considered in Committee and come back, very importantly, for Report and Third Reading. Much useful work will be done then.
  Clause 1(1) states:
  "A large shop"
  this returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire—
  "must not be open on Christmas Day for the serving of retail customers."
  My wife and I are avid shoppers at a store called Costco, which I thoroughly recommend to the House. The nearest one to us is in the Lakeside complex in Essex, just across the Thames from us in Kent. It is a large wholesale store and the public cannot just wander in; one has to be a member to have the privilege of shopping there. It is a wonderful store with very keen prices and a

  1175
  wonderful range of goods. It is packed on Sundays. Presumably it would not be covered by the provisions in clause 1(1), which talks about the serving of retail customers. Therefore, if I can persuade Costco to open on Christmas day, I would be able to go and shop there. I might well be tempted to do so. Mrs. Forth and I are avid retail and, in this case, wholesale shoppers and we would find that a very attractive possibility.
  That is another anomaly that has opened up to add to all the other anomalies that are beginning to become apparent in the Bill. They include discrimination against employees in small stores, discrimination against people of religions other than Christianity, and all the others that I have mentioned. Here is another one right at the start of the Bill. One does not need to go any further.
  Perhaps the Bill's promoter or the Minister—he has had such an input to the process—can explain why there has been no need to revisit the exemptions in schedule 1 of the 1994 Act that are carried forward into this Bill. I would be fascinated if either of them could tell me that they are completely satisfied with that list of exemptions in every respect or that there might be scope—there may well be—for adding, reviewing or reducing the list. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that it is a rare piece of legislation that arises from a 1994 Act that we, as this great body gathered together, can see no reason to update or amend. I refer to the provisions for liquor stores, petrol stations, pharmacies and all the other exemptions mentioned in the list. Is this list so good and was our perspicacity so great in 1994 that, 10 years on, we see no need to revisit the matter? That is an interesting question.
  Funnily enough, the adequacy of the level of the fine in the Bill was mentioned in our previous canter round this course three or four years ago when the previous attempt at a Bill failed miserably through lack of support by Members of Parliament. There is a real question as to whether the fine would be an effective deterrent to a large store that decided to open in defiance of the provisions and take the hit, if I can put it that way, of the fine. I have no way of measuring the effect of the fine, but its appropriateness is a relevant consideration.
  While we are talking about the fine, one always has to ask whether it is wise to include a precise amount in the Bill. As we learn at our grandmother's knee when we arrive in this place, whatever we put in a Bill that will become an Act—I hope that it will not in this case?is difficult to change. However, the Bill's promoter has decided to include a figure in the Bill. He had better hope that inflation remains as low as it has been. If we get a burst of inflation, the real value of the fine specified in the Bill will be whittled down pretty quickly. Then there would be some regret. Should a figure for the fine be specified in the Bill?
  I mentioned, in passing, the duty to enforce and the duties of the inspectors. This unfortunate group of people will now have to work on Christmas day, as opposed to all the others for whom the aim is that they should not have to work. We should give the inspectors a passing thought and, in doing so, ask whether the enforcement provisions, which are largely carried forward from the 1994 Act and which include the powers of entry?a matter that always makes me uneasy—are exactly what we want them to be. Should those provisions be revisited?
  1176
  Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act refers both to general enforcement provisions in part 1—the inspectors, powers of entry and so on—and to shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath and shops occupied by persons of the Jewish religion in part 2. It is at least worth considering whether we should extend that provision given the changing nature of our society. I gave the figures and analysis of the different religious groups not only in our society as a whole, but in the wholesale and retail sector as well. It strikes me that it is worth giving some thought as to whether faiths other than the Christian faith could be mentioned either explicitly or in a more general, all-embracing provision. I accept that there would be definitional problems with that and it would have to be considered in more detail. I simply flag it up as something that needs proper consideration because it picks out a particular group.
  I think I am right in saying that, interestingly, the members of the Jewish faith in particular who work in the retail sector are actually, according to the census this may surprise some hon. Members?smaller in number than the members of all the other faiths, other than Christianity, that are listed. That raises the question of why it is that members of the Jewish faith are picked out when greater numbers of other faiths may not wish to acknowledge the sanctity of Christmas day in the way that most Christians would. The relevance of the Bill to them has to be considered.
  All in all, I have cantered briefly around the course and have no reason to detain the House unduly. [Interruption.] I see that I am disappointing the hon. Member for Hendon. He knows that there are horses for courses, and times for this and times for that something that he explained to me recently about a Bill of his own, to which we shall return on another Friday. I recognise the dynamics of each Friday, and of this one in particular, so I am happy to have set out my severe reservations, for all sorts of philosophical and practical reasons.
  I will send this little speech of mine to all the USDAW members who were kind enough to contact me by their pre-printed postcards and pro-forma letters. Indeed, if any USDAW officials who were kind enough to waste their union's money on that exercise would like a copy of my speech, I shall be only too happy to send it to them, such is my generosity.
  I hope that I have given some flavour of my reservations. I look forward very much to' returning to them in the Bill's subsequent stages, which I think will, if anything, be even more interesting.
  11.3 am
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: It gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, like me, regularly attends Friday morning debates. We have some of the most interesting, colourful and best debates on such occasions because they are traditionally unwhipped. He is a master of Friday mornings and knows the procedures of the House better than most, if not any. It was interesting to note the way in which he decided to terminate his remarks. Many hon. Members will be grateful that he does not want to filibuster and to talk the Bill out. He realises that that would be otiose and not in keeping with the will and mood of the Chamber.

  1177
  I, too, do not wish to detain the House for long. I wish the Bill the speediest of passages, both today and in future. However, many comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House related to the specifically Christian nature of the celebration of the high holy day of Christmas. I speak not simply as a practising Christian, but as a representative of the most ethnically diverse and multicultural borough in Britain and, indeed, Europe. Brent has more than 120 different first languages spoken in its schools. We have every faith that it is possible to conceive of in our borough. Yet not one person has opposed the Bill on the ground of respect for different cultures and faiths.
  Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many other faiths support the Bill because they also want Christmas day preserved as a family holiday? In addition, they do not want the taxpayer to incur the extra cost that would arise from large stores opening on Christmas day, which would require normal council services, such as waste disposal and street cleaning, to be in place.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She encapsulates the one thing that I wanted to talk about: respect for the family, which underpins all the different religious traditions and communities that are represented in my borough. It is because of that respect for the family—because people realise that there should be, in any culture, one day on which the family is paramount—that people of different faiths have chosen to support the Bill, and I am delighted that they have done so.
  It is clear from the nature of large work forces that the idea that shop workers can simply decide whether they want to work on Christmas day—that they can volunteer—is ridiculous. We all know the pressures that exist in any workplace. People who do not volunteer are marked down for the future and their managers look at them less favourably when it comes to promotions. It may well be that my own lack of volunteering is responsible for me languishing on the Back Benches week after week.
  I hope that hon. Members who want to divide the House and who will go into the Lobby against the Bill will consider, when they think of the freedoms that they believe themselves to be fighting for, the way in which those shop workers are being denied their freedoms.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on what I said about the effectiveness of the protections that are given in schedule 4 to the 1994 Act, and the role of the trade union? Is he completely happy that the trade union that is behind the Bill has done everything in its power to make the provisions effective? If not, what is the solution?
  Mr. Gardiner: I have a different view of the role of trade unions in this country from that of the right hon. Gentleman. He always sees trade unions as an oppressive force in society.
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he does so, but I see trade unions as
  1178
  the organisations that have fought for workers' rights for more than a century and achieved many progressive measures to emancipate the work force. It is essential to understand that trade unions, and particularly USDAW, seek to protect the situation of their members. They do not want workers in large stores and shops coerced, albeit by managers who say, "Of course you have a choice," in the full and certain knowledge that if they exercise that choice in one direction they will ultimately be penalised and have it marked on their cards against them. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, I am sorry but we must disagree.
  Many Labour Members have experience, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, as members of USDAW or other unions or from a retailing background. They have seen such pressures being applied. They know that that is the way that things operate. Earlier in our debate, one of my hon. Friends commented on how this House operates—we all know the pressures that a one or two-line Whip can impose to make sure that Members are here. Even if a three-line Whip does not apply, there are always pressures on people to vote, and that happens with retail management too.
  To return to my central point, all communities recognise the importance of family and of having one day on which people take care of each other, come together, and are not subject to the commercial pressures that we see throughout society during the rest of the year: one day on which family is sacred. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke of his experience of opening a petrol station for just a couple of hours on Christmas morning. The service that he provided enabled families to come together. On Christmas day, families need to travel to see distant relatives or to come to the main family house for Christmas lunch, so that the whole family can be united on that day. That is why I agree wholeheartedly with him that that is an honourable and welcome exception to the Bill, which should not restrict petrol stations that provide that service. It goes to the heart of what the Bill is about: the nature of family and bringing families together on one day a year without commercial pressures.
  It is wrong that people should be discouraged, that there should be alternative attractions to go out and engage in commercial activity on Christmas day and that large stores should be open, vying for custom. That is not why I support the Bill, however. I recognise what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says: if people want to go out and engage in commercial activity when it is available, that is a decision for them. But the point is that the work force are being coerced on those days when they find it difficult if not impossible to refuse. It is their families whom I seek to protect, and whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) seeks to protect through his Bill.
  Many stores have said that they have no desire to open and compete on Christmas day, but if one of them does, the others will feel obliged to do so to protect their position because commercial margins are so tight. They want us to legislate, to step in and say, "No. We will protect this time, which is for family." My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by promoting this Bill.

  1179
  The Ministers on the Front Bench are raring to wind up this debate, and I have no intention or desire to prolong it. The House should have the opportunity to vote on this important matter, and I am confident that my hon. Friend's Bill will be passed.
  11.15 am
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I want to speak briefly on this Bill. I will not speak for as long as the hon. Gentleman who spoke previously.
  I welcome the Bill. Should there be a Division, I will support it. But I would also like one change to be made in Committee. A great number of people work on Christmas day in the catering trade, and in the forces, where cover must be provided. For the catering trade, I would like an amendment to protect those who work on Christmas day. At the moment, there is a national minimum wage, but it does not reflect statutory holidays or working on statutory holidays. I believe that Christmas day is particularly important, and there is a case for reflecting that in the Bill for people who work in the catering trade on that day. The matter should be discussed in Committee. I will not delay the Bill further, having made those small points.
  11.16 am
  Shona McIsaac: I, too, shall be brief in my words of support for the Bill.
  This is in essence a simple measure that deals with the anomaly of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 that prevents stores from opening on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday. I cannot understand how anybody can vote against a measure that puts right that anomaly, and neither will the millions of shop workers, who are largely women workers who already have a great deal of pressure on them at Christmas because they are responsible for organising Christmas day and bringing the family together. I therefore support the Bill totally.
  Christmas is already the busiest time of year for shop workers, and most of them are not allowed to take annual leave in the final weeks of December because the stores are so busy. They must have Christmas day protected for that reason, too. I was imagining earlier what would happen if stores opened on Christmas day. I envisaged a scenario in which families would open their gifts in the morning, have their lunch and all be down the shops in the afternoon returning the Christmas presents they did not want. That would destroy the whole essence of Christmas day and family life, so I hope that this Bill speedily passes into law.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). As a fellow promoter of a private Member's Bill, let me say that he and I know how much skill it takes to succeed in the ballot.
  This is a good Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it. I make it clear from the outset, that since the events of 18 years ago, this has been a conscience issue in my party, so I speak purely in a personal capacity. We have had a good debate and
  1180
  interesting contributions from both sides. I did not agree with the bulk of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he brought to the House the erudition, knowledge and experience that he brings to all his speeches. This House is the better for having a strong defender of Parliament speaking out as he does five days a week, unlike the vast majority of us, who are only here on four days or even fewer.
  My right hon. Friend was right about one point, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). This is a good time for us to remember those people who necessarily have to work on Sundays. As the son of a soldier, and with many relatives in the medical profession, I am very conscious of that as we discuss this matter.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It is intended to protect not only retail workers, but, more importantly, their families and those who live around major retail outlets. I supported the restrictions on Sunday trading and thought that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was good because the old arrangements were being so widely breached. At least we now have some proper regulation to ensure that shops do not open early on a Sunday morning, which in practice many large shops were doing under the old arrangements. I should have liked greater regulation in that respect.
  I make no bones about being pleased that the Bill publicly recognises the fact that we are still a predominantly Christian country, and I feel in no way embarrassed about that. Christmas is a very special day for families across the country—a day on which as many people as possible should have the opportunity to spend time with husbands, wives and children. We already have fewer public holidays than most other EU countries—eight, as opposed to 12 in Portugal and Austria, 14 in France and Belgium, and 15 in Germany.
  The Department of Trade and Industry's work-life balance campaign recently found that nearly two fifths of adults in the crucial age group of 35 to 55—the majority of parents—feel that they spend too much time at work. Those people include the majority of parents. The DTI's second work-life balance study found that almost 38 per cent. of all employees work in occupations that from time to time involve working on Sundays. In the retail sector, the figure is well over that. It is staggering to think that, according to a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a higher proportion of people in this country than in any other feel that they have to work for longer than they wish for economic reasons. That has much to do with issues that go way beyond the scope of this Bill, such as overcrowding and the cost of housing. I do not think that it is a coincidence that our divorce rate is one of the highest in Europe—more than 50 per cent. higher than the average. The Bill seeks, in a modest way, to ease one strain on family life.
  As the 24-hour society comes inexorably closer, partly encouraged by the instant nature of the internet, on which one can do or purchase almost anything 24 hours a day, it is inevitable that even Christmas day will come to be regarded by some as no different from any other day. I do not believe that, which is why I am glad to support the Bill. Shopping has become almost the new religion, and in the process we forget the retail worker. Almost any occupation that one cares to name will,

  1181
  rightly, have its stout public defenders: nurses, doctors, teachers, farmers, alternative medicine practitioners, fisherman, police officers; the list goes on and on. There are always strong voices for those people in this House, but retail workers do not have a particularly loud voice, despite the large number of USDAW members. Yet roughly 10 per cent. of the work force works in the retail trade, the majority of whom are women. Many of those who already work on Sundays are single parents. A survey entitled, "The Changing Nature of Sunday 1994–1999" calculated that as many as 500,000 children could be deprived of their parent's or parents' attention on that common day off.
  Of course, increased opening hours affect not only workers, but anyone living in close proximity to a large shop who has to deal with delivery lorries, customer traffic, increased pedestrian activity and so on. The fact that stores are not allowed to open until 10 am on a Sunday gives people some relief, and it is right that they should enjoy full relief on Christmas day.
  I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham will find it useful if I draw his attention to three small defects in his Bill. First, it refers only to shops opening, which applies to retail workers but not to other activities. We do not want simply to transfer the burden so that Sunday becomes the big day for restocking, for example. That would affect storemen and drivers and, in areas such as mine, could result in increased, not reduced, nuisance to people who live nearby.
  Secondly, I wonder whether a fine of the size specified in the Bill would act as a deterrent to a large store. I am genuinely puzzled as to why it is included.
  Thirdly, I hope that what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said about rural exemptions will be picked up. It is anomalous that the only shop in a rural area could be affected if it wanted to provide a small Christmas service.
  Shona McIsaac: But it is a large store.
  Mr. Brazier: Perhaps the hon. Lady was not in her seat when my hon. Friend spoke. The point is that a shop that has just passed over the threshold might be the only one a rural area.
  Mr. Paterson: It exceeds the threshold of 3,000 sq ft massively. Because it is such a successful family operation, it is now 22,500 sq ft. The definition is much too blunt. As my hon. Friend suggests, the shop provides a very valuable service in a thinly populated rural area. Another one further down in Shropshire called Harry Tuffins would also qualify. There must be several such outlets that began as little family businesses, and have all those characteristics, but are physically quite large.
  Mr. Brazier: With respect to my hon. Friend, the history of the business is not the relevant point. If the shop is genuinely the only one serving a very large area and has, for example, a pharmaceutical side or sells other essential things that people might need at short notice, there is scope for an exemption. There may be several such shops around the country.
  1182
  The Bill must not be seen as an attack on large stores. In supporting it, the House should commend the fact that just over 90 per cent. of them choose to close on Christmas day anyway. However, it is right to create a level playing field.
  I want to close by making one more personal remark. Earlier, we discussed libertarianism—I, for one, am not a libertarian—I am an old-fashioned Conservative.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: As are we all.
  Mr. Brazier: I am delighted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on an awful lot of issues, although not, following his correspondence with one of my constituents, on people defending their homes.
  My attitude to regulation is that it should be principled. I am proud of the fact that I am part of the party that, in the middle of the last century, introduced the Clean Air Act 1956, which was the first such Act and the cornerstone of subsequent environmental legislation. I am proud of the fact that in the middle of the previous century it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Factory Acts that got children out of the most dangerous places of employment. But principled legislation must be separated from the absolute detritus of paperwork that is besieging our small businesses, hospitals, schools and police stations. The Bill is an example of principled legislation: it represents a thoroughly good principle.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: Happily, although I was about to sit down.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I want to pursue the issue of regulation, because it is constantly raised by Conservative Members. Which employment regulations would the hon. Gentleman like to be withdrawn?
  Mr. Brazier: Every time I visit a small business, a police station, a hospital, a school, or almost any other place where people are employed, they show me the huge quantities of paperwork that they are engaged in. It would go well beyond my brief in this debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. He has allowed himself to be tempted into territory that is not covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your wise guidance. I shall avoid the hon. Gentleman's blandishments.
  The Bill is an example of principled regulation. It is a good Bill that will have one narrow effect that I believe will be for the good of this country. I urge the House to support it.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on introducing the Bill and on putting up with all the vagaries of a Friday sitting. Some of us who are in the Chamber on Fridays more often than others are aware of the tactical to-ing and fro-ing and know how frustrating and frightening that can be. However, I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend will achieve his objective today.
  I wish particularly to support the Bill because at Brent Cross in my constituency there is one of the largest shopping centres in the country. Retailing is the major employment sector in my constituency. There are more people employed in retailing than in any other form of work. The Bill is of great importance to those who work in the sector.
  Those who work in retailing in my constituency come from many different faiths. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), in his peroration, set out all the different faith groups that we have in the UK. When I first read the Bill, I shared some of his concerns about whether we were doing enough to protect those of other faiths from being required to work on days that they regard as holy. However, that does not detract from the main thrust of the Bill, which is to preserve the special nature of Christmas day for families generally, not only for Christians, for people of no faith or for those with other faiths.
  I think of the enormous stress and work that we place on those in the retail sector in the run-up to Christmas. People are working day in and day out, seven days a week, with no holidays. They work long hours and a great deal of overtime. It is only fair that we recognise the huge contribution that those people make, not only in making other people's Christmas happy and enjoyable but in contributing to the strength of our economy. We should recognise that by giving them at least one day off, which is absolutely clear, a year. I say to the Scrooge from Bromley—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—that his approach is not the way forward.
  It is important to recognise that we are talking not only about shop workers but about all the other workers whose lives would also be affected if trading were allowed to continue on Christmas day. At present, transport workers will almost certainly not have to work on Christmas day. If trading were to continue on Christmas day, they would have to work. Other examples are street cleaners, parking attendants, traffic wardens and bank call centres.
  Many people are affected indirectly by trading on Christmas day. They deserve the help that the Bill will give to them as well as to shop workers. The issue goes well beyond an USDAW pressure group. It affects a great many people throughout the country in all walks of life. I very much support the Bill.
  11.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on his success in the ballot and on introducing the Bill. It is an important measure.
  1184
  As did my hon. Friend, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who have raised the issue previously. They were unsuccessful in achieving what they wanted for reasons that we have heard this morning.
  I respect the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who attends the House on Fridays when private Members' Bills are being discussed and advances his point of view. However, I suspect that some people will think of him as the grinch who stole Christmas, or as Ebenezer Bromley
  I pay tribute to the work of USDAW on this issue. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was unkind in his criticism of the union for the way it has tried to support its members and the industry by making Christmas a special day, as hon. Members have said it should be.
  John Mann: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to set the record straight by confirming that USDAW has been the fastest growing trade union and the best recruiter of any trade union over the past five years, and exposing the myth that has come from Opposition Members--that it has a problem in recruiting shop workers?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. USDAW figures prominently in my ministerial responsibilities for employment affairs, consumer affairs and competition. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the growth of USDAW's membership.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should reflect on his party's opposition, in terms of employment relations legislation, to the union modernisation fund. Other unions could learn from the work that USDAW has done in respect of recruitment. There is an involvement in social issues that applies throughout my portfolio. I pay tribute to USDAW and to all the other organisations that have campaigned to keep Christmas day a special day.
  I agreed with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he referred to the Wilde quote about the price of everything and the value of nothing. That counts in this debate and the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point. He had an interesting exchange with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the historical consequences of some of the things that were done when the Conservatives were in government. It was interesting also to hear the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talking about his name being on the list that was in a former Prime Minister's handbag.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) put her finger on the pulse when she talked about the creeping commercialisation that has taken place and which has damaged—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Bill give the same legal ruling on Christmas day as that which applies on Easter Sunday? There are certain restrictions on

  1185
  Easter Sunday. Will the same restrictions be applied on Christmas day—in other words, the same rules and the same regulations?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said in introducing the Bill, that is the intention. I am sure that he will return to that matter when he replies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made the interesting and valid point about creeping commercialisation. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was right to support what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the role of the consumer and the role of the economy generally. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, if on nothing else.
  There have been many interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) supported my hon. Friend.
  The Bill contains only five clauses. There is a limit to what I can say that would go beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said about the measure. I do not want to go over all the ground again but I shall make a few brief remarks. I am aware that there is a great deal of anticipation about what may be happening next.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that people in the UK already work some of the longest hours in Europe, and that that should not extend to forcing people to work on Christmas day? Furthermore, does he agree that far more women are employed in supermarkets than men, and that even in this day and age they carry the main day-to-day burden of bringing up families? They, most of all, deserve time off on Christmas day. Their families deserve to celebrate the day with them. They deserve the Bill and it deserves to pass through the House.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that he made the point about women workers. He will be proud of the Government's record on employment relations legislation and the introduction of the social chapter, which have developed and helped the lives of people at work.
  As I have said, the Bill has only five clauses. There are 274 shopping days before Christmas, and some people may think that talking about Christmas now is premature. However, we must be aware in the context of legislation that time is an important commodity.
  The purpose behind the Bill is simple. It would prohibit large shops—those measuring more than 280 sq m or 3,000 sq ft—from opening on Christmas day. The definition of large shops is the same as that which appears in the Sunday Trading Act 1994. As is the case with that Act, the Bill sets out a number of exemptions from the proposed prohibition. These are farm shops, shops whose trade consists wholly or mainly in the sale of alcohol, pharmacies, shops at airports and railway stations and shops servicing ocean-going ships, motor and cycle supply shops, stands at exhibitions and shops at petrol filling stations and motorway service stations.
  1186
  The 1994 Act could be said to be one of the precursors of the Bill in so far as it prohibits the opening of large shops on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. However, the same prohibition does not apply when Christmas day falls on any other day of the week. I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that Christmas day stands apart from the ordinary days of the week and even other holidays; indeed an indication of this is the fact that many people:—myself included—lose track of the days over the Christmas period.
  In the debates that preceded Royal Assent to the 1994 Act, it was clear that there was a desire among Members that the prohibition should apply to this special occasion falling on any day of the week. Unfortunately, the very nature of the Act meant that its scope was limited to the regulation of trading hours on Sunday alone. Its provisions could not be applied to the regulation of shops opening on other days of the week and it was therefore not technically possible to extend the legislation to cover Christmas day on any day other than Sunday. I believe that applying a prohibition when Christmas day falls on a Sunday but not when it falls on any other day is an inconsistency that it is right to address; and that, while the House accepted the position in 1994, it is no longer tenable.
  Enforcement of a prohibition on Christmas day trading by large shops would fall to local trading standards officers. Again, like the 1994 Act, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. With regard to Scotland, a Bill similar to this was introduced in the Scottish Parliament last year. The Bill has been put out for public consultation, after which the Scottish Executive will consider the way forward.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has already mentioned, the Government carried out a public consultation in the summer of 2003 on the proposals to keep large shops closed on Christmas day. The vast majority of responses received were supportive of such a law; specifically, 97 per cent. expressed their support for the measures.
  It is not difficult to see why these measures would be popular among the general public, and I have been pleased to hear the support from so many hon. Members today. Christmas day, for many in our rapidly changing times, represents a traditional time for celebration and provides a focal point in a busy and often chaotic period. Christmas is a time for the family; particularly, as we all know, for the younger family members. Speaking personally as a father and grandfather [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] It may come as a shock to some. We must not forget the importance of Christmas for parents to spend quality time with their children.
  On the latter point, I understand that the majority of those who work in the retail sector—particularly in large supermarkets—are women, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) said. Many of them are also mothers. We want to ensure that the special nature of Christmas day is preserved and enable thousands of parents to continue to share quality time with their families and friends. In the absence of other legislation covering Christmas day trading, I believe that the Bill is the best way to achieve this.
  In the summer of 2002, major retailers were consulted individually on their plans for opening on Christmas day of that year and in future years, to inform

  1187
  consideration of whether legislation was necessary. To some extent the responses to this consultation from the retail sector itself were encouraging. It was found that the majority of large shops did not open and did not intend to open on Christmas day 2002. Nor did they have plans to open on Christmas day in the near future. However, this seemingly reassuring fact does not preclude the possibility of change were one competitor to decide to break with the pack and open. A significant number of retailers confirmed that their existing plans would be reviewed if competitors were to open. So inevitably, if one major retailer decided to open on Christmas day, the result could be a domino effect.
  There have been instances since 2000 of large chain stores gauging consumer demand through market testing; that is, either through opening for a specific limited period on Christmas day or by conducting research on consumer habits and preferences in relation to Christmas day. That further validates the need for the Bill, as it seems inevitable that in the not-too-distant future large shops will begin to test the market, leading in turn to knock-on effects across the retail sector.
  With this in mind, I believe that this is an opportune time to legislate. This is not only to preserve the traditional character of Christmas day but also, significantly, to avoid legislation representing a new burden for the retail sector. In other words, while it is currently the norm for large shops not to open on Christmas day, they will have little, if anything, to lose by this Bill becoming law. It will simply mean a continuation of current practice and maintenance of the status quo.
  I acknowledge that there is an issue of consumer choice here—something about which certain Opposition Members are particularly concerned. This concept is important to our economy, and to some extent it is a reflection of a prosperous society, but it is also important not to be too dogmatic about it when there are other issues to consider. We have to strike the right balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of parents to spend time with their families. In this context, I believe that the right balance is in favour of the latter, as it is far more important to the fabric of our society than the desire to go shopping on Christmas day.
  Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend think that it would assist the rights of consumers if we legislated to require that all toys and items of personal grooming should come supplied with batteries?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the Minister should not be tempted down that line.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On regulation, however, we never hear from the Opposition which regulations they want to be passed.
  There is a question as to why the Bill is concerned only with large shops. My answer is that of course we do not believe that every shop should be closed on Christmas day. We believe that the right balance is struck by the exemptions.
  The Bill is important and I hope it gets the support of the House today. The vast majority of people—97 per cent.—want Christmas day to be kept special and we
  1188
  should support the Bill. In the past, Governments were neutral on the issue but this Government fully support my hon. Friend's Bill. That is why we have been working with him to make sure that the Bill is put together successfully. There is more work to be done in Committee, but I wish the Bill well.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Kevan Jones: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to reply to some comments made in the debate today. It has been a good debate, showing the cross-party support for the Bill. The debate has also shown that support for the Bill is inspired not only by the trade unions. Many people support the Bill because of their religious convictions, while others want the traditional nature of Christmas day to be retained.
  The hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about the special nature of Christmas from a Christian perspective, which is very important to many people from all Churches. We should not forget that we are a broadly Christian nation, something we should all cherish.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) holds deep religious beliefs, which came out in his speech today. The hon. Gentleman is a loss to the trade union movement, as he was eloquent about recruiting retail workers; USDAW will soon be knocking on his door for assistance.
  The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to Stan's Shop, I think on two separate occasions. He will be very popular the next time he goes into Stan's Shop for the free publicity that he has given that retail outlet today. He made a point about rural areas, and I accept that in some rural areas there are not the large retail outlets that exist in many urban areas. We could perhaps look at some of those issues in Committee, but we need to be careful. I know that there is a tradition in many rural areas—and also in many urban areas—of shops closing on a Wednesday afternoon to allow their workers to have time off because they work on Saturday mornings. That tradition still exists in some areas, and long may it be cherished, because it allows people who work in the retail trade to be compensated for having to work on a Saturday, a day that many other people—not Members of Parliament, I should add—can cherish. We already have a tradition in this country, which I think is more prevalent in rural areas, that shops do still close sometimes.
  The reason why large shops are specified is quite clear. A small neighbourhood shop that is run by a family is mainly staffed by its owners and their family, whereas Stan's Shop and others of such a large size will have to bring in employees who are not family members. This Bill wants to protect those people from being forced to work on Christmas day.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point—most of the people who come in on Christmas day in the business to which I have referred are members of the original family. My point is that that is a small family business that has been immensely successful and

  1189
  is now a big one. It occupies a Dig area, but it has all the attributes of a small family business that the hon. Gentleman seems to admire.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has now got his third plug for Stan's Shop in this debate; his discount is going to be very good when he next goes there. The important pointis that that is clearly not a small shop if it is the size that he has claimed. I am quite prepared, however, to consider issues of rurality.
  Lembit öpik: The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned Harry Tuffins, which is a fantastic shop, but it originated in the constituency of Montgomeryshire.
  Mr. Jones: At this rate, I am sure that some Opposition Members will get good discounts when they go in all these stores. However, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to allow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) to make that point, so that he gets it recorded in Hansard.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for their contributions. They have a long, proud tradition of association with USDAW, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has been very active not just in helping to protect Christmas day but in other campaigns such as the "Freedom from Fear" campaign to stop violence against shop workers, which USDAW has rightly been pressing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to the multicultural nature of his constituency and the fact that people cherish Christmas day, irrespective of their religious faith. That is an important point. In the consultation, the Department of Trade and Industry received no representations from any groups objecting to the Christmas day provisions in the Bill.
  Welcome points have been made about trade unions, and we had some good speeches in support of trade unions from Conservative Members.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I cannot let this opportunity pass without putting on record the gratitude that the House ought to feel to the late Sir Raymond Powell, who campaigned for so long against Sunday trading on behalf of USDAW.
  Mr. Jones: I was only just elected at the time, so I did not have the honour of knowing Sir Raymond, but the work that he did to try to protect shop workers who worked on Sundays is on the record.
  I welcome the important fact that some Conservative Members are now arguing for regulation. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested that the legislation could extend to catering workers. I do not necessarily disagree with that, in that I want to protect people's employment rights, and I should be interested to see any regulations that Conservative Members wanted to introduce to prevent the exploitation of people who work in such trades.
  1190
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire gave the Bill the support of the Liberal Democrats, which I welcome. That reinforces the fact that the Bill has cross-party support.
  It would be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for whom I have much respect. I even have a sneaking admiration for the front that he puts on and his passionate beliefs. We saw today the divisions in the Conservative party—they exist in every party—between the traditional Conservatives represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the libertarian wing represented by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree that we want a society that allows people to do anything they want—that is the logical conclusion to libertarianism. That would mean youngsters still being put up chimneys and the excellent Factories Acts and other measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury not being on the statute book. That is not a society in which I would like to live.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called libertarian tendency really believes in freedom for the very few and a lack of it for the very many, and especially those on low pay?
  Mr. Jones: Yes, that is reflected in the premise that we are all individuals and there is no such thing as society—something with which I do not agree. I think it was Hobbes who said that man's existence in such a situation was poor, nasty, brutish and short. I do not believe that many hon. Members would wish to live in such a society.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but to put the record straight, even we libertarians occasionally see where our duty lies. I, for example, voted against the lowering of the age of consent, because I thought it proper for the law to protect young people, sometimes from themselves.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that clarification—clearly libertarianism has its bounds.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Costco. That is covered, because if people shopped there on Christmas day and purchased retail goods, the provisions in the Bill would apply. The only thing that would be excluded would be if they were buying goods for retail sale afterwards.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury spoke well. He is a true believer in the Bill. He is possibly part of a dying breed, as a traditional one-nation Conservative with a compassionate side. That tendency was in the wilderness in the 1980s and the 1990s. I agree with him about the distribution industry. Pressure is not only on shops but on distribution networks to get the goods to those shops on Sundays. That is exacerbated by the procedure of delivering goods just in time rather than storing them at the point of sale. We cannot include the distribution network in the Bill, but I would be pleased to support any regulations suggested by the Conservative party or the hon. Gentleman personally to deal with the working hours of people employed in distribution.

  1191
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about rurality. I accept, as someone with a rural constituency, albeit with urban problems, that there is a different dimension to life in rural areas. Perhaps we can examine that in Committee.
  I again commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 ( Committal of Bills).

  Retirement income Reform Bill
  Order for Second Reading read..
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Allan Haselhurst): Not moved.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House will wish to know my reasons for withdrawing my Retirement Income Reform Bill. Despite cross-party support for this legislation, the Government are still unwilling to back it, for the fourth time of asking. When I tabled the Bill in January, the Government had yet to introduce their Pensions Bill. They have now done so, but it remains deficient and will do nothing to help those who are forced to annuitise three quarters of their pension pot at the age of 75.
  I am grateful to the Retirement Income Reform Campaign and to Cicero Consulting for their help. Having sought advice, I feel that the Bill would better continue its parliamentary life as an amendment to the Pensions Bill in Standing Committee and on Report. That will force the Government to confront its many merits, instead of relying on their Back Benchers to talk it out.

  Genetically Modified Organisms Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12 noon
  Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The subject of genetically modified crops is a subject that can fill an MP with trepidation, and it is clear that it has so filled the Government deputy Chief Whip. [Interruption.] Indeed, I can see consternation on the faces of Government Front Benchers. Usually, it is the complicated science and the entrenched views held by those on both sides of the argument that put people off this subject. However, GM crops have potentially irrevocable consequences that could affect us all. Although I am only an arts graduate, when my name came up in respect of promoting a private Member's Bill, I was determined to tackle this subject, and I am jolly glad I did.
  In the run-up to today's debate, I have been extremely gratified to learn of the support for my stand, not least from my own Rother district council, but also from the many letters and cards I have received from various other parts of the country. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has drawn to my attention the strongly worded resolution of Devon county council.
  I am pleased to say that the Bill is sponsored by several members of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I, too, am a member. I am delighted to say that our report, "GM foods—Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials", has been extremely well received by the public at large. I am sorry that the Government have not taken more trouble to take on board the Committee's views. I am also glad to say that one of the Bill's sponsors is my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—he, too, is a member of the Committee—who is in his place. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Committee wrote to the Minister yesterday in support of the principles of my Bill. I am pleased to say that several members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are also sponsors. Any mistakes in the Bill are mine, but their support—and that of other sponsors on both sides of the House—adds a great deal of weight to the fundamental principles that I will argue for today.
  Without wishing to get bogged down in the complexities of GM crops, I should point out that, whenever any new technology or product is introduced, it has risks as well as benefits. As a point of principle, we must preserve consumer choice and allow people to choose whether they wish to use or consume a product. We must also ensure that, if the technology could have adverse impacts on our health, wealth or precious environment, those who introduce it and benefit from it must be properly held responsible, and if necessary required to pay damages, or to put right whatever harm is done.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: Not at the moment; I want to make some progress, if I may. One does not need to be a scientist to understand that freedom of choice and
  1194
  producer responsibility underpin my approach. It does not matter whether one is in favour of or against the commercialisation of GM crops: those are the basic rules, and we should all subscribe to them. That is what my Bill seeks to achieve for GM crops.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that this is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bill that would normally be answered by a DEFRA Minister. Do you know whether the Government will be providing a Minister at least to hear the arguments, if not to give DEFRA's opinion on the matter?
  It was definitely the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who made the GM statement to the House. It is rather odd, therefore, that there is no DEFRA Minister present to hear the arguments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are represented on the Front Bench, and the Chair cannot intervene beyond that. It needs to be well observed that events on Fridays sometimes do not follow an entirely normal course, which may explain the current absence of a DEFRA Minister.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is it not at the very least a discourtesy, if not sheer indifference, to the House that the Government have not seen fit to provide a full team of Ministers to cover the full set of Bills before the House today? Surely the Government cannot make casual assumption that Bills will take this or that course. It must be right for the Government to supply proper Ministers to deal with Bills in the order in which they appear.
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to deal with the matter. There is no genuine problem of order. The Government are represented on the Front Bench, as I said. Whether or not the absence of a DEFRA Minister is intentional is entirely another matter. Circumstances are such that no DEFRA Minister is in his place at the present time, but that is not a point of order for the Chair because the Government are represented on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government are represented on the Front Bench. We all realise that, but as I understand it, the Minister present is from the Department of Trade and Industry. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any other officials in the Speaker's

  1195
  Office, been given any information this morning of a Government reshuffle, which would explain the change of responsibilities?
  Mr. Miller rose—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me tempt Mr. Sutcliffe to contribute.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you protected my status as a proper Minister. I am a Minister based in the Department of Trade and Industry, which other parties are trying to do away with. The DTI is very interested in all aspects of the business of the House and will pass on to the appropriate Ministers anything that is raised in the debate.
  Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not more appropriate—you, Sir, may wish to discuss the matter with the Speaker—when there is a change of business on a Friday brought about by the mechanism of Bills being withdrawn, that prior notice be given of that change? That is important, because it affects the workings of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot control every event occurring in the House. Members sometimes take initiatives, involving motions to sit in private and so forth, which can completely alter the order and time taken on particular items of business. No one knows before the start of business whether a Bill will be dealt with in 10 minutes or five hours. In the best of all ordered worlds, both the Government and Opposition Benches should be manned for the appropriate legislation. The Chair expects that to happen, but nothing out of order has taken place and I believe that we should now move on.
  Gregory Barker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I can shed a little further light on the matter. I received a letter from the Minister for the Environment at 6.30 yesterday evening, in which he said:
  "I will of course listen carefully to what you have to say in support of your Bill on Friday and judge it accordingly."
  What could possibly have happened to that Minister from 6.30 last night, when he said he would be in his place listening to the debate on my Bill? Perhaps it is a cause for concern or a cause of consternation for the Government Whips. Perhaps it explains why the Government deputy Chief Whip has scuttled off.
  I want to press on, in the hope that at some point the DEFRA Ministers will turn up. 1 return to the issue of freedom of choice.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: No, not on this point. We have done it to death.
  All crop seeds have the potential to mix with other varieties, and GM crops are no different. They can be
  1196
  mixed by cross-pollination, when the pollen of one crop is blown or carried by insects from one plant to another. They can be mixed when birds or animals eat or otherwise transport seed to other fields. They can be mixed if a field is planted with a GM crop one year and a non-GM crop the next. Some of the seed will inevitably remain in the ground and grow later than intended, mixing with the following non-GM crop. Such plants are known as volunteers. Humans, too, can mix the seed, in farm machinery or silos that are not completely emptied of one batch of seed or crop before another is added or when seed is spilled in transportation. Seed can be mixed by accident at the grain merchant.
  The point is that if GM crops are allowed to mix with non-GM crops, it will not be possible for a consumer who does not wish to eat GM food to be able to buy GM-free products. It is clear that many people want to continue to buy GM-free products.
  Lembit öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Assembly has had much debate about this issue, and it shares his concern that unless we do something about it now, our choice will be removed by default?
  Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
  Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman has outlined the principles behind the Bill and some of the challenges that GM food poses for retailers. Has he managed to inform Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth about his Bill? What are their views on his Bill?
  Gregory Barker: If the hon. Gentleman occasionally read the newspapers, he would know that Friends of the Earth has been extremely helpful in the drafting of the Bill. All the environmental groups have taken an interest, although they do not all entirely agree with what I am doing.
  Mr. Miller: I am concerned not with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, but with the methodology. The Bill would regulate in a very prescriptive manner, but does that not go against the basic tenets of his party?
  Gregory Barker: I do not intend to respond to time-wasting interventions. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill carefully instead of having just been passed it by the Whips, he would find that what he alleges is not the case.
  The Government's "GM Nation?" debate found that 86 per cent. of respondents did not want to eat GM food, something that our retailers—even the large supermarkets—have long recognised. Indeed, none of the major supermarkets goes out of its way to stock GM food. To preserve the choice that our constituents clearly wish to continue to exercise, we have to prevent the contamination of non-GM crops with GM traits. GM crops must be required to be planted according to rules that govern separation distances and planting intervals, as well as according to farm hygiene rules that prevent equipment from being used for GM and non-GM crops simultaneously.

  1197
  I hope that so far I have followed a logical path. I know from meetings with the Minister, who is unfortunately not in his place, that the Government agree with me that we need a co-existence and liability regime—
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House do now sit in private.
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 ( Motions to sit in private):—
  The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 23.

  Division No. 111]

  [12:13 pm

  AYES

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Barry Gardiner and

  Rob Marris

  NOES

  Barker, Gregory

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushclilf)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  öpik, Lembit

  Davidson, Ian

  Paterson, Owen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Redwood, rh John

  Flook, Adrian

  Robtain, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Francois, Mark

  Teather, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Mr. Andrew Miller and

  Mr. Andrew Dismore

  It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
  Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Through the most shameless and despicable use of House procedures, the Government have deliberately killed off my Bill and the debate on it before I had got even halfway through my speech. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment wrote to me saying that he would be here to hear my Bill and to judge it accordingly. How can anyone ever trust not only this Labour Government but DEFRA, when a Minister deliberately tells untruths in a letter and refuses to come to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going much too far in his remarks. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. The procedures of the House have been observed correctly and the Chair has no control over the actions that are taken provided that they are in order. What has happened has happened.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue of genetically modified organisms is a matter of enormous national controversy and the House is as divided as the general public. It is simply unacceptable that a Bill of this nature that asks Parliament to decide the nature of regulation should be closed down and that a Minister should not come to the House. Is it possible for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make representations to the Minister that he should come in future to debates that concern his Department?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The importance of a particular matter cannot be decided by the Chair. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that any particular matter that hon. Members wish to have debated on the Floor of the House should be taken up with the usual channels.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that it is, indeed, the role of Parliament to determine that? If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) had secured the support of even 40 of his colleagues, he could have continued with his peroration and his Bill might have been able to proceed, but as he did not have the support of his own side, it fell.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These points of order are turning into a debate. They are not for the Chair—[Interruption.] Well, we will try one more.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In more measured tones, will you accept that on reading Hansard on Monday, people will find that 23 people voted in the No Lobby? It was not 23 Tories because, as a matter of fact, there were six or seven Labour Members. It was a cross-party Division. Let the facts speak for themselves—they only got about 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the record will show that. No hon. Member who is experienced in Friday sittings will be surprised by what happened, but what has happened has happened. It is in order and we should proceed with the other measures on the Order Paper.

  Performance of Companies and Government Departments (Reporting) Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  12.31 pm
  Andy King rose—
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection is that when the Bill was previously considered, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) had finished introducing it and the Minister was in the middle of his remarks. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot speak again without the leave of the House, and, unless we hear from a Minister, should we not move on?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that plain, but we had to get the ball rolling. The Bill is now before us and we are continuing an adjourned debate.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: This is something of an unexpected treat.
  Rob Marris: For all of us.
  Mr. Dismore: For the whole House, no doubt. I had expected to speak at some length on the Bill before last, but happily I did not spend too much time preparing for it, and I have not spent much time preparing for this Bill. As will be apparent, I support it and regard it as important.
  I want to draw attention to a few reports that show where companies fall short of the high standards that we expect of them. All the reports have been published since our last debate on the Bill. According to a report by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, labour standards in the high-tech computer sector are among the worst in the world. Systemic problems of unsafe working conditions, compulsory overtime and poor wages falling below the legal minimum are just some of the catalogue of examples found in factories in Mexico, Thailand and China.
  In Brazil and Kenya, Christian Aid continues to report extreme health and safety violations of tobacco farmers who supply to major companies, such as British American Tobacco. In Nigeria, communities report ongoing problems with oil spills, emanating from Shell's operations there.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, which looked in detail at the smuggling of tobacco? It specifically mentioned Imperial Tobacco and the lack of co-operation at that time with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in reaching a memorandum of understanding. Is he aware of any information relating to China or anywhere else which would put Imperial Tobacco in the frame in the same way as BAT is now in the frame?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee,
  1200
  is well placed to make that point. I am afraid that I have not read that report, but I am sure that the management and board of directors of the companies to which he has referred will be in some trepidation when they see the contents of this Bill, if those are the sort of business practices in which they are engaged.
  Ms Julia Drown: My constituents have written to me in support of this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only conditions of workers that are at issue, but activities such as supply of baby milk to countries where it can lead to deaths of infants and what companies are doing to promote GM crops, which perhaps our constituents would not want? What about the mining activities by companies in the great lakes region in Africa? Are those companies stimulating some of the civil war that has affected Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo? People want some reporting on those issues.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes the point strongly. There is a range of issues, such as those to which she refers, on which companies must take greater responsibility. My sole concern is that this Bill is only being introduced this year—we should have had such a Bill decades ago. I remember looking at reports of cases of asbestos workers in South Africa who were poisoned by big asbestos companies and are now trying to fight for compensation. Their claims were resisted tooth and nail by those companies all the way up through our courts here, until finally, for once, the judges got it right and allowed those people properly to bring claims for compensation. That is exactly the sort of problem with which we should be dealing.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the organic farmers of Herefordshire, which has more organic farms per hectare than any other county in England, whose crops might be contaminated by genetically modified crops? What would he say in defence of his Labour colleagues who have just caused a Division that has effectively meant that an important private Member's Bill has now been lost, which might have had a chance for further debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is way outside the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I would say is that the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about genetically modified organisms, which raises an issue in relation to corporate behaviour. He may be interested to know that I share his views about corporate behaviour in relation to genetically modified food, and I regret that he could not summon enough Liberal Democrat Members to support the previous Bill, or enough Conservative Members, or enough between them, to do so.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled that discussion on the topic of the previous Bill is outside the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Dismore: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was getting a little carried away.
  Tony Cunningham: I have in my constituency a running shoe manufacturer called New

  1201
  Balance. It is the only running shoe manufacturer that produces running shoes in the United Kingdom. All the other companies—Reebok, Nike, Adidas and the rest—produce in far-flung parts of the world. Is this Bill designed to look at those sorts of companies, which may be producing their running shoes in ideal conditions, while in some third-world countries workers could be suffering from poor health and safety and so on. Is this Bill designed to examine those issues?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point about looking at the performance of companies in this respect. We have all read stories and seen television documentaries about companies in the far east, for example, employing child labour on a penny or two a day. That is completely exploitative and outside any form of proper reporting and control. If companies are engaged in those practices, shareholders and the wider public ought to be aware of it. Of course, the issue goes beyond unfair labour practices elsewhere, to fairness of competition and trade with legitimate companies such as that in my hon. Friend's constituency. How can that company compete fairly when other companies behave so improperly and badly, undercutting its legitimate business?
  Andy King: I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware that large multinational companies do not just behave disgracefully towards their work force, as in terms of the computer issue. In places such as Plachimada in India, Coca-Cola took away drinking water, which is necessary to sustain life, and Shell is of course notorious for its activities in the Niger delta. Such companies put whole communities at risk, yet they are not held to account by their shareholders.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Coca-Cola and water. Recently, there was a scandal in our own country when Coca-Cola had to withdraw its bottled tap water because it was not safe. That was a rip-off, if ever there was one. That is an example from the developed world of a company that has misbehaved in the developing world, in India.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will provide tremendous assistance to pension funds? The Government introduced a provision whereby investment companies must issue a statement of investment principles by which the funds must abide, and which their trustees must observe. That is especially relevant in the context of exercising corporate social responsibility, given that those companies are some of the major shareholders in many multinational companies on the index. Having analysed their investments, their shareholders will be able to exercise their vote at annual general meetings. The Bill would allow the shareholders of those companies to analyse their investments and to vote at annual general meetings with a clear knowledge of the social responsibility of the activities in which they are engaged. That will—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather long for an intervention.
  Mr. Dismore: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. I hope that he will have the opportunity to develop it after I have concluded my remarks.
  1202
  I want to put my hon. Friend's point in a slightly different light in relation to ethical investment companies and pension funds. When I recently had a financial health check with my financial adviser, who no doubt tried to bamboozle me, I was astounded, when I looked at my pension, that the small amount of money that I had put into an ethical fund had performed much better than the funds in the general market. That is a sign of the times. People are much more interested in knowing where their money is going and what the companies that they are investing in are up to. That is why my hon. Friend's Bill is so timely. It catches the spirit of the age—the zeitgeist that allows us, as investors, to ensure that our money is invested properly based on companies' reports of what they are doing.
  Ms Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is true not only of investment companies? Many people have expressed concern about call centres going abroad. Nationwide, whose headquarters are in my constituency, recently stated that it was going to keep its call centres in Swindon, which is a great reflection on the staff there. That is the sort of decision that people want to know about; certainly, Nationwide's financial performance is reflecting it. Similarly, there is huge increase in interest in fair trade. People want to know about what companies are doing, and the Bill would assist that.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she makes a good point. The issue of call centres is a difficult and thorny one. Personally, I do not necessarily object to their going overseas. The real question is whether the people who work in them are being exploited, and that would emerge clearly from corporate reports that deal with the subject, as they would have to under the Bill.
  Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that earlier in our debates a point of order was made to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was then in the Chair, stating that there was not an appropriate departmental Minister on the Front Bench. That matter was pursued extensively by Conservative Members, yet the Members on their Front Bench are not the appropriate shadow Ministers for the relevant Department—the DTI.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is on the record, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Before the last round of interventions, I was talking about the problems in Nigeria in relation to Shell's operations, especially in the context of oil spills. We have all read a great deal in newspapers recently about that company and its lack of social responsibility towards the people of Nigeria.
  Tony Cunningham: Earlier today we had the successful Second Reading of the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. It was helped through its Second Reading by a trade union, which provided support. If the Bill before us passes through the House, I hope that it would allow people to know whether companies that have dealings in other parts of the world accept and encourage trade union involvement and trade union

  1203
  membership. We know that in this country that is acceptable. Would it not be as well if people knew what companies were doing in respect of trade uionism in other parts of the world?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we are talking about organisations such as those in the oil industry, it is extremely important. We are not thinking only about terms, conditions and wages—we must also have regard to health and safety. Many companies operate in ways that are downright unsafe.
  Recently, a multinational company was describing to me its health and safety record with particular reference to fatal accidents. In Europe, those accidents could be counted on one's fingers—that is if one still has them! However, there were more people killed by this one company worldwide than the whole of the people killed at work in the United Kingdom in a year, twice over. That shows that while in Europe we may have a strong attitude to health and safety, that does not apply in the rest of the world. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of the trade unions on health and safety. An inquiry into health and safety is being conducted by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Trade unions are important when it comes to terms and conditions, and especially important in the context of health and safety at work.
  It is easy for us in the west to take for granted the right that is guaranteed by all the international conventions to organise as a trade union. We know that there are many dictatorships throughout the world that operate hand in glove with some rather despicable companies, which will deal only with sweetheart trade unions or which actively fight against trade unionism itself. Many people have died in the developing world, particularly in south America, for the right to be represented by a trade union. It is an issue on which companies should report back to their shareholders in the developed world.
  Andy King: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Bill has the full support of every trade union in this country and that of the TUC, which has written to me offering its full and unqualified support because of the benefits that the Bill would bring to the very workers to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because it significantly emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). The trade union movement is an international movement. An important reflection of the good work that our trade unions do is the attempt to promote decent labour conditions for workers internationally, often in circumstances where they are not able to look after themselves.
  Amnesty International continues to be the leading source of information on human rights abuses, where business has failed to act within their sphere of influence, or sought to avoid responsibility altogether, through legal means. That includes, for example, BP's negotiation within the context of the Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline.
  If I were to draw a thread through all these different stories, including those to which I was referring before I was intervened on, I would ask what they all have in
  1204
  common. Concerns have been expressed by stakeholders who have been unable to articulate their concerns by issuing reports, by media attention or by direct lobbying. Most of these issues have failed to appear in corporate social reports. Why is that? Is it perhaps because those companies are unwilling to explain what has been going on? Is it because no one wants to be seen to be taking a lead for fear of creating a disadvantage for their company?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has been most generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that some of the very principles with regard to stores that felt a compulsion as a result of their competition opening on Christmas day on the basis of which we were earlier urging this House to pass legislation to prevent Christmas day trading are exactly the same as those that apply here? There are companies that fear the impact on their own share price and operations from doing the right thing and publishing each year a statement of their socially responsible activities. They fear that unless we act, they will be disadvantaged in the commercial arena.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a strong point that I was starting to develop. Blue-chip companies may like to do that, but nobody wants to be seen to be the one putting a toe in the water. All our companies and employers—not just trade unions—would also see the benefits of the Bill.
  Tony Cunningham: In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for many years and democracy has broken down. Many people would not want British and European companies to invest there, but they need to know whether companies are investing in a country with such a regime. I hope that the Bill will provide them with the information.
  Mr. Dismore: That is a strong point. The question is why people want to know that information. There are two or three different reasons. The first is whether they are happy with their money being invested in a country such as that. But there may be big corporate investors who are prepared to see that done for profit but also prepared to put pressure on companies in turn to pressurise the regimes to try to move towards democracy. My hon. Friend makes an important point about Burma, where a number of UK companies invest. If some of the shareholders, pension fund members and people with individual pension rights knew where their money was invested, they might well put pressure on those companies to improve standards throughout the developing world in their operations, as well as on Governments to clean up their acts.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman may be a sponsor of the Bill and will be au fait with its contents. Companies such as Clarks of Somerset produce all their products in China and what are known as third-world countries, but comply with the Bill's provisions. What advice has he sought from such companies?
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention. Such companies have a lot to

  1205
  gain from the Bill. The same situation applies to the company that makes training shoes, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Companies with decent labour standards and proper health and safety regimes have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the Bill.
  Andy King: In addition, decent companies in this country fully support the Bill. The Co-operative Bank, which is thriving, is fully behind us, as are British Telecom andB?Q. A lot of companies are saying that the time has come to act together so that they are not undercut by the worst.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he mentioned some important companies. The Co-op hank is a major finance business, and B?Q brings in raw materials from all over the world, particularly timber, in respect of which there are issues involving hardwood. It is interesting that BT, a high-tech company, also subscribes to the Bill, which goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made about call centres.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he shows extraordinary generosity of spirit. May I add Tetley, which is based in Greenford my constituency, to the list of companies that operate ethically? Tetley has been ethically sourcing tea for not the past five or 10 years but for the past 15 years, because it recognises that it has a global duty and an imperative to act as an ethical sourcer in the growth and boxing of loose tea. It has been extraordinarily successful, even though it has had to withdraw from some of its tea-growing operations in Zimbabwe and China. Does he accept that there are some good companies and that, in a reverse of Gresham's law, the good might possibly drive out the bad?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. When he mentioned Tetley's, I wondered whether we were going to go down the beer route, which would have been interesting.
  Mr. Pound: Not during Lent.
  Mr. Dismore: Given that we debated Christmas day earlier, we seem to be having a day of religious festivals.
  My hon. Friend is involved in Labour Friends of India, and has a large Indian community in his constituency, so it is important to him that the tea company in his constituency is shown to be using proper practices in the region where many of his constituents have their roots. It is a double bonus for him to have such a company on his patch.
  Why do such issues not at present appear in corporate reports? Is it really because companies do not think that they are likely to have any impact on shareholder value until they pose a clear financial risk? Shareholder value, however, is the starting point of the founding principle of the Government's proposed operating and financial
  1206
  review. Some people involved in the company law review process, such as civil society groups, are calling for an operating and financial review that addresses the interests of all relevant users, including shareholders, consumers, employees, communities and charities. The company law review has accepted that premise, and argues that an operating and financial review should be prepared for members and other users. However, the proposals are still aimed primarily at members' interests alone.
  The proposed operating and financial review must ensure that companies take into account and disclose a range of impacts on relevant stakeholders, instead of perpetuating the status quo, which is based on companies' voluntary good will. Do businesses currently report on what is important to other users? Some might, but not all. Looking at the leaders in corporate social responsibility, there are significant gaps between companies' social and environmental concerns and their financial considerations. When a business makes a decision, it must arguably consider several issues beyond financial impact, including legal implications and the risk to its brand reputation, but business decisions rarely allow a stakeholder interest to overrule financial concerns if it has no proven financial bearing. In forward-looking strategies, unless there are clear financial risks, business will do what is best for business as it perceives that in its short-term, blinkered view of the world today.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a parallel with the change in the legislative and regulatory environment in local government from compulsory competitive tendering to the best-value regime that this Government introduced? Previously, local authorities were obliged simply to look at the cheapest price for delivering a service, whereas they can now assess "value" much more widely. Does not the Bill seek, in many respects, to do the same for business? A business should not simply consider the cheapest price at which it can produce its product in a given area but the overall value that accrues to the consumer, and to society in general, as a result of its interventions.
  Mr. Dismore: Again, my hon. Friend makes a cogent point. That is the nub of the debate. We want companies to look more broadly at the wider range of stakeholders and people who may be affected by their operations.
  We have had such laws for a very long time. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 gives companies duties towards the general public. Here, we are asking companies merely to tell us what they are up to, and then perhaps market forces, paradoxically, will do the trick.
  Mr. Pound: I do not have my copy of the Register of Members' Interests to hand, although I know that my hon. Friend knows it by heart. Does he agree that many right hon. and hon. Members who rightly list their directorships, in certain cases in companies dealing in tobacco, for example, might set an example to the House

  1207
  and to the nation by insisting on this form of disclosure, and in the absence of legislation for it, perhaps even arranging to do so themselves?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, but I do not know the register inside out. We consult it only when we are investigating someone.
  It is amazing that the only representative of the Conservative party here today is the shadow Minister, and the same goes for the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Gardiner: He is not a shadow Minister.
  Mr. Dismore: Whatever he is, he is sitting on the Front Bench. Perhaps he will clarify what he is doing here.
  Gregory Barker: I am a member of the Opposition Whips Office, and as such a shadow Minister.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman can make a similar declaration.
  Mr. Keetch: As the Liberal Democrat shadow Defence Secretary, I have an important interest in defence matters in this debate, which is why I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Gregory Barker: May I also add that, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) must respond to the first intervention before taking a second one.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Conservative representative has clarified his position as a shadow Whip. Perhaps he can whip in some of his colleagues today, and in particular those who have the shareholdings that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). Perhaps then they can answer for the companies of which they are shareholders and, I suspect, directors, and defend them at first hand in relation to both the Bill and the issues that have been raised today. I suspect—my hon. Friend may be able to supply the detail shortly—that some of them may be a little worried about the Bill, because it may expose them as directors of companies involved in nefarious practices in the developing world.
  Gregory Barker: As well as a shadow Whip, I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, so this is a subject that I am especially interested in and sympathetic to, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that, at his instigation, we have tested who is in the House today, and it transpires that only six Labour Members were prepared to go into the Lobby, versus 16
  1208
  Conservative Members, so it ill becomes him to speak about Members not being here, especially as he has destroyed a very good Bill.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that, rather than responding to that intervention, the hon. Gentleman will continue with the debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) spoke about the interest of the defence industry in the Bill. He may wish to make a fuller contribution later, but I invite him to say a little more now.
  Mr. Keetch: The defence industry clearly has an interest in the Bill, and I should point out that, as the Register of Members' Interests confirms, I am a non-executive director of two companies based in my constituency, neither of which has activities outside the United Kingdom. Indeed, one of them does not even have activities outside Herefordshire.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sure that the House has heard the hon. Gentleman's declaration, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have no directorships whatsoever.
  Mr. Pound: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has registered nine shareholdings in the current register, but that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We really must return to the debate currently before the House.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sure that we can examine the hon. Gentleman's shareholdings in the Tea Room afterwards.
  Ms Drown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening, as we were getting a little off track. That said, this is a good debate and I wish that we had more such debates. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the danger with a Bill such as this is that one adds more and more elements to it, and that it is important that regulation is not burdensome? Has he any thoughts on how we can encourage appropriate reporting without the system becoming too big, burdensome and costly to companies? A balance has to be struck in that regard.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Bill makes a useful contribution to the debate and is a good start. I suspect that it has little prospect of becoming legislation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) has done us a great service in bringing these issues before the House and at least kicking off the debate. The best way forward is for business to listen to this debate and to engage with those of us who feel strongly about these issues. It is clear from her interventions and her work outside this place that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) feels strongly about them.

  1209
  The CBI and the large companies represented by such organisations should engage with us and start to develop some solutions. We have witnessed the failure of voluntarism, but perhaps the one or two good companies that do want to make progress could become pilots and flag-bearers for business organisations. Notwithstanding the ignorance of the reporting, if shareholders were to say at annual meetings, "We know that there is no law requiring you to act in this way, but we as shareholders are insisting that you do," we might start to make progress. In that regard, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon says, this debate is important and valuable.
  I was talking about business strategies and what business gets up to. A good example is the construction of an oil pipeline or dam. As we have seen throughout the developing world, such projects are often completely rejected by local communities. However, the voices of those communities are seldom, if ever, heard. If they are heard, they are seldom, if ever, the crucial factor in the business decision as to whether that oil pipeline or dam should go ahead. Such decisions are taken irrespective of environmental, cultural or social damage.
  We have discussed the idea that the operating and financial review should not be a full social and environmental report, and that only key performance indicators should be included, yet some businesses will assume that if they have done the OFR, they have done the job. Furthermore, what they chose to include in the final report would be a matter for them. Such an OFR could therefore have an adverse effect, resulting in companies disclosing less, not more. However, the Bill requires an OFR that ensures that companies report on relevant social, environmental and economic impacts and performance, thereby providing both shareholders and stakeholders with an informed assessment of companies' operations and financial positions. The Bill also sets out the matters that should be included in the OFR, and those matters that directors have a duty to consider in order to allow an informed assessment. Moreover, it provides a process for signing off the review. It determines which major companies must publish an OFR—approximately the top 1,000 United Kingdom companies—but more importantly, it allows the OFR to bring in more companies in future.
  In addition, my hon. Friend's Bill will amend the basic duties on company directors to include social and environmental impacts by requiring the director to promote the success of the company while having to consider all factors of potential risk, including impacts on communities and the environment, among other matters. Where possible, directors must also reduce damaging impacts on the environment and communities.
  We have had some six years of consultation on the review of company law, and we should use every opportunity to ensure that legislation includes the requirements that many of my hon. Friends believe should be implemented, as we have heard in today's and previous debates. Regulations for the operating and financial review were promised in the 2002 White Paper,
  1210
  which has been followed by further consultation, and still more consultation is due when the review is published.
  Tony Cunningham: The Government chief scientific adviser recently said that climate change was perhaps a greater danger to the world than terrorism. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if companies in this country are developing techniques—whether it be for oil, coal, gas or whatever—in other parts of the world, that
  contribute to climate change, shareholders and stakeholders should know that such activity is going on?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend once again makes a cogent point. There is always considerable debate about climate change. We need only reflect on the weather to see how the climate has changed—whether it be the consequence of CFCs in the atmosphere or whatever. I believe that there is now overwhelming evidence that corporate activity, particularly in the developing world—logging, for example—can have a major impact on the climate not just for individual countries but worldwide. The British public should be aware, in taking investment decisions, of what contributions companies are making towards resolving that extremely serious problem that the whole world faces.
  To conclude, I remind the Minister that commitments were made in 1994, reviews begun in 1997 when the Government came into office, and the challenge was put to business in 2001—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important issue. Like him, I am pleasantly surprised to have an opportunity to debate the issues today. I hope that he is pleased to know that the Government were the first to introduce a Minister with particular responsibility for corporate social affairs.
  Mr. Dismore: I hope that my remarks have done nothing to detract from the Government's achievements so far. We are now examining corporate responsibility in a wide range of matters, not least corporate manslaughter. I have taken a strong interest in that matter for some time.
  The Minister is right that the Government have already done a lot, but what we are discussing now is very important, going beyond the narrow confines of company law. Even though the Bill amounts to company law reform, it affects the investment decisions made by everyone who has a pension fund. It affects the way in which our big companies behave worldwide. It is an essential reform. It is now opportune, after the challenge put to business in 2001, for social and environmental concerns to be crystallised into company law. The Bill will make that happen. I strongly support my hon. Friend, who has done the House a great service in introducing the Bill. I hope that he will make at least some progress today.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). We have had an interesting

  1211
  Friday morning. Friday mornings are a time when the House debates matters in a way—different from during the rest of the week—that few people see. We have had both good humour and bad temper in this morning's debates. However, we are now debating provisions on which there seems to be a good measure of agreement across the Chamber.
  I want to focus my remarks on the importance of corporate social responsibility, reform and the wider impact of the proposals not just in our society, but throughout the world. The Government set up an independent company law review in 1998, and I commend them for that. It was intended to establish fundamental reform of the framework of core company law. The company law review published its final report in 2001, and the first part of the response was published in 2002, in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law". As I understand it, the Government remain committed to the implementation of their proposals for company law reform.
  Two of the main recommendations of the company law review were, first, that there should be an accessible, codified statement of the general duties that directors owe to their company as managers and monitors, embodying a modern, inclusive view of the range of decision making and objective standards of professional skill and care, tailored to the role of the individual director. The second principal recommendation was that all companies of significant economic size should be required to produce, as part of their annual report and accounts, an operating and financial review—the OFR, as my hon. Friend called it. That recommendation is reflected in clause 1(1) of the Bill, which states that a major company must
  "prepare an operating and financial review."
  The intention of the Bill is not to focus on smaller companies. Right at the beginning, it explicitly mentions major companies and tries to recognise the impact that they have on the wider community.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Bill imposes an obligation on directors to prepare the OFR. The review reports to the members of the company, but interest in it will go beyond those members. The Bill performs a neat conjuring trick, in that while remaining within the confines of company law, it will ensure that the wider public can have a greater understanding of how companies operate.
  Mr. Gardiner: In a good debate, ideas feed off each other, and the intervention that I made in my hon. Friend's speech earlier has now come back to me. The wider interest that must be generated by an OFR is in the wider community's involvement as shareholders in the company. That will drive the company towards better and better practice, because it will know that when investors read the OFR and consider the wider implications of investing in that company, they will have some tough decisions to make. Investors will have to pay great attention to the sometimes damaging effects that a company can have before deciding whether to invest in it or not. That will promote better practice and companies will be forced on to their mettle to clean up their act.
  1212
  A good example of that was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who used to work for a multinational oil company. She and a number of other people were studying the plans for a new plant that was to be built in an African country. My hon. Friend felt that something was not quite right about the plans, and when the meeting broke up she kept the plans to study them overnight, and found out that there was no filtration plant at the appropriate point to stop effluent being gunked out into the local community. When she pointed that out the next day, there was a bit of a silence and the people responsible for drawing up the plans said, "That's quite deliberate". There was no law to oblige that company to include such environmental controls.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the Government are supporting the UN global compact that Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced in 1999, which sets out principles for business on human rights, labour and the environment, and would cover the circumstances he describes.
  Mr. Gardiner: Indeed. I wholeheartedly support the Government's actions in that respect. My hon. Friend is right to point out that those things need to be tackled internationally.
  Andy King: It is important that the Government put their money where their mouth is. The Prime Minister issued a challenge to the top 350 companies in October 2000: to issue OFRs by the end of the 2001. However, only about 20 per cent. of them actually did so. We are lagging behind. Denmark has introduced mandatory reporting, as have the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, yet the Department of Trade and Industry says only that we will soon be bringing forward OFRs. How soon is soon? It has taken six years so far—surely it is time to do something?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in support of his Bill and I agree; it is time to act. It is shameful that companies issued with that challenge have ignored not only the Government's directive, but also public will in this country. People certainly want OFRs to be set up so that there is a clear understanding of the impact of companies' practice in the areas and countries where they operate. It is a matter of the public right to know. Shareholders have the right to know what is going on so that they can make the appropriate decisions. They should be able to find out—if they want to know—how their money is being invested, and whether it is being invested in companies that behave in a socially responsible manner, as I believe the vast majority of shareholders want them to. We all have a stake in this matter; for example, those of us who share in pension funds.
  Lembit öpik: I do not necessarily disagree with the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I should like some reassurance. Will he confirm that he is not suggesting that legislation is required because we think that the majority of companies are irresponsible? From my

  1213
  experience in industry, I know that Procter and Gamble was always highly responsible internationally. Does he agree that, although there are details that could be discussed in Committee, the principle is not that everyone is guilty until proven innocent? The Bill would simply ensure that companies that transgressed internationally, perhaps significantly, were publicly brought to book.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for guarding my back. Before I became a Member, I ran an international company in the City for 10 years. In that respect, I am very industry-friendly. I understand the constraints of running an international company and am aware that the vast majority of such companies and their directors want to operate properly and ethically, for the benefit of the wider community. I welcome that. However, it sits ill with that when only a small percentage of major companies are prepared to prove their good intentions by producing an OFR.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend with some of the figures: 132 of the FTSE 250 companies report on environmental performance, with a further 100 reporting on social and ethical issues. So there is still a long way to go, but progress is being made.
  Mr. Gardiner: Indeed, progress is being made, and I understand that, in many respects, it is better that companies willingly make progress. No one wants to drag companies kicking and screaming into declaring such matters. We want co-operation, and I am sure the Government want co-operation. Of course that is a tremendously sensible way to proceed, not just for FTSE 100 companies, but for all the companies involved who are saying, "This is what we want to do. We want to be open and transparent."
  I remember speaking to Chief Justice Verma, a former chief justice of India, who is now a human rights commissioner there. He had a wonderful phrase, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." That touches the heart of the matter. Putting forward the OFR and allowing transparency and all the facts to be available is the surest way of companies cleaning up their acts.
  Lembit öpik: As Sunlight is a Lever product, I would suggest that Fairy liquid is the best disinfectant. From my experience in Procter and Gamble, I think that that company would say that it could use its impeccable standards, especially in international investment, as a competitive advantage. I have not been asked to raise this on its behalf, but it might ask why it should be made to do something that responsible companies already do effectively, without being made to by law. Given the Minister's statistics, will the more successful companies not report anyway, over time, because they will understand that not doing so puts them at a competitive disadvantage?
  Mr. Gardiner: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the counter-argument is, "Look, if you are already doing this as a responsible company in the community, what can possibly be your objection to the regulations stating that you ought to do
  1214
  it?" If companies want to do something, surely they cannot object to the regulations stating that they have to do so, particularly as their competitors, who may have good reason not to want to do it because they may be shown in a disadvantageous light by comparison, will be forced to do it.
  The perverseness of the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes—I will not call him my hon. Friend, as that would only ruin his career—is that those good companies that are already happy to put such information into the public domain may perceive a benefit to them by being contrasted with their competitors who do not put it in the public domain. They may perceive that they can then claim that they are more virtuous and more likely to attract investments from the ethical funds and managed trusts that want to invest ethically, and hence that they may gain a competitive advantage over those who do not conform as they do; so they may be against such legislation for that reason. That may simply show the labyrinthine workings of my mind, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that perverse argument may encourage companies to favour worse practices than those that they themselves carry out.
  Mr. Dismore: There is another aspect to the debate. Clause 9 is entitled "Promotion of company's objectives", so is it not an enabling power? At the moment, directors may wish to do the socially acceptable things that we have been talking about, but may feel constrained by the existing restrictions of company law, which says that they must act in the best interest of shareholders. Clause 9 would enable directors to act in a socially acceptable way even though they may feel constrained from doing so at present. The problem is not just reporting, but enabling directors to act.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Clause 9 states:
  "A director of a company must in any given case…act in the way he decides, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company."
  Mr. Sutcliffe: That throws up the question about the work that the Government have been doing on the Tyson report, on who should be company directors. Company directors should reflect society, and my hon. Friend may want to say something about that.
  Mr. Gardiner: I confess to my hon. Friend that the Tyson report is not a part of the Government's work about which I have read a great deal. If he wishes to enlighten the House further, I shall be grateful to hear from him.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. The Tyson report talks about who should be company directors. It says that they should reflect the make-up of society—for example, there should therefore be more women on company boards. The Tyson report, which the Government have accepted, is a major step forward, because it would help the way that people look at these issues—whether social, environmental or whatever. It is an excellent piece of work.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am certainly happy to agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. A good

  1215
  company will wish to reflect the community that it serves. It can improve its capacity to serve the community by more closely representing the make-up of that community. I certainly would not support any arbitrary notion of imposing directors on companies; that would be wholly redundant and not the way forward. The directors appointed should be those most capable of taking the company forward, but my hon. Friend makes a good point when he says that women are under-represented as directors in some of the major companies in the UK. I know that the Government are working to redress that problem, and we should support them.
  Andy King: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue relates not just to the directors but to the investors in companies? The Bill would give more power to shareholders so that they can become enlightened shareholders, obtain a true picture of the activities of their company and begin to shape those activities in a more sustainable way.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is absolutely correct. One of the most significant changes that the Government have made on this issue is the vesting of responsibility in the trustees of pension funds to make a statement of investment principles. They must report on that each year in their annual reports, and the statements must take account of social and ethical matters. Exercising corporate responsibility as investors has now been placed on the trustees of pensions funds, and that will have one of the most dramatic impacts in improving the practice of companies. They will feel the heat from their corporate shareholders. They will have to act responsibly to attract the investment funds that they need to expand their businesses and to perform well in the market. They will have to ensure that their statement of corporate social responsibility is made public, and made accessible to shareholders; and that, when the shareholders read it, they do not blanch at what their money is used for. I have no doubt that that will create short-term turbulence in the stock market and in those companies, but the long-term impact will be highly significant. I welcome the Government's intervention.
  Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is important that the public know where the buck stops? Clause 10 is important. It significantly limits the powers of delegation of a director so that people know who is responsible for the decisions taken.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is correct. He highlights the delegation and independence of judgment that is required. A company director must not, unless authorised to do so by the company's constitution, or as a result of any decisions as set out in clause 8, delegate any of his powers or fail to exercise his independent judgment in exercising his powers. The provision not to alienate his powers and not to be at arm's length from the decisions that his company makes is critical.
  Clause 9 provides that a director must
  "take account in good faith of all the material factors that it is practicable in the circumstances for him to identify",
  1216
  and take
  "all reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the company's impact on the communities that it affects and on the environment."
  Let me give a good example of a successful company in the UK that operates in precisely that way and fulfils Government policy in, perhaps, unexpected ways in an unexpected area. Timbmet sources timber from around the world and supplies it to the building trade in the UK. The company recognises that people in the UK, and in particular their Government, do not want any destruction of the rainforests and want the continued growth of forests of hardwood trees, which, unlike pine tress, which grow within 20 or 30 years, cannot simply be cut down and replenished. Hardwood trees have lifespans of 200 or 300 years, and sometimes longer.
  Timbmet has engaged in a careful programme of identifying sustainable ways of supplying timber into the UK market. On the other hand, the Department for International Development has included in its country strategy paper on Cameroon, which has substantial forest resources, the importance of considering the impact on wildlife and the environment of the interventions that it makes and of its development interventions through aid.
  It is often the case that an aid programme, such as the promotion of a new road through a community, has great commercial benefits in linking towns and communities that were separated, and in enabling a country to develop. No one knows as well as the Minister the importance of transport infrastructure in facilitating development. However, roads can have a devastating impact on the environment and wildlife.
  The bushmeat trade used to be localised within selected, very poor communities in that part of the world, which depended on it for protein and have done so for generations. They were tremendously badly affected, because hunters from the cities used the new highways to come into those communities, snare wildlife, take it into the cities, and develop what has become an international trade in bushmeat. That is an example of the unexpected and perverse impacts that can result from otherwise good and sensible development proposals that bring real economic benefits to a community.
  To return to corporate and social responsibility, Timbmet has formed an alliance with the bushmeat campaign in this country, has initiated programmes and is working with the Government, who have just issued the AFLEG—African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance—declaration, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development signed a few months ago in Ghana. That company wants to maximise its beneficial impact on the community in which its centre of operations is located in west Africa. It has also recognised how the consumer market works in the United Kingdom. It has decided that it is imperative that it operates in those communities in a way that is beyond reproach.
  Timbmet has thus established its credentials in the construction industry in this country and the rest of Europe as a supplier of timber that can be certified as coming from sustainable sources. I should mention in passing the tremendously good work of the Forest

  1217
  Stewardship Council in that respect, in providing one of the few effective certification processes for timber around the world. Timbmet is also able to match the Government's aspirations, as their procedures state that wood used in construction by the Government must come from sustainable sources. That completes the chain, which goes right back to some of the poorest communities in the world, by ensuring that the pathways opened up into the forest by Timbmet's work are not used by hunters. That initiative protects those local, indigenous people who have depended on bushmeat, cane rat, duika and bush antelope for years, as a way of topping up their protein intake, and who otherwise would have been forced into food poverty as a result of a timber trade that came in and merely allowed hunting to continue on the back of it.
  The impact of industries and companies on communities is incredibly diverse. It is sometimes difficult for Members to appreciate just how far the ramifications of such a seemingly dry Bill can be felt in communities throughout the world.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the breadth of the environmental issues that the Bill addresses. I want to point out to him an issue that has so far been omitted from our debate: protection of the marine environment. We have looked at forestry and land-based problems, but the marine environment is also significantly under threat. Does he have some observations about that?
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend tempts me down yet another route on a matter that he and I have debated at great length in the past. He is absolutely right; one need only consider the pollution of our seas and waterways. In using the word "our" I do not mean to suggest that the situation is confined to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that the Environment Agency has done over the past few years to improve the watercourses in this country.
  It is absolutely critical that companies take into account the water supply of the areas in which they operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth described how Coca-Cola's location of its operation in India used up the local people's water supply. One would think that those people must have felt great joy that a major multinational company was locating in their area as they thought of the prosperity and employment opportunities that it would bring with it. That is true, and it is welcome that such inward investment goes into developing countries. However, unless those companies operate within clear parameters that protect the local community and the very essentials of its life, they are not welcome, because they are not acting in partnership with that community, but behaving in the same manner as the Danes in this country 1,000 years ago by pillaging its resources.
  Gregory Barker: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman's comments about procurement from the third world. I want to draw his attention to the report on Government procurement that was undertaken last year by the Environmental Audit Committee, which highlighted the scandal surrounding the procurement of wood for the
  1218
  Cabinet Office. Similar things have happened in other Departments. Does he agree that before hon. Members start lecturing business, the Government should clean up their act?
  Mr. Gardiner: If the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of parliamentary questions, he will know that I have tabled more than 120 on the timber sources used by the Government and by each Department—a subject that is very close to my heart. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that we in Parliament should get our act together—indeed, it is an absolute priority. It is difficult to stand up and preach to industry and the rest of the world about what should be done unless we are following those procedures ourselves. I am delighted to say that all the Departments to which I put my questions about the procurement of timber were able exactly to describe the parameters of those processes and to say that they specify that hardwood should come from sustainable sources.
  As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, he will recognise that it is very difficult to track back the certification process. I mentioned the Forest Stewardship Council and the tremendous work that it does on enabling that to happen, but it is one organisation and we are talking about a global trade. When a supplier presents somebody with a certificate saying, "This has come from sustainable sources," there are very few ways in which they can be 100 per cent. sure that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did with the Government of Indonesia when he was in the more junior ministerial position in that Department. He worked with them to ensure that the entire process of governance within that country, including the timber industry, enabled proper certification to take place.
  There are an infinite number of links in the chain following the moment at which a piece of timber is cut down in the forest until it takes the form of sawn timber and arrives at a building to be turned into a door, a door frame or whatever. Unless every link in the chain can be certified, it is difficult for us to say, "We rely on the fact that we have a policy. We rely also on the fact that we have a formula that states that the material has come from sustainable sources." It is not enough for us to adopt the right policy. There must be an onus at every stage in the commercial chain, which goes right back to the forest, to ensure that we can properly identify the product that we eventually use.
  I rose to talk about the reform of company law and the Bill, and I fear—
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has made an excellent speech, as he always does in the Chamber, on a Friday and at other times.
  We are talking about a global situation. That reinforces why the Government need to ensure that we have high-performance companies and high-performance workplaces. All the issues that my hon. Friend has raised are global and there needs to be a global solution. Is he proud of the fact that the Government, since 1997, have supported a global approach in every instance?
  Mr. Gardiner: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. He draws me back to my theme and to one of the major points, and that is that the Government have sought to be what all Labour Members would welcome, which is an internationalist Government. We must recognise that there is no such thing as getting something right in one's own backyard because it is intimately connected with the rest of the world. For things to be right in our backyard, it is necessary to ensure that everybody else is operating to the same standard that we wish to see domestically. I know that that is what the Minister believes, and it is what I believe. Many Labour Members would say that it is simply the Socialist International working properly. It is what the Government are trying to do, and I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's remarks.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee. I can confirm that the Committee has looked into these matters in detail and has expressed considerable concerns. There has been a lot of upset about the way in which the Government handled the procurement of some of the timber for the new Home Office building. Will the hon. Gentleman accept, without my wishing to make a particularly partisan point, that the Government need to try harder to put their own house in order? All members of the Committee have been pressing that point.
  Mr. Gardiner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have been extremely upfront in my own acceptance that this is a matter that we, as a Government, have to get right. I am provoked to say that at least we have the right policies in place. At least we are setting the right standards and trying to abide by them. The hon. Gentleman must accept that for 18 years in this place that was not the case. We did not have those standards. Had I asked 100-odd written questions under a Conservative Administration 10 years ago, I would not have received the same answers from the Department concerned, setting out the good practice policy that we as a Government have implemented. I accept that it is not enough to have the right policies. We must ensure that we get things right, that we abide by our policies and that our suppliers abide by them. It is easy to say, "Well, it was in the contract. We did not realise that the suppliers were not doing what we wanted." Of course the Government must monitor their contracts properly. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), sometimes, unless certification processes are in place, it is difficult to monitor effectively. That is why it is vital that the responsibility be placed on industry and carried down the chain; in large part, that is what the Bill will deliver in just one of its aspects.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: On Government procurement, the Government's investment in the public services will give my hon. Friend more examples of how large amounts of money going into the public services will make things better, as opposed to the Conservative party's policy of reducing investment.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is right. Awarding contracts and commissioning from companies and
  1220
  industry allows the Government to determine the terms of contracts and set the standards. The Government have spent billions on 14 new hospitals already built and 78—or is it 178?—in various stages of construction, as well as on new schools. It is open to the Government, quite properly, to specify the standards that they want and to ensure that corporate social responsibility and environmental standards are met. We have to follow that up by delivering the proper monitoring processes to ensure that that happens.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry published the "Modernising Company Law" White Paper in May 2003, which, again, broadly welcomed the Government's proposals. What does the Bill propose on the OFR? The Bill reproduces the draft clauses on the OFR that were included in that White Paper, but with a few significant changes. Broadly, the Bill would require all major companies to publish an OFR, the objective of which was to permit the members—the shareholders—of a company to make an informed assessment of the company's operations, financial position, future strategies and prospects and impacts on the environment and on any communities in which the company operates.
  Major companies are defined essentially as companies that will fill at least two of the following three conditions and are not subsidiaries of another European economic area-registered company. The first condition is that their turnover should be at least £50 million: the second is that the balance sheet total should be at least £25 million; the third is that they should employ at least 500 employees.
  Opposition Members should not use that example to jump up and down to talk about red tape. From the remarks of the two Conservative Members who have spoken, I would not expect them to do so; they have indicated that they are broadly in favour of the Bill. I have no doubt, however, that should the Bill pass into law, it will be added to their list of red tape initiatives introduced by the Government. But this is red tape that the Opposition support and which we support; this is red tape that tries to improve the way in which companies operate.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend raises another important point on regulation. In an earlier debate, I tried to tease out from the Opposition which employment regulations they were against. That is a continual challenge that we put to the Opposition, who talk glibly about red tape but never tell us which regulations they want to get rid off.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is absolutely correct. I look at all these dreadful regulations and red tape brought in by the Government and then I look at their effect. Their effect has been that we now have a national minimum wage for the first time, at £4.85.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are wandering a little outside the scope of the debate.
  Mr. Gardiner: I will observe your gentle caution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and return to the theme of our debate, because you are absolutely right.
  The White Paper's proposals were far from perfect and it made it clear that they were a preliminary draft, designed to aid discussion rather than to give a

  1221
  conclusive view on the best legislative approach. The main changes from the White Paper proposals to the Bill are these. First, the OFR will always have to include information on the company's impact on the environment and on any communities in which the company operates. That is in clause 1(3)(d). Secondly, there is a power for the Secretary of State to make rules by negative resolution, although the purpose of such rules is not clear. That is in clause 1(9) and (10). Thirdly, the wording on employment, environment, social and community issues has been changed, I presume in an attempt to make it broader, although the effect is again uncertain. That is in clause 3(2)(c) to (e). Finally, the Bill would apply equally to private and public companies, whereas the White Paper proposed higher thresholds for private companies. I believe that the Government are in any case likely to propose different coverage in the draft regulations now being prepared.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend's speech is so excellent that I shall take the opportunity now, rather than mentioning this later, to announce that the draft regulations will be ready after Easter. The delay with the OFR has been raised with us before, but the draft regulations will be launched after Easter.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am delighted to have that assurance from the Minister, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will be as delighted as I am to hear that that is the case. We feel that the delay has been unacceptable, and it is good to know that there will be progress in very short order. We welcome the fact that the Government are going to publish their draft regulations in the near future.
  The OFR will improve corporate governance by increasing transparency and accountability. It will provide better and more relevant information on businesses for shareholders and will enable investors to make better decisions, thus improving confidence in financial markets.
  Andy King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution to this excellent debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for announcing that the Government will issue the draft regulations after Easter. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has teased out a few differences between what was in the White Paper and what is in the Bill. The Bill is not set in stone, and the whole point of producing it has been to get the debate going. I believe that we have gone a long way in that respect. We want to get the Bill into Committee so that we can put it into shape and adjust it as necessary. That is why I would be delighted dutifully to amend certain aspects of it in Committee.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am sure that the Minister will have heard that offer from my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him, because he has introduced his Bill in a most distinguished manner. He has argued his case with passion but also with the great reasonableness that the
  1222
  whole House recognises characterises him as a Member. He has put forward a strong case, and whether or not the Bill ultimately goes into Committee—I wish it a fair wind in that respect—I am sure that he will take great comfort from the fact that he has brought it to public attention. The Minister might not be able to accept it publicly, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has pressed the Government's heels on this matter, and he will be delighted when that bears fruit after such a short time in the publication of the draft regulations.
  One of the main benefits of the OFR is that directors will need to identify and report on all factors that are key to the past, present and particularly future performance of their business. It is not intended to replicate or replace the social and environmental reports that many companies already publish. It is not the place for general reporting on environmental and social factors for the public interest. However, it will include disclosures on such factors where they are material to an understanding of the business, and it will be for the directors to decide what is material.
  The Government have set up a working group, which will shortly publish guidance, and I am sure that the draft regulations will be significantly different from the White Paper and the Bill, partly in order to implement aspects of the EU modernisation directive of 2003, and partly to reflect developments in policy in the light of responses to the White Paper and further work, including technical improvement of the drafting. The intention is to publish a consultation document, including the draft regulations, as soon as possible.
  What does the Bill propose on directors' duties? It reproduces part of the Government's draft statutory statement of directors' duties, but with one significant amendment.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Would my hon. Friend care to refer to consultation with organisations such as Business in the Community? We talk about regulation and red tape, but much good work is done in consultation with Business in the Community.
  Mr. Gardiner: Of course, consultation with business is absolutely vital. We need business to be able to feed into legislation that concerns it. When its interests are to be materially affected, it is right to consult it at every stage, and I welcome the discussions that have already taken place.
  The amendment to directors' duties is to impose a responsibility on them to take all reasonable steps to minimise negative social, environmental and economic impacts, while at the same time requiring them to act in a way that is most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members.
  I believe that the Bill will create best value in companies. It tells them to look beyond the financial bottom line to the community bottom line. It says that they should not only maximise profit for shareholders, vital though that is, but consider how they are creating value in the community that they serve. A dry Bill alone cannot do that—it has to be at the forefront of directors' minds. I look forward to the day when Government, working with industry, can achieve that.
  2.9 pm
  Gregory Barker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on securing this welcome debate. I am only sorry that it is being held at the expense of my own Genetically Modified Organisms Bill, but I guess that, as this is my Dispatch Box debut, from adversity springs opportunity.
  As we have heard, the Bill would provide for the production and publication of annual reports on the social, environmental and economic impacts and performance of companies and Government Departments. As someone who is interested in the whole green agenda, I am very pleased to be able to respond to this debate.
  I should like to begin by making it clear that I am well aware of the need to be concerned about the harmful impact that some corporate activities can have on the environment and on local communities. All of us who want to promote sustainability would welcome greater transparency and better practice. However, at the same time I believe that the main priority of business and its most important contribution to society is the creation of wealth and jobs and the provision of goods and services. Winning orders and contracts might sound mundane, but it is central to the success of our economy.
  It is clear that a balance must be found. I have been struck by the wide consensus that exists in respect of this issue, which is indeed about finding the right balance. The Bill's aims are not in dispute, but there is a genuine debate about whether they should be pursued by encouraging and nurturing best practice, or through regulation. Corporate social responsibility is important, but we must also recognise the primary necessity of encouraging wealth creation, for it is only through wealth creation that we can fund all the improvements in public services that our constituents rightly demand.
  Social responsibility can indeed aid productivity and enhance a company's reputation among consumers. Britain has a pretty good record in this regard; indeed, the best performing companies on the stock market are often those at the forefront of best practice. Yet initiatives such as this can also inhibit commercial success. Policy makers have two options: the first is to impose legal requirements that businesses must meet—the Government are very good at that—and the second is to promote a voluntary approach, outlining the responsibilities that businesses should accept in the interests of all shareholders and all stakeholders. The choice is the classic one between carrot and stick.
  It is my instinct and that of my party to be very vigilant in respect of any measure that might increase regulatory burden. I know that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who spoke extensively, is very relaxed about increasing regulation, but we Conservatives do not share his laid-back attitude to the ever-rising burden of red tape on business.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench; hopefully, this could be the start of a long career. Given that there have been some notably poor performances by major corporate companies, does he feel able to support the Government's efforts to improve
  1224
  public confidence in the way that they operate? How should one balance the use of regulation against the performance of certain companies?
  Gregory Barker: I do not have enough time to discuss particular companies, and to be honest I am not sufficiently well briefed to give the Minister an expert answer on the performance of individual companies. However, as someone who has worked in the City and in business, my feeling is that, by and large, British companies do a pretty good job and can hold their heads up high in the world. Indeed, they have often been at the forefront in encouraging and nurturing best practice. We should not be ashamed of our businesses; rather, we should be proud of what they achieve daily. I am not here to berate businesses, but I do want to encourage them to be better, and to take that best practice abroad and share it more widely. We must continue to be vigilant in terms of increasing performance.
  There is no doubt that socially responsible programmes have the potential to bring benefits to business and to society as a whole; as such, they are to be welcomed and encouraged. However, too much compulsion can hit competitiveness, particularly of smaller firms, give less responsible firms an advantage, and even give the whole agenda of corporate social responsibility a bad name.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman talks about small companies, but has he read the Bill? If he had, he would know that we are talking about companies with turnovers of £50 million or balance sheets of £25 million or with more than 500 employees. Those cannot be viewed as small companies.
  Gregory Barker: If the hon. Gentleman were familiar with the definition of small to medium-sized companies, he would know that by stock exchange standards that is typically taken to mean companies with a valuation of anything less than £250 million—or, in some cases, less than £500 million. That definition may exclude basic trading companies, but many small companies with a market capitalisation in excess of £100 million perhaps on the AIM mark et or approaching a stock market flotation—could find their performance greatly inhibited by burdensome regulation.
  My concern is that there are risks in the imposition of legal requirements, so it is vital not to force socially responsible initiatives on to business without proper and due regard to their impact on Britain's ability to compete. If business is faced with rising costs, the ability to win orders and create jobs is affected and all members of a community—rich and poor alike—may be made worse off. Regulation reduces economic freedom and deprives people of opportunities. That is the great risk of introducing a statutory approach to corporate social responsibility. The potential for harm caused by the imposition by the Government of a legal framework, including too many onerous standards and policies, is an important consideration.
  As I said, it all comes back to a question of balance. I prefer to encourage business itself to take the lead in dialogue not just with politicians, but with other representatives and stakeholders in the community. A lightly regulated business environment, which promotes a dynamic economy, is the most important force in creating the fairer society to which we all aspire.

  1225
  In summary, I am broadly sympathetic to the aims of the Bill and I am glad to see it debated here in the House, but I am keen to see that it is neither too bureaucratic nor too prescriptive. Accordingly, my party will encourage the Bill into Committee for further detailed debate. At the same time, we will insist on a proper regulatory impact assessment so that the costs as well as the benefits of the measures in the Bill can be rigorously scrutinised.
  2.17 pm
  Roger Casale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on his debut at the Dispatch Box. Given the strength and brevity of his contribution, I am sure that we will hear many more fine performances from him in the future. We can all agree that we have heard many fine performances in today's debate.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution because I represent a constituency with a high percentage not only of shareholders, but of professional and managerial people who are active in international companies and in many Government Departments. It was interesting to hear the expertise and comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on introducing the Bill.
  It has not featured much in today's debate, but my hon. Friend also includes the actions of Government Departments—the public sector, not just the private sector—in the scope of the Bill. Many examples spring to mind. From the recent Budget we know about job changes in the Department for Work and Pensions?and other Departments—that will affect many of my constituents who live close to, and work in, central London. There is also the action of St. George's trust in disposing of land in my constituency, which will have considerable environmental implications. I would certainly like to see a more rigorous approach towards assessing the environmental and social impact of various Departments.
  My constituents, like those of my hon. Friends, will be attracted by the touchy-feely appeal of the notion of corporate social responsibility, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle was right to say that we should be cautious about what that will mean in practice and, in particular, for the bottom line. However noble our social and environmental objectives, we have to let businesses be run as businesses. We must not give them any other objective than being successful as businesses. To be successful, they must aim at maximising shareholder value and making a profit. Some directors and shareholders may go into business because they want to make a wider contribution to society, but the way to do that is to run a successful business and then invest the money made in other social projects?give it to charity or invest it in other ways.
  At the same time, however, we must realise that the notion of shareholder value—which companies and directors have to maximise—is changing, in a changing world. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North
  1226
  spoke about best value. but I prefer to refer to the notion of enlightened shareholder value that recognises that if businesses are to be successful in the long term and in a sustainable way, they must be held to account in relation to wider objectives such as those that we have debated today. The Bill is desirable for exactly that reason.
  The Bill is necessary, but when we review it in Committee we will need to take a cautious approach to how it will work in practice. One of the issues that will enjoy closer scrutiny in Committee is the question of whether the regulation should be mandatory or voluntary. We should not be too inhibited by the prospect of regulation because the Bill does not seek to introduce more red tape. Instead, it would introduce what may become known as green tape—something that will help companies to resist actions that would be damaging to the environment and, therefore, to the relationships that they have with clients and suppliers. Green tape could also prevent companies from damaging their reputations and, therefore, their longterm business interests, as well as assisting long-term sustainability.
  Should the legislation be mandatory or voluntary? Well, we are talking about minimum standards. We want to encourage best practice, and Business in the Community has been mentioned as one vehicle among many that does that. However, we should not forget the extent of malpractice that occurs. We have seen several terrible business failures, with consequences on a massive scale, including Enron and Equitable Life. The people most affected are often those with investments—the rich and powerful—but we are considering the impact on local communities from job losses and environmental problems. Just as we seek to be tougher in the regulatory framework on business malpractice in the financial sector. we should introduce proper measures to prevent malpractice in relation to social and environmental concerns, which may affect all of us. I favour a mandatory approach, but we will return to the matter in Committee. The other aspect that we should focus on is the criteria. When the Bill was debated in January, it was made clear that whatever regime is introduced, it must be transparent and fair.
  The point about consultation with the business community has not been made strongly enough. The Government have not said, "We know all the answers, we're smarter than everybody else. We know what to do, thank you very much. Here are our laws." They want to work in partnership to solve the problem. The Government will listen carefully to any proposals for legislation to bolster corporate social responsibility and will build on the excellent relationships that they have forged with the Federation of Small Businesses and other bodies representing business. The same thing applies locally. I am in close consultation with the Merton chamber of commerce in my community, which helps us in our work. I am sure that business representation will be clear and helpful and will assist us in framing transparent, specific legislation.
  To return to my original point, society has changed. Sustainability is at the heart of our considerations on how best to secure the future of our local communities and on ensuring a fairer global business community. Our market economy must be underpinned by a strong and effective regulatory framework. Citizenship

  1227
  involves rights matched by responsibilities. The idea that such responsibilities and duties should apply to corporate entities is much stronger than ever before.
  Much of company law is backward looking. These proposals are forward looking and will help companies to prepare for the future and could have a positive impact on their business success, which has to be the bottom line. I am delighted to add my contribution to a debate in which there has been a high degree of cross-party support for an important measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on introducing it.
  2.26 pm
  Lembit öpik: I think we all agree with the intentions of the proposals; the question is the degree to which they should be mandatory.
  As hon. Members may have realised by now, I once worked for a multinational—Procter and Gamble. I chose to work for the company because I thought it acted with social responsibility, even though that was not mandatory. Members may not know that when there is an oil spill, Fairy liquid is used to wash the birds—not for public relations but because Procter and Gamble believes in doing the right thing. It is a shame that we seem to be saying that people will only start to act responsibly if it is made mandatory.
  Employees are more inclined to stay with a company if they feel good about its values and feel that it is making a contribution to the community. Procter and Gamble did a lot of outreach work in schools and so on. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will assure us that the Government are not as cynical as that mandatory approach might imply and that he believes that good, responsible companies will act positively because they and their staff want to do so.
  I came into politics because I think that human nature is basically good and that people will generally try to do the right thing without needing to have the Government breathe down their neck. Those who want to do
  1228
  otherwise will always find a way through and, looking at some of the provisions, I am worried that words such as "fairness" could be interpreted negatively by cynics. If the Bill goes into Committee—I am sure that the Minister will keep his contribution brief enough to allow that to happen—it is on such points that we shall push the most.
  I agree with the intention behind the Bill but, as a Liberal Democrat and a positive politician, I still think that the human race is generous-spirited enough to do the right thing without always having to look over its shoulder for the law.
  2.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Things are improving. The last time we debated private Members' Bills, I had a minute and a half to wind up the debate; today, I have two minutes.
  I never cease to be amazed by the way we manage to get things done in this place. I anticipated making long speeches on previous Bills this morning, but that 1 would have no opportunity to speak on this Bill. I am delighted that we have been able to debate it, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) on introducing it. My Department has had a previous opportunity to respond to it, and I am grateful to be able to talk on it today.
  There have been tremendous contributions from lots of hon. Members—pnotably, my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—and I would find it difficult, even in two minutes, to respond in the necessary detail to the many issues that they have raised.
  There is always a balance. That is why I tried to draw the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on his views about regulation—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 April.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    PROPERTY REPAIRS (PROHIBITION OF COLD-CALLING) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [ 12 March J, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 April.

  Tyrannical Regimes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell. ]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: One year ago, I helped to organise the largest revolt within a governing party in modern parliamentary history: 140 Labour Members of Parliament. We sought to dissuade the Prime Minister from joining President Bush's premature, counter-productive and premeditated war on Iraq. We failed, but those who won the vote also failed. Lessons must now be learned by all of us. Humility is not a quality for which politicians are renowned, but perhaps all of us ought to take a step back to see how we can learn the lessons, how we can move on from where we are now and, above all, how we can unite on how we can better meet the challenge of tyranny next time around.
  I totally endorse the Prime Minister's call to reform international law and on the United Nations to find a better way to deal with the next Iraq. Sadly, that was not attempted in the six years before the conflict. In his Sedgefield speech a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister certainly talked the talk, but if it is to be more than the rhetoric of triangulation, it must be the prelude to decisive, vigorous executive action, led by the Prime Minister, of the sort that he demonstrated so ably in the prelude to the Afghanistan conflict.
  The Prime Minister is right to state that the old doctrines of state sovereignty and territorial immunity are inadequate to tackle tyrannies. Those doctrines should be replaced by international standards, defined and enforced by the United Nations, not by the Bush doctrine—a blanket authority for any strong country to shoot its way into any weak one and depose its Government at a time of its choosing. That way lies international anarchy and the law of the jungle in which terrorism breeds so virulently.
  My first question to the Minister runs through my contribution: what action have the Law Officers and the Foreign Secretary and his team taken in this field over the past year? Despite the time that Her Majesty's Government have had to devote to much of the media trivia on Iraq over the past year, can he demonstrate that we have moved on, that we are already acting on the big picture and that we are not just waiting until the Secretary-General's high-level panel reports some time next year?
  The Prime Minister's call could not be more timely, for while the Bush doctrine is dead, it needs someone of international stature and a friend of America to give it the last rites and move on to something more sustainable. The Democratic challenger in the American presidential race, John Kerry, has already made it clear that he favours international, rather than unilateral, action to deal with the threats of terrorism and weapons proliferation that confront the United States and the world. That is a key battleground for the American election, and all the American people are looking for a more effective way to protect their security over the next four troubled years. The Prime Minister, therefore, has

  1231
  a time-limited opportunity to rally American and world opinion behind the logical and compelling proposal to reform international law and to confront the weakness of the United Nations.
  A robust legal and institutional basis is needed to allow the international community to act quickly and decisively—not qualities that were evident over the past 18 months. However, at the same time, it should not allow individual states to take the law into their own hands. In the terms of the old-fashioned western, nations should act together as a posse not as a lynch mob.
  One of the tragedies of the US neo-conservatives' learning-on-the-job philosophy was that the decision to go to war was settled long before the public justification had been devised. From axis of evil to regime change to humanitarian intervention to weapons of mass destruction, the public reasoning and the supporting evidence that was required changed constantly—sometimes from day to day—often contradicting itself, and that inspired the mistrust that divided our Parliament and, indeed, the world.
  Where do we go from here? It might be helpful to start from first principles. When might it be right for one state to use force against another? International law already recognises the right of a state to defend itself against actual or imminent attack and the right and duty of a state to defend another from attack. After 9/11, the Security Council acknowledged a new principle. A state attacked by terrorists may take action against any state that harbours them even if that state did not play any direct part in the terrorist attack.
  Another situation is when a state commits abominable crimes as an act of policy against people within its own territory. If those people have no hope of relief from those crimes in their own country, they must look outside for protection. States have regularly intervened to protect their own citizens from the crimes of another state, but increasingly they have shown themselves willing to protect other people to whom they have no direct obligation. That has happened in many places, often belatedly: East Timor, Kosovo, and Iraq in relation to the Kurds. There is an underdeveloped but none the less evolving law of humanitarian intervention. It provided the best reason for a timely invasion of Iraq rather than a premature one, although, sadly, that was not the pathway chosen by the allies last year.
  The right or duty of humanitarian intervention has also been applied to states living under anarchy rather than tyranny—"failed states" whose Governments lack the strength or will to protect their citizens from civil war, lawlessness, disease or famine. In all those cases, there was a developing international consensus before Iraq that national sovereignty has limits and is subject to conditions.
  Indeed, the Prime Minister, by his gruelling efforts on behalf of us all on Afghanistan, had done more than anyone to help the world to build a global coalition against the threat of terrorism. Building that global coalition against terrorism was tragically interrupted and discredited by the misjudgment over Iraq. That coalition must be rebuilt. Our Law Officers and Foreign Office Ministers must now enter a permanent session
  1232
  with their international colleagues to reform international law and provide a ratchet of graduated practical action through the United Nations.
  Some of what I propose already exists, but what we need most at the table is the political will to make it work—determined yet painstaking. That is the Foreign Office's, the Prime Minister's and Britain's greatest challenge but potentially their greatest contribution to the new global order. This is not some starry-eyed utopianism that goes back to the League of Nations in the 1930s, but a tough, practical necessity as we count down to the next crisis—and we do not know where that may come from.
  A right of intervention, especially armed intervention, must be codified in a reform of the United Nations charter. One possibility is that the UN could declare a state of emergency, but I think that the words have a legal connotation and may not be appropriate. I am sure that the Foreign Office can come up with a better formulation, but that will do me for now. A state of emergency could require the restriction or even suspension of the sovereignty of a member state. It would cover the use of that member state's resources by terrorists, gross human rights abuses by its Government, or an actual or incipient humanitarian catastrophe. Such a declaration might be sought by any member state, including the proposed subject, so that countries in the grip of famine, plague or civil war could ask the United Nations to take control of all or part of their territory.
  It should also be possible for the United Nations to hear appeals for such a declaration from oppressed peoples—whether from exile groups or human rights organisations—and to satisfy itself that such appeals are authentic and representative. If we can build a United Nations capable of making such a declaration, it could authorise or enjoin member states to take action to remedy the conditions that had led to it. That might include armed intervention, but the UN would decide what action to take, not individual member states.
  The UN might decide not to declare an immediate state of emergency, but to establish instead a clear set of escalating conditions that would lead it ultimately to make such a declaration. The escalator must be made unequivocal. It must be clear to all those, wherever they are on the globe, who tune in to see the debates and hear the decisions that the UN makes on behalf of us all. As far as possible, it must be made invulnerable to the lawyer's wriggles and political spin that so discredited UN resolution 1441, which was twisted into an excuse for war despite earlier categorical assurances that
  "it was not the trigger for war".
  In future, the UN should set out its decisions in clear language, understandable to anyone in the world, and try, as far as is humanly possible, not to use diplomatic double-talk such as "serious consequences" or "all necessary means", which involve so much interpretation and misinterpretation that they engender mistrust and discredit the process that we must rebuild for all our futures.
  The proposal does, of course, raise difficult questions, and it will not be easy. None the less, the concept of a UN state of emergency offers some hope and a way of tackling 21st-century problems by consensus. Its very existence could induce Governments to behave better,

  1233
  whether towards their own subjects or the outside world. That influence would be reinforced if all member states, including President Kerry's America, accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and stripped members of vicious Governments of any immunity from prosecution.
  Much more could be said on the matter, but I shall be brief. There is certainly a case for random UN inspections on the use and control of traded weapons of any kind. However, weapons of mass destruction entail a threat of immediate devastation to civilian life on an altogether new and frightening scale. The risk of them falling into the hands of a vicious Government—still more into the hands of terrorists—requires new forms of action by the international community.
  Every state in the world should subject itself to a compulsory random and intrusive UN inspection of the kind that we all demanded of Saddam Hussein. The inspectors should verify not only whether a state possesses or produces weapons of mass destruction, but also its systems for controlling them and its doctrines for their use. Biological weapons must also be properly included in such an inspection regime. The UN produced a model of how to do that when the inspectors returned to Iraq and imposed increasingly demanding conditions on Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it is ironic that almost everything that was done in Iraq was a triumph of principle and of lawful and effective action until the premature invasion.
  All those ideas are embryonic, but they are not novel. They represent a continuation of valuable developments, from which the Iraq war was an irrelevant aberration, that could quickly be revived and taken forward. They could reunite us behind the lessons learned from error and division.

  The task is daunting and epic. It needs prime ministerial focus and energy. The Bush doctrine is dead, and I hope that the proposals that I have set out may form the basis not of the Bush doctrine but perhaps of a Blair doctrine—a return to a strong, independent British foreign policy, making a telling contribution in an ever more interdependent world.
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what is an exceedingly important subject. Never has the debate about the circumstances in which it is right and appropriate to intervene in tyrannical regimes been more important. I have some sympathy with the view that my hon. Friend has expressed?that the international community should act earlier and more firmly to assist those who are subject to oppressive regimes. I think genuinely that the terms of the global debate are changing.
  The Government want to be at the forefront of that debate. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Sedgefield on 5 March, Britain's role should be
  "to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and the means of enforcing it."
  1234
  Before I discuss that agenda further, I feel that I must respond to some of my hon. Friend's criticisms about the decision to go to war with Iraq.
  I respect my hon. Friend's integrity, and have always made clear my view that we were right to go to war, although I fully respect the right and belief of others who reached a different decision. I would not accept his arguments that the actions that we took were counterproductive or that we failed. If he does not believe me or the Government when we say that life is better for the people of Iraq today than it was under Saddam, I urge him to listen to ordinary people in Iraq, where a majority say that life is better than a year ago under Saddam, and more than 70 per cent. say that they think that it will continue to get better. That is the polling evidence, and what Government colleagues who visit Iraq find, and it is backed up by what ordinary people are saying on the ground.
  My hon. Friend has also made the case that the international community's response to oppressive regimes has not evolved sufficiently. While I accept that it needs to evolve further, over the years, there has been evidence of significant change. First, political pressure has always been a powerful tool in facing up to tyranny, and it has become more so. Anyone who doubts that ought simply to witness the huge, extraordinary lobbying effort at Geneva at the moment by those nations that fear that they risk being criticised for their human rights records. When I delivered our contribution to the debate in Geneva last week, I saw that at first hand.
  Within the European Union, we now build dialogue on human rights into our relations with third countries, and bring the economic and political weight of the EU to bear by linking those dialogues to wider relationships of trade and other assistance. That is absolutely right. Through NEPAD—New Partnership for Africa's Development—African countries have established a peer review mechanism to pressure each other, rightly, into better governance. The African Union is playing an increasingly confident role in enabling dialogue to resolve disputes peacefully. Such collective political action can and does shame Governments into better behaviour, opening the doors to external monitoring, and can be used by reformists and civil society within a country. International institutions such as the UN play a key role in this: setting the standards of acceptable behaviour; providing independent monitoring mechanisms as well as assistance; and finally, providing external legitimacy to successful political reforms.
  Sanctions also have a role to play, which we see with regard to the situation in Burma and Zimbabwe. Increasingly, sanctions regimes are better targeted to ensure that their effects are concentrated on the leaders and regimes responsible for repression, and their sources of wealth and influence, rather than on the people suffering under such regimes.
  Other forms of direct action have grown in volume and effectiveness, including governance support and reform programmes, economic adjustment, security sector reform, police training and peace support operations. The establishment, now supported by more than 60 countries, of the proliferation security initiative will help further to prevent trafficking of weapons of

  1235
  mass destruction and related materials through enhanced interdiction efforts, which can help us to face up to tyranny.

  Let me turn to the issue of reforming the international system. We have achieved a great deal through our efforts to strengthen the international systems and structures that are needed to deliver results. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments about the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which marks a new step in the long battle against impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes. I want to take this opportunity to make it very clear that we urge all states to sign up to the ICC, which we believe can be a key tool in the fight against tyranny.
  In the final analysis, when we are facing up to tyranny, military action can be used, in accordance with international law, against those tyrannical regimes. For us, military action has been, and will always remain, a last resort. Over recent years, the UN has been developing its thinking, based on individual cases, on where military intervention is justified for humanitarian purposes. The Security Council can authorise the use of force in response to threats to international peace and security, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression. It has explicitly determined that widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have contributed to situations threatening the peace, and mandated enforcement action in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and East Timor. I think that most people regard that as essentially just and correct. The Security Council also supported enforcement action to return to power an elected Government that had been overthrown, such as in Sierra Leone and in Haiti. Again, I think that most people would accept those actions and propositions.
  On occasions—thankfully rare—the Security Council does not authorise actions that we consider necessary. In a sense, that is the nub of some of the issues that my hon. Friend highlighted. There are no easy solutions in those circumstances. For instance, in the case of Kosovo, we had to ask ourselves how to respond when a Security Council decision could not be reached in the face of an imminent humanitarian crisis in the form of appalling ethnic cleansing the like of which we had not seen on our continent since the second world war. At that time, we made clear our view that states do have a right, in exceptional circumstances, to take military action when it is the only way to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, and that that is the case even in the absence of explicit authorisation from the Security Council. My hon. Friend is nodding; I know that he supported that action at the time.
  Since 1999, our view has been increasingly supported, although it is not universally accepted. We continue to work to build up a consensus on the circumstances in which a right to intervene applies. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that very clear in a speech that he made in Chicago in April 1999, in which he rightly suggested the five broad guiding principles that should, in an international context, be the framework within which decisions on whether to intervene for humanitarian purposes are taken.
  It is worth repeating those principles. First, we must decide whether we are sure of the case and sure that armed force is the only means of dealing with the
  1236
  problem. Secondly, we must assess whether we have exhausted all diplomatic options. Thirdly, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, we must judge whether there are military operations that we can sensibly and prudently undertake. My hon. Friend suggested that intervention should be applied universally and impartially to all states. The logic of such an argument is strong, but the benefits of intervening have to be weighed against the risk of creating a threat to peace and security. As I said, other options, such as political pressure and sanctions regimes, are available when intervention would be unwise. Fourthly, we must decide whether we are prepared for a long-term commitment once the military action is over: that is critical. Finally, we must assess whether we have national interests involved.
  That speech was a major contribution to the evolution of international thinking since the end of the cold war. In 1999, we put forward similar suggested criteria to the Security Council, although they did not prosper in discussion at the time. Nevertheless, we are still advancing the case and will continue to do so. At the same time, important work is going on to ensure better action against the threat or use of genocide, most notably to create a focal point for genocide prevention within the United Nations framework.
  Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for a thought-provoking speech so far. May I bring to his attention again the question of trust? The British Government, in particular, are seeking concrete and practical steps to realise some of the things that he is talking about. He alluded to the Prime Minister's Chicago speech. Not a great deal may be seen to have been achieved by the British public and the global public from that speech, good as it was. Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us want to take matters further and ensure that the Sedgefield speech is looked back on as one of the landmarks that moved our country forward in real, practical steps, so that we do not refer to it as a good speech but as something that started a lot of practical action?
  Mr. Rammell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We cannot just make speeches; we must follow things through. We are attempting to do that, but we cannot do it on our own. We must seek international consensus and support. We are taking this debate and the need for change internationally extremely seriously. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly taking a lead in setting out the framework of our thinking and the challenges that the UN need to face. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is taking that agenda extremely seriously. We are continually discussing these issues and this agenda with our partners.
  I have visited the UN on a number of occasions in recent months. I recently met leading members of the Secretary-General's high level panel, all with a view to pushing forward this debate and trying to engage others to support us. We have also published a Command Paper on our relations with the UN, and we shall shortly be submitting formally our views to the Secretary-General's high level panel.
  The nub of the debate, given what my hon. Friend has said, is his wish to create an international framework in which unilateralism, by whatever state, does not take

  1237
  place. He wants to see agreed collective international action under the auspices of the UN. Ideally, those are the circumstances in which I would always want us to operate. It is not as easy as just wishing that to happen. I think that the Secretary-General got it absolutely right when he spoke to the General Assembly in September 2003:
  "it is not enough to denounce unilateralism unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable."
  It is not just a simple equation between unilateralism and internationalism. If we want the UN to be the key agency that affects and governs the decisions, it has to demonstrate that it has the collective will and political capacity to face the key challenges that are to be found in the modern world, principally international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In making that case we must convince those countries that are sceptical about it, at the same time, that we are prepared to take their concerns seriously—global poverty, inequality and injustice—and follow through significantly on achieving the millennium development goals. That is the other side of the bargain in taking these issues and this debate forward.
  In that context, and in facing those challenges, I believe that the decision of the Secretary-General to appoint a high level panel to look at how the UN can improve its response to the broad range of threats to international peace and security has been a positive development. The panel is likely to take a broad view of the current threat to peace and security. That is surely correct. Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats to the environment, AIDS, poverty
  1238
  and disease were not considered part of the security agenda when the charter was drafted, but they manifestly are part of the agenda and the challenge that we are now facing.
  Mr. Allen: I am sorry to spring this one on my hon. Friend. I hope he will take the matter away and consider it rather than giving an answer from the Dispatch Box. Will my hon. Friend consider how we might involve Parliament in feeding ideas into the high level panel as it goes about its work? I do not know how that might best be done. It might be by way of pre-legislative scrutiny, meetings or whatever. However, it is important that all parties in the House have the opportunity to make a contribution.
  Mr. Rammell: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have already been doing that in Westminster Hall and in Government time on the Floor of the House. We have initiated a debate on UN reform and enabled Members to come forward with their views. That is the right way forward. I have met the all-party group in the context of the UN and will seek to do that further.
  We are facing critical challenges. The world we live in today is enormously more dangerous than it was even in the most recent past. It is critical that we face these questions, and we need all parliamentarians, the whole of civil society and the whole of the international community if we are to respond to them. In a small way, debates such as this one give us—
  The motion having been made at Half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  Magistrates Courts
  Magistrates Courts
TRANSPORT
  Chief Scientific Adviser
  Chief Scientific Adviser
  Departmental Officials
  Departmental Officials
  Home Zone Area-Based Initiative
  Home Zone Area-Based Initiative
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Secondments
  Secondments
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  1 Millbank
  1 Millbank
DEFENCE
  Defence Estates
  Defence Estates
  National Servicemen (Memorial)
  National Servicemen (Memorial)
  Press Officers
  Press Officers
  RAF Innsworth
  RAF Innsworth
  Project Angus
  Project Angus
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Secondments
  Secondments
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  Connexions
  Connexions
  Sure Start
  Sure Start
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  Coastal Damage Compensation
  Coastal Damage Compensation
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Advisory Committee on Packaging
  Advisory Committee on Packaging
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Asgard Systems
  Asgard Systems
  Badgers/Bovine TB
  Badgers/Bovine TB
  TB Strategy
  TB Strategy
  Biofuels
  Biofuels
  Brucellosis (Cornwall)
  Brucellosis (Cornwall)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Cod Fishery
  Cod Fishery
  Rod Fishing
  Rod Fishing
  Flooding
  Flooding
  Foot and Mouth
  Foot and Mouth
  GM Crops
  GM Crops
  Illegal Timber
  Illegal Timber
  Ministerial Statements
  Ministerial Statements
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Power Station Emissions
  Power Station Emissions
  River Invertebrates
  River Invertebrates
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Shellfish
  Shellfish
  Sumatran Tiger
  Sumatran Tiger
  Waste Re-use
  Waste Re-use
  Waste Management
  Waste Management
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Crime Reduction Advisers
  Crime Reduction Advisers
  National Offender Management Scheme
  National Offender Management Scheme
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Computer Misuse
  Computer Misuse
  Departmental Scientific Adviser
  Departmental Scientific Adviser
  Iraq
  Iraq
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Medical Instruments (Abortion)
  Medical Instruments (Abortion)
  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Small Business
  Small Business
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  Council Tax Receipts (Greater London)
  Council Tax Receipts (Greater London)
  Green Belt House Building
  Green Belt House Building
  Housing Requirement
  Housing Requirement
  EU Structural Funds
  EU Structural Funds
  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mobile Phone Masts
  Regional Funding
  Regional Funding
  Telecommunications Transmissions
  Telecommunications Transmissions
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  BACS
  BACS
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Department-Sponsored Activities
  Department-Sponsored Activities
  Departmental Buildings
  Departmental Buildings
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  EU/Israel Trade
  EU/Israel Trade
  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Land Mines
  Land Mines
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
PRIME MINISTER
  Environmental Matters
  Environmental Matters
  Mr. Kenneth Norden
  Mr. Kenneth Norden
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
WORK AND PENSIONS
  Environmentally Sustainable Procurement
  Environmentally Sustainable Procurement
  European Year of Disabled People
  European Year of Disabled People
  Executive Agency Staff
  Executive Agency Staff
  Jobcentre Plus (Staff with Disabilities)
  Jobcentre Plus (Staff with Disabilities)
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Pensions
  Pensions
HEALTH
  Agency Staff
  Agency Staff
  Bedfordshire Health Authority
  Bedfordshire Health Authority
  Cancer Services
  Cancer Services
  "Choosing Health"
  "Choosing Health"
  Coronary Angiograms
  Coronary Angiograms
  Free Health Care
  Free Health Care
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  IT
  IT
  Seroxat
  Seroxat
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Obesity
  Obesity
  York District Hospital
  York District Hospital
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  I am delighted to announce the award of a total of £192.5 million to three more housing market renewal pathfinders over the next two years to implement their strategic schemes. The funding comes from the £500 million market renewal fund announced in February 2003 in"Sustainable Communities: building for the future".

  The investment from the market renewal fund will be complemented by significant investment from other public programmes and the private sector. This will enable actions to be taken which will lead to the creation of long-term sustainable communities.

  The allocation of resources to these schemes marks another key step in our commitment to deliver thriving sustainable communities in those areas devastated by low demand housing and abandonment.

  I am announcing today that the South Yorkshire market renewal pathfinder will receive £71 million, that the East Lancashire market renewal pathfinder will receive £68 million and that Oldham and Rochdale market renewal pathfinder will receive £53.5 million until March 2006 to help to tackle the terrible problems caused by low demand. This is in addition to an allocation of £4 million each for an early action programme which they received in June 2003.

  By March 2006 the pathfinders expect to deliver:
  n South Yorkshire the demolition of over 1,600 homes; the refurbishment of over 2,000 homes; over 100 new homes built; significant improvements to housing environments affecting 21,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 16,000 homes.
  In East Lancashire the demolition of almost 800 homes; the refurbishment of 1,100 homes; over 100 new homes built; significant improvements to housing environments affecting 43,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 73,000 homes.
  In Oldham Rochdale the demolition of nearly 300 houses; the acquisition of over 400 homes; the refurbishment of over 350 homes; significant improvements to housing environments affecting over 3,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 11,000 homes.

  Each of the pathfinder schemes has been independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission which has published a report on each scheme. The Audit Commission has looked at the evidence base and the proposed strategy to help ensure that the schemes are realistic, offer value for money and will deliver long-term housing market renewal. To meet this aim, the Audit Commission has made a number of recommendations about each scheme. The Office of the
  70WS
  Deputy Prime Minister and each pathfinder have accepted all the recommendations and funding will depend on compliance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Performance Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2004–05:A fully electronic operation
  To achieve 15 per cent. take-up for electronic submission of documents by the end of 2004–05, 35 per cent. take-up by the end of 2005–06 and 55 per cent. take-up by the end of 2006–07.

  Readily and freely accessible information
  To ensure that products and services on Companies House Direct and WebCheck are available for 98 per cent. of the time between the core hours of 7 am and 8 pm, Monday to Friday.
  To ensure that the web filing service is available to customers for a minimum 98 per cent. of the time between the core hours of 7 am and 8 pm, Monday to Friday.

  An efficient reliable and up to date registry
  To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts and annual returns submitted of 92 per cent.
  To ensure that 96.5 per cent. of all forms submitted to Companies House are captured error-free.
  To ensure that of 98 per cent. of images placed on the Companies House image system are legible.
  To ensure that at least 99 per cent. of images to be placed on the image system are made available within three days.
  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3 per cent. in real terms on document registration
  To achieve, taking one year with another, a 3.5 per cent. average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets.
  To pay all bills due within 30 days, or on other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice whichever is later.

  Customers who are highly satisfied with our services
  To resolve 97 per cent. of complaints within five days.
  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.
  To achieve a score of more than 82 per cent. in each quarterly Companies House customer satisfaction survey.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  I am pleased to announce that in the light of a strong performance by The Insolvency Service in 2003–04 I have been able to set it a series of challenging targets for 2004–05 and 2005–06 that reflect the general pressure on the public service to deliver increasing efficiency and value for money. Official Receivers and their staffs have a major role to play in delivering the personal insolvency reforms under the Enterprise Act 2002 which come into operation on 1 April 2004 and the new financial regime to which it moves on the same date will provide the flexibility it needs to respond to variations in caseloads within financial years and over longer periods. Under
  71WS
  this new financial regime the service is expected to generate sufficient income from fees and charges to defray the total cost of its case administration, estate banking and professional regulation activities. Improvement in its customer focus is reflected in high levels of customer satisfaction and I expect he service to build on this over the coming years. I have asked the chief executive to continue the development of a range of outcome-focused measures, particularly in the regulatory area. At the same time as ensuring that its enforcement action is proportionate and aligned to the policies that promote enterprise and the responsible use of credit, I have also asked the agency to pay particular attention to its role in ensuring high standards of commercial conduct.

  The targets set out in the table below reflect the variety of the Service's operations.
  It will reduce the cost of its policy work by 9 per cent. in 2004–05.
  The Agency will reduce the average time for securing a disqualification from 24 months to 22 months.
  It will reduce the 2004–05 cost of enforcement activity by 4 per cent.
  It will establish a benchmark unit cost for enforcement activity during 2004–05 and then further reduce that cost by 25 per cent. by March 2006.
  It will increase enforcement activity outputs by 41 per cent. in 2005–06 over the 2004–05 baseline.
  It will action 90 per cent. of redundancy payment claims within six weeks and will increase the manpower productivity of processing such claims by 11 per cent. in 2004–05.
  It will increase the percentage of user satisfaction as measured by the User Satisfaction Index from 86 per cent. to 88 per cent.
  It will retain Charter Mark by Summer 2004 and will retain Investors in People accreditation in January 2006.
  It will maintain the amount of open insolvency cases at no more than 12 months'input and by 1 April 2006 it will reduce the case administration fee from that prevailing at 1 April 2004 by 8.5 per cent. on a like for like basis.
  It will action 100 per cent of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt, and 97 per cent. within 20 days. It will also action 98 per cent. of Insolvency Service account payments within four days of their requisition.
  Based on an expected reduction of 6.3 per cent. in 2003–04, it will further reduce the costs of the accommodation and procurement functions by 8 per cent. by April 2006.

  British American Tobacco
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In response to recommendations in a report dated 14 June 2000 on the tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking, which was published by the Health Select Committee, my predecessor launched an investigation under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 to look at allegations that British American Tobacco has been involved in smuggling.

  The investigation has been completed. It has not uncovered material indicating a basis for launching a criminal investigation and the Department does not propose to take any further action.

  Information obtained under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 is confidential and may not be published or disclosed except in strictly defined circumstances under section 449 of the Companies Act 1985

TREASURY

  Tax Avoidance
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation is to be included in the Finance Bill 2004 to prevent tax avoidance schemes which seek to work round the legislation announced on 10 February 2004. The new legislation will only apply to losses from a trade involving the exploitation of film, apart from a trade involving the production of a film or the acquisition of the master version of a film. It will not therefore affect partnerships which operate within the specific relief for qualifying films. For trading losses which arise in any of the first four years that a partner carries on a trade, relief for set-off against other income will be denied where a partner does not spend a significant amount of time in the partnership trade and is guaranteed to receive income from the partnership. The changes will have effect from today.

  A copy of today's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure is being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is also accessible on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Sentencing
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury rose to call attention to the social purpose of sentencing; and to move for Papers.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, the present situation of the penal system of this country gives occasion for recognising a high level of paradox. The proverbial Martian observer, perhaps a more likely character in the light of recent exploration than we might once have thought, would doubtless be rather surprised by what they might see.
No one appears to be satisfied with the present situation. We are familiar with the question of the expense involved in custody; the figure of £37,000 per annum as the cost of maintaining a prisoner in custody is frequently quoted. It is as frequently noted that this is a multiple of what it costs to keep a child at Eton during a year. The unsatisfactory outcomes of the system in terms of re-offending rates are likewise statistically easily demonstrable, and there are human rights issues about the treatment of prisoners in custody to which attention has been drawn by successive inspectors of the prison system.
While we might expect that inspectors of the system would he critical, it is rather more surprising, indeed shocking, to hear the views of practitioners in the system. It is some 20 years since the then governor of Wormwood Scrubs wrote in a letter to the Times:
"I did not join the Prison Service to manage overcrowded cattle pens … nor did I join to be a member of a service where staff that I admire are forced to run a society that debases".
Similar sentiments are strongly echoed by more recent practitioners in the system, often at a high level of seniority. There is consensus not only among those concerned with criminology and the practice of the law, but across the political parties, that our present system needs to be reviewed. However, that review seems extraordinarily slow in coming. I am most grateful to your Lordships for affording the opportunity for this debate. Many of the points that I shall make this morning, and doubtless others will be making, have been made for 20 years or more.
We stand at a point of some significance and some opportunity. We have the aforesaid consensus across the parties, within the academic side of criminology, and among practitioners in the penal system. We have strongly flagged a number of concerns from government about restorative justice and non-custodial options. The 2003 paper from the Home Office on restorative justice and government strategy, the Carter report of this year and the Halliday report of 2002 make the points amply.
We also now have a Sentencing Guidelines Council in process of formation, and we have significant changes, and improvements, moving forward in the youth justice system. This is, in short, a moment of some hopefulness in the system.
However, issues persist around communication, both within the penal system—the sharing of good practice—and about the system, in the countering of tabloid clichéabout custodial practice and its effectiveness. It is important in this debate to be conscious of the distorting effect that populist debate may have on serious consideration of these issues, and it is important to register that facile point-scoring on this subject, and the wish to appear tougher, actually cut corners and beg questions to a degree that is lethal to the proper reform of our system. Let me return for a moment to the issue of communication within the penal system. Many institutions exercise admirable practice in the education, socialisation and rehabilitation of prisoners. However, with the high mobility of the prison population—just one factor among many of the overcrowding that is prevalent in the system—national parity in delivering programmes is virtually impossible. The sharing of good practice is made much harder.
It is in the light of all this that I wish to raise the question of the social functions of sentencing. As the Sentencing Guidelines Council gets into its stride, it is all the more important for there to be an articulated consensus around this matter. Part of the emerging agreement around penal policy and sentencing has to do with the recognition that punishment does not have to do simply with retribution, and that punitive practice alone will not address motivation. A failure to address motivation is a failure to address the problem of re-offending. The most serious question appears to be how the broken relationships involved in criminal activity are to be restored by a sentencing policy capable of being justified to victim and offender.
The point was put dramatically by Michael Ignatieff some years ago in an essay on the subject, when he described humane punishment as:
"A contract in which the state is bound to respect institutional conditions of justice, and the prisoner gives his consent to the pain and deprivation of liberty he is to suffer".
That is a strong statement, as Ignatieff admits, which may seem uncomfortably abstract and remote in the context of current practice. Yet, a penal policy that makes provision for the recognition by the offender of the nature of an offence, and therefore begins to address issues of motivation, is a penal system worthy of the name. Prisoners do not stop being members of society. As a distinguished predecessor of mine in the Primacy, Archbishop William Temple, observed in the early 1940s, a prisoner is never simply a prisoner.
In addition to that, however, it is important that we note that the system, as currently practised, does little to achieve what is fashionably called closure for the victim. If re-offending is still a problem in the system, if issues of motivation are not addressed and if questions of reparation and restorative justice are not foregrounded, the victim is left worse off than before. I am not appealing for a review of penal policy that is slanted towards offender, rather than victim; I am

949
arguing for a system and a policy that recognise both as members of society needing reintegration into something like normality.
Excessive expectations of the rehabilitative function of imprisonment or any other legal penalty may lead to imbalance. There is no case for infinitely extendable rehabilitative programmes. Natural justice intervenes at that point. But if the purpose of sentencing is to contribute positively to a well functioning society, rather than just to achieve control and damage limitation, those elements of restoration, reparation and rehabilitation are imperative. I welcome, therefore, the definition of sentencing offered in last year's Criminal Justice Act, in which the five purposes of sentencing were spelt out with clarity: the punishment of offenders; the reduction of crime, partly through the deterrent effect of penalties imposed; the reform of offenders; the protection of the public; and reparation for offences committed. Any practice of sentencing must now take those purposes fully into consideration, and the guidelines council will need suggestions and steerage about how precisely, in practice, those are to be achieved.
That raises the question of the necessary involvement of a sentencing authority with prison management and others in the construction of a sentence plan before sentence is passed. At present, there are uncomfortable hiatuses in the system, and it becomes impossible to construct a balanced sentence plan prior to sentencing. The possibility of a mixed pattern of custody and supervised work and restorative exercises must be considered and balanced before a final decision is made. That involves time and skill and, therefore, training and expense. We must consider, however, whether the expense involved in that is greater or less attractive than the expense involved in our present, fairly prodigal approach.
Central to much of this, of course, is the principle of the responsibility of the offender. The 2001 report constructed under the leadership of Stephen Pryor, The Responsible Prisoner, sets out the assumption that it is possible for an offender to make different choices from those that they have hitherto made. Approaching it as a Christian, I feel that that principle ought indeed to be fundamental to our approach to sentencing policy. Dignity, choice, the possibility of change and the necessary involvement of a community in building individual lives all seem to go necessarily with a Christian approach to the dignity of victim and offender alike. Such an approach is also, arguably, the only one that does not ultimately make the offender a simple outcast from the social process. It has been well said that our present policy and practice is tantamount to a sentence of banishment and little more. A philosophy of straightforward expulsion does little to help the victim. The point has been put with characteristic eloquence by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who has spoken of our present system as the warehousing of large portions of our population, including—a point that she underlined—children.
Specifically, what are we looking at, as we consider the social purposes of sentencing and the possible guidance that Members of your Lordships' House and others would wish to give to those reconstructing a sentencing policy? I have mentioned the significance of sentence plans and the importance of the involvement of the sentencing authority with others, prior to sentence being passed. I have also mentioned—I want to underline it strongly—the need for parity in the delivery of rehabilitative programmes throughout United Kingdom penal institutions. Most importantly, however, we need a change of philosophy that takes us steadily and inexorably away from believing that a custodial sentence is, so to speak, the default position for every offence or, in some ways worse still, a measure of the seriousness with which an offence is taken. Many have insisted—rightly, I believe—that regarding certain patterns of restorative justice as an easier option than custody is false.
We need involvement and investment in restorative justice models, as argued in the Home Office paper of July last year to which I referred. I note in that paper the commitments to work across the boundaries of the criminal justice system and other systems; the possibility of the further significant development of community justice centres; and a general exploration of means of diversion from prosecution in the first instance. That will go forward only if there is also caution at the highest level in the country about creating new criminal offences with custodial tariffs. Reading this week about a parent gaoled for collusion with her child's truancy, I found myself asking, not for the first time, whether we understand anything about the social effects of custody on family life. I note also the development—particularly in Berkshire, I believe—of the Canadian model of circles of support and accountability as a means of dealing with that most difficult and challenging of subjects, the treatment of sex offenders.
In short, I heartily endorse the much quoted remark made by Winston Churchill in 1912; that the level of civilisation in a society is to be judged by how it treats its prisoners. Our current situation gives us little cause for self-congratulation on our level of civilisation.
What I have said should also underline the tragedy, to which I alluded briefly at the beginning of my remarks, that those exercising great dedication and skill within our present penal system deserve a better vision to realise than that which they are now obliged to attempt to implement. Again, I refer to a remark made by Governor John McCarthy, who said that he did not join the Prison Service to manage overcrowded cattle pens.
What we are looking for is very simple. It is a sentencing policy that takes responsibility for the social fabric and assumes responsibility in both offender and victim. It is a policy that considers that the actions of the courts and the penal system alike are there to provide constructive guidance for society; guidance that can be justified to victim and defender alike. It is also a system that incidentally addresses problems of prodigality and waste in our present practice. I hope and pray that it is a system that will look to and deal with the human rights abuses that still prevail within so many areas of our penal practice. I beg to move for Papers.
11.21 a.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, judges have the heavy responsibility of sentencing. They will be most grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, first, for arranging this opportunity to debate the subject and, secondly, for the words that he has just uttered, with which I find myself in total agreement. He is also right when he indicates that there are reasons for hope.
I appreciate his references to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is now in existence and has had its first meeting. I am its chairman, and as its chairman I have come here to listen and to find out what should be the true purpose of sentencing. It is right that the Criminal Justice Act gives an indication of what that true purpose should be. The most reverend Primate referred to the words of the statute itself. Section 142 identifies the purpose.
It is right also that the mandate given by the Criminal Justice Act to the sentencing council provides some assistance in Section 170(5). It provides that where the council decides to frame or advise sentencing guidelines, the matters to which the council must have regard include—perhaps that word is important—the need to promote consistency in sentencing; the sentences imposed by the courts for offences to which the guidelines relate—that is, as I understand it, past practice; and the cost of differing sentences and the relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending. Then, there is the need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system, and the requirement that it should take into account the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. The Sentencing Advisory Panel is, of course, an expert body that has already improved sentencing practice and sentencing guidelines and is having a beneficial effect on the sentences imposed by the courts.
The establishment of the Sentencing Guidelines Council gives reason for hope. However, as has been indicated already, many different aspects cause deep concern. Again, those have been identified by the most reverend Primate. He referred, of course, to overcrowding. That is undoubtedly, as I have described it before, a cancer of the system. Resources that could and should be used so much more beneficially elsewhere are swallowed up in what is correctly described as warehousing of prisoners.
I therefore welcome the fact that, for the first time, so far as I know, legislation is indicating that the cost of different sentences—the cost which was mentioned—and the relative effectiveness of those sentences in preventing re-offending have to be taken into account. If that is done sufficiently when sentences are passed, it seems that the inevitable consequence must be that we reverse the present trend.
At the time that I made my Strangeways report, which is not so many years ago—the 10th anniversary was two years ago—the prison population was 42,000 and falling. It is now, alas, over 76,000 and rising. There are hopes for providing more prison places, but the indications are that those extra prison places certainly will not meet the needs that now exist. The
952
Prison Service is straining to find ways of housing more prisoners. At present, that is a primary objective of the Prison Service.
The primary objective of the Prison Service should be otherwise. So much can be achieved, first, in the community, if there are properly resourced alternatives; and, secondly, in prison, if it can devote itself to doing the tasks that it can do well. That includes addressing the lack of education of many of the inmates, their health problems, their problems of finding accommodation when they are released from prison, and their problems of obtaining employment.
In that regard, I should like to refer briefly to the very successful short-term prisoner project in Her Majesty's Prison in Canterbury, which is within the most reverend Primate's own diocese. I should disclose the fact that the prison was acknowledged by the Butler Trust—of which I am president—as justifying the Woolf award. Although I was not responsible for determining who should receive the award, if the award has any merit, the prison deserved it. It focused on the most difficult inmates within the prison system; that is, those serving a sentence of less than 12 months, who constitute the maximum number of persons within the system, at 66 per cent of the adult prison population in 1999. A way was found of addressing their problems and ensuring that they would benefit from the steps that were taken, not only while they were in custody, but when they were returned to the community afterwards.
The prison itself, Thanet police, the Kent probation service, the active support and co-operation of the employment services, the Benefits Agency—now Jobcentre Plus—the Kent Council on Addiction. Thanet District Council, the Mount Zeehan Alcohol Unit, Thanet social services and the East Kent Community and National Health Service Trust—all those who should be involved in analysing the problems of offenders and what needs to he done to tackle their re-offending—came together to make an in-depth risk assessment. They were then able to make plans for prisoners to be returned to the community, thus reducing the likelihood of re-offending as far as that is possible. Activity did not terminate the moment prisoners arrived in the community, it continued within it. In my view, that is all important.
The result was not dramatic, but there has been a significant reduction in re-offending. It is just one example of what can be achieved by those involved with offenders when they get together and seek to provide a way of ensuring that offenders' needs., ones which could cause them to re-offend in the future, are taken into account.
The process also involves the offender himself. He must take responsibility for his behaviour when he returns to the community. Further, while he is in prison, other prisoners must communicate with the different agencies making the necessary arrangements. I repeat, this is only one example of the positive things that can be done. Unfortunately, they do not happen as often as they should.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council must he given the responsibility for encouraging a different approach to sentencing practices in this country so that agencies

953
operating within the community can be properly resourced in order to achieve what I believe it is possible to achieve. The public will be protected when re-offending is tackled.
Of course, the interests of victims have to be taken into account. We need to look after victims better than we do at present. However, it serves no purpose to provide a punishment—the announcement of which often reflects only to a very limited extent the reality of the punishment served by the prisoner—if, on release from prison, the prisoner re-offends. Nothing can be more destructive of the confidence that we need to foster in our criminal justice system if that should be the result. I hope that this debate will accelerate the process that I believe we would all like to see, one that leads to our operating an efficient, effective and more desirable Prison Service.
It is my belief, based on my experience, that we have reason to be proud of the way that the agencies to which I have referred seek to tackle the problems they now face. The sad fact is that, because of overwhelming numbers and the consequent lack of resources due to those overwhelming numbers, they cannot achieve what they should be able to do, and what in other circumstances they do achieve.
11.34 a.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on securing this debate. I am always impressed by his eloquence on issues of social concern. It is exciting to be taking part in a debate involving others with such a wealth of experience, and who no doubt will touch on a variety of issues. It is also a great honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and to precede the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I shall confine my remarks to the problems faced by drug misusers who end up in the criminal justice system in large numbers. I declare an interest as chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, a body set up as a special health authority in 2001 with the intention of increasing the numbers in treatment, increasing the time they stay in treatment, reducing waiting times for those wanting treatment and developing the workforce to address the increased numbers of those requiring treatment. I propose to give a little background to the problem and reflect on the challenges.
Let me say first that much good is happening in relation to drug treatment. There is more money in the system. Only yesterday the Government announced an extra £50 million for young people's services. There are more staff and better organisation. The Criminal Justice Interventions Programme integrates systems, while drug action teams work across agencies at the local level to improve those systems. But some areas of drug treatment need further emphasis; consistency needs more emphasis. The Prison Service in particular is one of the areas which is in need of more action.
954
I turn to the size of the problem. The use of hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine has increased from an almost zero base in 1960 to around 250,000 people today. The most common age for presenting for treatment is between 20 and 29 years, and most of those people are men. Many drug users have chronic health, social and economic problems; many have mental health problems. Families become devastated by drug use. Around half of all crime is drug related. However, over a quarter of those in prison have been through our care system, which is a sad indictment of it.
The aim of treatment set out in the updated drug strategy produced in 2002 is to enable people with drug problems to overcome them so that they can lead healthy, crime-free lives. The key performance target is to double the numbers accessing drug treatment from a baseline of around 100,000 to 200,000 by 2008. The criminal justice system is part of this story, although not the whole story. Substance misuse is a public health issue involving the interrelationship of housing, gender, class, ethnicity, employment and education.
Treatment can work. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study calculated that for every pound spent on treatment, £3 in benefits could accrue in relation to the criminal justice system. It is estimated that the annual cost to society arising from the most serious drug use is over £4 million.
One social purpose of sentencing is to enable people to be drug free, not just because of their criminal behaviour, but in relation to the health and welfare of those individuals and their families. Drug use is increasingly complex, and is associated with mental health problems and poor educational achievement. I recognise that those working in the criminal justice system have an enormously difficult job in tackling this issue. However, they have a vital role to play. In prisons, primary care trusts will soon be in charge of prisoners' health. The National Treatment Agency is currently developing initiatives which will examine how treatment in prisons might be improved.
Prison can provide in-patient detoxification, but it costs around £35,000 per person and has a failure rate of about 70 per cent. Residential detoxification outside prison costs much less and enjoys a higher success rate. The obvious answer is to try to get people into treatment fast, before they become prisoners, or to have good systems of treatment in prison—a worthy social purpose.
As I have said, treatment consists of accurate assessment of the problem, appropriate treatment and appropriate aftercare. In relation to criminal justice, aftercare is an area which is frequently not given enough attention, resulting in a return to drug use, re-offending and family crises.
The National Service Framework "Models of Care", developed by the National Treatment Agency and the Department of Health, places emphasis on the need to oversee individuals presented for care until and after they are functioning well. The social purpose of sentencing should be to help solve problems, not to reinforce them or to create new ones.

955
There are examples of good drug treatment programmes in prison—programmes which focus on life skills, parenting skills and practicalities such as getting a job and education—but there are not enough of them. Too often early intervention is lacking and aftercare, involving a range of agencies, is inadequate. There are many stories of people who take up drugs in prison.
Let us look at some case studies. A woman—let us call her Deirdre—a drug user and former prostitute, was locked up for shoplifting. There was no family support and her children were taken into care. They are now reunited, but the children were traumatised by the separation. Deirdre said, "All I wanted was some help and treatment with my addiction. Instead, I was punished and so were my children". More than 60 per cent of women prisoners have children under the age of 18. Another woman said, -Punishment did not work for me. What did help was a decent job". She is now a trainee drug worker.
Many people in prison for drug-related crimes say that their families have difficulties in visiting—either because of having to travel long distances or because of poor facilities for relatives—and yet it is known that family support is invaluable in helping prison to succeed in
rehabilitation. A survey of young fathers in prison, carried out by Dr Gwyneth Boswell and Professor Peter Wedge for the Department of Health, showed that young fathers felt that to improve the parenting role inmates should have better access to education and employment training; better access to services which support a specific need, such as alcohol or drug rehabilitation; better access to their families; telephone helplines; and better use of community services— inreach as well as outreach. Their views would be echoed by many prisoners.
Clearly there needs to be a message to society that there are consequences to offending. Those consequences will differ depending on the person concerned and the severity of the crime. For some offenders, sentencing has a role to play in protecting the community. This is true of more serious crimes. However, these form a small proportion of drug-related crime, although crack cocaine use may be amplifying the rate at which these crimes are committed. For most, conviction and sentencing probably works best as a warning that unless there is a change of behaviour then prison will result. For a great number of people, the threat of prison may propel them towards treatment. However, treatment in prison needs to be geared to the individual; too often it is "one size fits all".
Let me say a little more about prison aftercare. If a person entered one of the small number of therapeutic regimes on a drug-free wing, much is undone when the offender is discharged, with no care plan, into a hostel or breakfast accommodation filled with people actively using drugs. Some people who are engaged in destructive behaviour, both to themselves, their families and communities, value prison as the only way to escape drugs. However, prisons have often been the places least able to address their complex needs, leading to a spiral of failure to rehabilitate.
956
The answer to the question of punishment or rehabilitation is surely that it can be both. A trend which may be leading to unintended consequences is the move to establish expanded and more effective drug treatment responses within the prison system. The transfer of prison healthcare to the NHS, the introduction of counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare teams and the greater availability of structured programmes can make a custodial sentence seem like an attractive option to the sentencer by killing the punishment and rehabilitation bird with one stone.
Up until now, this has proved a false hope due to the lack of aftercare for released prisoners with drug problems, which means in many cases that the gains made in custody disappear on release. The introduction of comprehensive throughcare and aftercare soon may address this gap. But it may also provide further encouragement to use the custodial option. It remains to be seen whether the introduction of the National Offender Management Service will create a more seamless and integrated system, matching the aspiration of the courts, which impose the sentence, with those who seek to deliver.
Drug treatment and testing orders have also sought to combine punishment with rehabilitation. These sentences seek to target the chronic drug-misusing offender and have been seen as an alternative to custody which offered court-mandated drug treatment. However, in an attempt to offset the accusations of "soft option", the order contained a requirement that the offender attend daily drug treatment for a minimum of 20 hours a week, supported by a tough drug-testing regime. Unfortunately this approach often backfires because the rigid and demanding nature of the order and tough enforcement measures lead to high breach rates, which in turn end up with offenders in custody.
We certainly need good collaboration between agencies, for example, arrest referral schemes, drug treatment and testing and prison-based drug treatment. Lack of a shared approach can result in duplication and lack of follow-up. Treatment bottlenecks can occur due to a gearing towards identifying, assessing and referring to treatment with insufficient treatment at the end of it.
This may sound somewhat depressing, but that is because I care so much about the issue and want to see better social purpose to drug treatment in the criminal justice system. I am hopeful that things will improve with the changes in the system that I mentioned earlier—the transfer of prison health to the NHS and the setting up of a new national offender management service—but can the Minister say how these changes will serve the criminal justice well? I feel, as a non-expert, that we are at a crossroads with the criminal justice system. We have to make it work better for individuals, families and society as a whole. This applies also to drug-using offenders. That is why the debate is so important and will serve to remind us of the purpose of social sentencing.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was my privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. I forecast that we would have the advantage of

957
many more helpful and learned observations. How right I was. It is an honour to speak in a debate introduced by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In 1940, the Home Office made the obvious observation that people's attitudes to crime and punishment seemed to vary with the pace of time. That applies equally to governments and to the media. Forty years ago, I was appointed the Recorder of Swindon. It was the first appointment and I was duly happy about it, although a little saddened to see that, in answer to the memorial addressed by the Borough to the Lord Chancellor, he considered in relation to my pay that two-thirds of what had been suggested was quite adequate.
I immediately went to the governor of the Bristol prison for advice. He said, in quite a relaxed manner, "Don't send too many people here if you can avoid it". I thanked him and asked why. He said, "Prison is a very good deterrent until you impose it, and that's the end of that". He also said, "They very soon find it's much more comfortable here than they expected". That was the advice I received.
A few years later, I was appointed as a High Court judge to run sentencing seminars. It was a ticklish job because the Bar, or the judges, did not recognise that you could teach anything on the subject matter of sentencing. That view was supported, incidentally, by Lord Devlin. It soon became apparent that it was a pleasurable occasion, and I believe more alcohol was consumed in the evenings at the girls' school at Roehampton than on any other occasion.
I was asked on occasion to visit prisons, which I did, always with a small number. We visited Scrubs on one occasion. The governor said, "We are not a therapeutic prison, but there are occasions when we have a sort of amateur group therapy session. All the oddballs are brought together so they can chat about their views. I would like only one volunteer to attend our session today". Being used to being obliged to volunteer, with a name that begins with "A", followed by "c", I, as a conditioned reflex, volunteered. As we marched across, a terrible thought hit me, and I said to the warder, "It is appreciated that I am going to be merely a spectator?", to which the answer was, "Oh, indeed, sir".
We arrived at what was the conversion of three cells into one. The warder in charge saluted and said, "I have told the assembled company we can adjourn our usual session because we have a High Court judge present who will answer all your questions". One of the questions immediately asked was, "How does it feel when the likes of you sentence the likes of us". Thinking as quickly as I could, I said, "Take a suspended sentence—you know before I enter the cells that you are going to go to prison". And on we went. Then, suddenly, the prisoner interrupted, and said, "I thought that answer of yours was most unfair". I asked, "What was unfair about it?". He said, "If I'd known more about this, I would not have come here". I said, "Are you suggesting that the judge should have
958
taken you by the scruff of the neck, pushed you through the prison doors and said, 'Smell that'?". He said, "Yes, and if he had, I wouldn't be here".
This reminded me of what used to occur on assize, when experienced judges such as Mr Justice Humphreys would have up on the first day those who pleaded guilty—young men, usually. He would say, with great seriousness, "Well, I think this is a very difficult case. I shall remand you in custody till the end of the assize and then I will see what is the right disposal". It was only a matter of a week or two, because we travelled around to many small places. He did not have the slightest intention of sending the young man to prison, but he thought a little experience—a week or two at the most—would do quite a useful job. It did, but you cannot do that any more because you have a statutory obligation to grant bail. But I thought that that was an interesting indication of what one can learn from the past.
I studied the various options with care. It was quite clear that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which had to be amended because it put judges into an impossible straitjacket in sentencing, was absolutely right to make it clear that prison was the penalty of last resort. Judges had to go through all the options, as they are taught to do, ticking off those that they thought could not apply.
I remember doing that in one case and imposing a suspended sentence. I always imposed a suspended sentence with a monetary fine, so to speak, to go with it, so that the person should not be considered to have got off with the soft option. I have told this story before, but perhaps I may be allowed to tell it again.
I had to sentence a Welshman who was the pillar of his local society. He was in the choir, he was on the church advisory board. He really was, so it seemed, a very upstanding member of the community. He was a milkman, known as Jones the Milk. He had a cunning scheme: when the Milk Marketing Board came along to put 1,000 gallons of milk into his tank, he had a runnel system, which ran off 200 gallons. So, to fill his tank, the Milk Marketing Board had in fact to put in 1,200 gallons.
I thought long and hard about his sentence; I gave him a suspended sentence of 18 months on each charge, to run concurrently, and then a fine of £750 on each charge—three times £750. When I came back to the lodgings, I said to my brother, Mr Justice Tasker Watkins, VC, "Tasker, have I done the right thing?" "God, boy", he said, "he'd rather have gone to prison any day". So I reckoned that perhaps I had done the right thing.
On a more serious note, I turn to the present sentencing arrangements. Before the Sentencing Guidelines Council came into existence, there was a sentencing panel. It consisted of a variety of experts—non-lawyers, academics, probation officers and a number of people who had a lot of knowledge of the world and the type of person who came before the courts. This was three or so years ago. These people provided the Court of Appeal with the benefit of their

959
views. The Court of Appeal took those into account and, as a result, something like a dozen crimes have been the subject matter of the guidelines.
The guidelines themselves were set by the Court of Appeal—and, I believe, very properly so. Sentencing is a judicial function. Although the Court of Appeal should be open to, and take, such advice as is appropriate, it is its function to issue the guidelines. But the present Home Secretary was not content with that, so in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 he provided that the guidelines would no longer be dealt with by the Court of Appeal but by a Sentencing Guidelines Council, on which a variety of persons, fully qualified to serve on the panel, would provide advice.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is a man of extreme tolerance and he, protestante, accepted the measure. But much worse was to follow. Before the Sentencing Guidelines Council was set up, while the Bill was still a Bill, the Home Secretary was so furious at being deprived—by reason of the European legislation that this Government were so keen to incorporate—of his right to set the final period that a person convicted of murder should serve, that during the Report stage, with basically no prior consideration, he provided for Schedule 17. Now Schedule 19, it provides the minimum starting rate in all murder cases; those sentences are about 50 to 100 per cent higher than the guidelines issued by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice as a practice direction about a year earlier, having taken the advice of the panel and having got the concurrence of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General.
That provision, having become law, has obliged the Sentencing Guidelines Council to follow a course that is quite contrary to what it considers is just, because it had already agreed on what those guidelines were a year previously. In addition, one cannot up murder as an offence without a knock-on effect on all other serious crimes. So if they all go up by 50 per cent plus, the prisons will not be able to accommodate them.
Within Schedule 19, there is a discretion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, argues fervently that it lets the Lord Chief Justice off the hook. I very much hope that is so but, as someone who has had a little more to do with draftsmen than the noble Baroness, I strongly doubt it. We have asked over and over again that it should be specified separately in the legislation that the discretion does relate. The discretion, as I see it, is only a discretion within the framework of Schedule 19. One cannot turn one's back on the schedule, as one should be able to do.
I end my submissions on that sad note, though with 100 per cent—even 101 per cent—confidence in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice so that all will come well in the end.
12.5 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. As he spoke, I was reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, when he was head of the Youth Justice Board and introduced all those welcome
960
reforms, which he undertook while in that role. He said that he found himself rather in the position of someone pursuing a bus and, each time he approached the bus, it accelerated away. I am afraid that, in the same way, the increase in numbers in prison works against improving what can be done there to reform prisoners.
I should also like to thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for allowing this opportunity to debate. It is a debate that some of our colleagues may find particularly timely, as this week we have been reminded by visitors from United States that more than 2 million United States citizens are in prison. That is a real problem for local communities, which have to cater for the needs of elderly former prisoners who return, having been institutionalised. State funds are so pressed that local communities are now being encouraged to ask whether they would like to use the money that is being spent on incarcerating these prisoners to develop facilities that would benefit the prisoners and the local community. Of course, these prisoners normally come from the most deprived areas, with the poorest facilities.
I should like to concentrate on the aim of the criminal justice system to reform prisoners, and how the training of prison officers affects that aim. The training of the prison officer now lasts nine weeks, which is a reduction from 14 weeks. A prison officer who wishes to work with children is trained for a further two or three days. It almost makes me weep to think of this; it is deplorable and totally uncivilised.
A senior prison governor told Members of your Lordships' House that he had toured Europe and seen the training there, which for the most part is far in advance of what we have in this country. He particularly noted the success in Germany. In Norway, prison officers receive one year's probationary training and then go to a college for prison officers for one year. They have a mock-up of a prison where they can practise role-play, and they can work on the theory of prison officer work. They are also encouraged and funded to travel abroad—and they often come to this country—to see how other prison services work. They are also obliged to do some voluntary service in the community before they are given responsibility in prisons for prisoners.
If I may, I should like to put the matter in context by considering what is being done in Sure Start and in other areas. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I do that. The Government are being very tough on crime and the causes of crime, and I do welcome that. One of the most apparent successes in that area is their Sure Start programme, whereby a quarter of the most poor families in this country have benefited from support. In a recent project in Camden, a child psychotherapist has worked with parents to help them better to understand their children, and to help the workers in that environment, which can be so challenging, to engage with those families better. That project helps to create those early bonds between parent and child, which are so important, in order to see those children fulfil themselves but also to avoid them becoming involved with the criminal justice system later in life.

961
There are real parallels between what happens in the Prison Service and what happens in other areas, such as working with children. One must bear in mind that many of the children in prison—60 per cent of them according to the National Audit Office—have come through the care system. My noble friend Lady Howe pointed out that 39 per cent of under 21 year-olds in prison have come through the care system. In the adult prison population, 25 per cent had been through the care system. Only 10 per cent of children taken into care have had any experience with the criminal justice system, but over 50 per cent have experienced abuse or neglect, which is why they entered the care system. One must think about the extraordinarily high level of personality disorder in the adult prison population, which the National Audit Office put at around 65 per cent in 1998. We know that a chief source of personality disorders is early childhood experience and poor family upbringing.
We need to recognise that for many adults or children going into prison, being involved with a prison officer is the first time they have had the experience of a father. This was reinforced to me by a visit by the head of the Prison Service. A prison officer is in many ways similar to a parent. Just as a child is utterly dependent on his parents, so a prisoner is utterly dependent on a prison officer for food and for being able to move from place to place. There are important parallels, which we should bear in mind.
We also need to think about how we have neglected parents in this country in the past. I welcome Sure Start and investment in the National Health Service so that we can, for instance, recruit more midwives for maternity services so that they can do the extremely important work of ensuring that mothers and children bond well at the start of the child's life. I appreciate the investment in increasing the numbers of health visitors who do a crucial job in ensuring that children get the right start. I also refer to housing: some of the housing in which we expect families to live have moisture running down the walls and are overcrowded. I pay tribute to the Government for reducing the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. But when that support was not there, many of the prisoners in our prison system have experienced the most adverse circumstances at the starts of their lives.
Prison is an opportunity. First of all we need to contain such people and then, perhaps, we can also work with them. But if prison officers are not adequately equipped to work with these children and adults, we are not helping them to achieve much in these situations. If we wish to be tough on crime, we do not wish to have prisoners warehoused in prisons. We want them to be doing some useful work while they are there and for useful work to he done with them. Challenging a young person or a child about his behaviour and helping him to form, perhaps for the first time, a close, positive, constructive relationship with an adult is challenging. That is challenging for the child and is hard work; it does not involve being soft on the child or adult.
962
I welcome many of the initiatives that the Government are taking, such as the Children Bill. I welcome the fact that youth offending teams are being encouraged to work in partnership with local authorities to deliver better outcomes for children. I welcome the new duties on prison governors in the Children Bill. But we need to think again about the workforce. Many years ago, I worked with young people in an intermediate treatment centre. It was extremely hard work. I am concerned that we have previously neglected social workers and people in residential childcare working with children. Until recently, 80 per cent of them had no relevant qualifications for working with these difficult children.
Just as we neglected these people in the past we have also neglected prison officers until now. I hope that the Government will continue the impetus towards improvement and will look at them again, especially if they want prison officers to work more closely with the probation service. A probation service officer normally has a postgraduate certificate to do his work. Questions must be asked about how effectively they can work in partnership if a prison officer has only nine weeks' training. Again, it has been hard for people in the residential childcare sector to work in partnership with schools and other agencies because most of them had no relevant qualifications. I am very grateful that the Government are now seeking to remedy that. I hope that Minister will keep it under review and I look forward to hearing from her department shortly on the issue of training. I also look forward to dialogue on this in the future.
I again thank the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate and I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I wonder whether, when the most reverend Primate was proposing this debate, he did not feel a bit exposed standing so close to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Our autolytic Lord Chancellor is so keen on disposing of himself and casting the Lord Chief Justice into the outer darkness, or at least out of this House, did the most reverend Primate wonder whether he was next on the list, whether his time here was, perhaps, a little limited? If he did, I am extremely grateful that he should have chosen this subject for debate as it is very close to my heart.
As many noble Lords know, I have a close relationship with a charity called Safeground that works in prison education. When I told people there that I was going to speak in this debate they said that the first thing I must say is how dedicated, supportive, effective, useful and altogether wonderful the prison chaplains are in all the prisons in which they work, especially Wandsworth where they spend a lot of time, and that they would extend that compliment to the imams. The support and help that such people provide to prisoners is immense. It is a great tribute to the Church that it chooses to send people of such quality into such difficult missions, rather than giving them the easier and more social life outside.

963
There is a cutting on a wall of the pub I use at weekends that says, "a short word can be better than a long sentence". I see that as an echo of what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was saying and what my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor has called the "neighbourless society". We have become detached from people who are troublesome or difficult in our society. We seem to think that they are problems to be sorted out by other people. Parents are taking less responsibility for their children. Schools are taking less responsibility for dealing with the difficult kids that they have. We all take less responsibility for misbehaviour and bad behaviour that we see going on around us in society. Very few of us make a real contribution: certainly I would count myself as somebody who does not make a real contribution to helping children in care, who are those who need the most help in finding their way back into a stable relationship with society. It is a problem for all of us. It is not a problem of the sentencing system as such. For many people who end up in prison, the problem starts much earlier and it is up to all of us to do a bit to deal with it.
I shall concentrate mostly on prison because that is where I am least ignorant. Prison serves three functions: it removes from society people who we simply do not want around for a bit; it is retribution for the crimes that they have committed; and it is an opportunity to reform them. We do removal well. We do not hear of escapes on any large scale now. Prisons are secure places. Retribution has really come down to containment. We do not have the treadmill or similar things any more. The punishment is one of isolation from society. We aid that by sticking prisoners in cells for long periods, forcing them to watch television, which must be a terrible punishment after a while—I am delighted to get away from the thing—but, worst of all, by allowing them easy access to drugs. There is not only a very serious problem of illegal drugs in prisons, but the prescribing of drugs in prisons is at an extraordinary level. That is done to keep them quiet, but it has the overall effect of dehumanising them, removing them from society and making the whole business of getting them back into society afterwards much more difficult.
It I were to start to tackle that problem anywhere in particular, I would have a real blitz on the drug problem in the hostels that prisoners go to after release. Prisoners are really fearful—particularly those who have had drug problems and have made some progress in tackling them in prison—about going into a hostel environment where drugs are just everywhere and there is no longer any protection for them against getting reinvolved with drugs. That would be one of the earliest changes that I should like to see made.
Most of my concerns have been with the process of reform. There are some things that a government—I certainly do not address myself to a government of any particular colour—could do to improve the situation. The first thing I would do is to make sure that we have a prisons Minister who is in place as a prisons Minister for a good long time. One of the good things that John Major did was to leave Ministers in post. It was one of
964
the real faults of the Department of Agriculture, in which I was involved, that Ministers came and went as fast as they absolutely could. It was just a step in their promotion.
Responsibility for prisons is an unfashionable, unsexy, generally dangerous post that is uninteresting to the electorate and belongs to a Minister who really cares about that kind of thing and is going to be there long enough to make a difference. The post should, to my mind, be filled by a Lords Minister it possible because you are not so encumbered by ambit ion if you are a Minister in this place. Not that I want to sentence the noble Baroness to the post, but as her noble and learned friend is so keen to vacate his, perhaps we could move her sideways.
The other thing I would do is ensure—if you have a prisons Minister—that he or she, and the people working for him, have real experience of prison. They should not just have visited prisons but have actually spent some time there. The Minister could have an office in Wandsworth or Brixton and absorb something of the atmosphere and understand what prisons are about. It takes a fair time before you really understand how the whole thing works. There is a difficulty with bureaucracy. Although you meet lots of people in the Prison Service who are dedicated to making prison work, making it a better place and looking after the prisoners for whom they care, the people involved in the bureaucracies are much more divorced from that. Very few people in the bureaucracies have experience of prison and you do not get that same sense of involvement, direction and ambition. That has to come from the Minister. That is the only way you will get that into the bureaucracies, or indeed make sure that there is much more flow between people who actually work in prison and those who work in the administration side.
I would also make sure that prison governors are in post for at least five years in their individual prisons. I spend a lot of my time looking at schools. A school that changed its headmaster every two years would be dead after 10. The whole system and spirit of the school would have fallen apart. It cannot be a surprise that changing governors as often as we do has that effect on prisons. That is an easy change to make, but no one has made it. It just requires determination and it is a matter to which a strong Minister should address himself.
We should be much better than we are at recording what is going on in prison, the progress made by prisoners and the effects of the various initiatives that are taken. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to an initiative that had been taken in Canterbury. What has been done to record how good that has been? What has been done to enable that to be spread to other locations? If I am to judge by what else happens in the Prison Service, probably nothing. There are lots of these little initiatives but they very rarely get through to being something national. We should not just think of the benefit in terms of reoffending rates—that is so far away. For some of these prisoners it will be years before you can measure that sort of thing. It is probably another three years on their sentence and then two years before you know whether they have

965
reoffended. We really ought to be measuring things which are much easier to see in the ordinary course of events—whether they have become more co-operative prisoners; whether they have changed their status from standard to enhanced; and whether they have become more involved in education programmes, just so that we develop an evidence base.
One of the great problems with things that are done in prison is that very rarely do you get a proper scientific study. You cannot develop a control group in the same way as you would hope to outside, particularly with the way prisons are at the moment—there is such a churn rate, and prisoners are moving round at such a rate that you do not get a long enough look at anyone. The only way we shall measure how well things go is by collecting data on everyone and then looking at it, as it were, as an epidemiological study and get some worth from it and get to understand which of the great things that are being done in prison really work and we should support, and then get behind them and support them. That would be a key to progress.
One of the other key areas, of course, is making sure that prisoners stay in touch with the outside and that relationships with families are maintained. One of the things I should like to see more of—I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to this—is the use of prisons and prisoners as an example to people who are not yet there. A very good project called. "Prison? Me? No Way!" involves prisoners going into schools and talking to schoolchildren about how they went wrong and what it is like in prison. That has been extremely effective, but more could be done. There are opportunities for children to visit prisons to see what they are like. Again, that is difficult due to the overcrowding that exists at present but it should exist as an ambition.
We should focus on the problems that are so common in prisons and are so badly dealt with. An awful lot of people in prison have special educational needs, and there really is not the quality of provision for that that there should be. They have reached the point where they have fallen completely out of education. We know how effective tackling special educational needs is in schools. Once you start to tackle that problem with prisoners, you can achieve a transformation in their attitude to society. That kind of thing takes time, dedication and focus and requires ministerial input in a sustained way over a long period.
12.27 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for placing this important and very thought provoking issue on our agenda today.
In our busy lives we sometimes forget to ask ourselves the more basic questions of not just what we are doing but why we are doing it. The question of what is the social purpose of sentencing must be fundamental to our approach to the criminal justice
966
system. As the Archbishop reminded us, it has been said that a society can be judged by its approach to the criminal justice system. If that is so, we must look at ourselves and our society most seriously.
When the Labour government came into power, just as other governments before them, they had well proclaimed views on the criminal justice system. With many of these I agreed. "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"—who could disagree? But did we ask the more fundamental questions about crime? Were we clear who should be imprisoned and who should not? Did we ask how the complex interrelationship between the various courts, the prisons, both public and private, the sentencing policy and the probation and prison services—now to be seen as one—actually work in practice? I fear not, or not in enough depth. It is that lack of an overall integrated strategy that is producing a rising prison population and, too often, a short-term reaction to the long-term problem of overcrowding and its unhappy consequences. In turn, that therefore produces the frustration of the well meaning policies, hopes and desires of the Government.
Unfortunately, there was an example of that earlier this month. On the same day on which the Home Office published its action plan to tackle women's offending—a much-welcomed strategy—we heard that the work of the first European women's therapeutic community prison, based in Winchester prison, was to be disrupted because, I understand, the unit is to be transferred to Her Majesty's Prison Send, which is in Woking in Surrey. I also understand that that is because the women's unit in Winchester prison is needed to hold male prisoners.
I want to concentrate my remarks on women and prison. In doing so, I recognise that I can scratch only the surface of the complexities involved. However, it seems vital when we consider the social purposes of sentencing that we consider the very disturbing and special social consequences of imprisoning women. It does not take much imagination to understand why that is so. Women are still, in so many homes, the mainstay of the family unit. When the woman is removed, the fragile family structure collapses and the consequences are dire. For those women prisoners who are primary carers, the suffering is extended to their children in particular. Home Office research has found that 66 per cent of female prisoners are mothers, and that each year up to 17,000 children are separated from their mothers by imprisonment. Further research has shown that only 5 per cent of the children of women prisoners remain in their own homes after their mothers have been sentenced.
At the end of last year, three-quarters of all women in prison were held more than 100 miles away from their homes, thus making visiting them extremely difficult. It is little wonder, therefore, that the pain of separation and the many obstacles which prevent women maintaining family relationships often have a damaging impact on the woman's health, both physical and mental. The whole question of women's mental health and the instances of suicide and self-injury are worthy of a speech devoted entirely to that important subject. Suffice it to say that women are almost 18 times more likely than men

967
to self-injure in prison, and a considerably higher number of women than men enter prison with mental health problems. That number continues to rise.
Government figures show us that there are now more than 4,500 women in prison—an increase of 194 per cent in the past 10 years. For me, one of the most worrying factors surrounding women's imprisonment is the reasons given for it. Most female prisoners are held for non-violent offences. In 2002, the offence for which women were most often sentenced was theft from shops. Shoplifters accounted for nearly one-third of all women sentenced to immediate custody. The majority of women serve very short sentences. In 2002, 40 per cent of women prisoners served a sentence of three months or less, and the overall average sentence was 10 months.
I do not wish to make light of crimes committed by women if they are violent, involve a great deal of money, or are connected with drug or human trafficking. But do we really need to incarcerate women who steal goods worth a small amount of money? Why are women's sentences getting harsher? Why is a woman convicted at the Crown Court for theft or handling twice as likely to be imprisoned today as she would have been in 1991? Why have the chances of a woman receiving a custodial sentence risen sevenfold in 10 years?
I recognise that the Government have made strenuous efforts to alleviate the special problems that women face in prison. Earlier this year, I visited Holloway prison, and was agreeably surprised at the improvements since my previous visit a number of years ago. The reception area was transformed; the mother-and-baby unit was brighter; the obviously caring staff were helping the mothers; the playgroup was in action; and the whole atmosphere was much lighter for all the women prisoners. Although there is, of course, still something rather chilling about seeing babies and small children being raised behind bars, I came away with the feeling that improvements had been and were being achieved.
The Government must be sincerely congratulated on their action plan, which is intended to halt the disturbing rise in the female prison population. Initiatives such as community sentences, which have already been mentioned, and improvements in the provision of mental health and drug treatments for offenders, so that on their release they have a better chance of integration and survival back in the world outside, are to be greatly welcomed. The closer working relationship instigated by the Government last year between the Prison Service and the NHS is a long-awaited change which is both positive and practical. I look forward to hearing how the new initiatives are working in due course. However, we all recognise that there is still a long way to go, and that even more initiatives are needed.
If we ask ourselves the question with which we started—what is the social purpose of sentencing?—surely the answer must not be punishment alone. Yet for many women prisoners, it means just that. We cannot isolate the social purpose of sentencing from the world in which we live, nor from women's lives within that world. If we start from the premise, as I do, that too many women are being imprisoned, we have to look for alternatives to imprisonment and actions to
968
support women prisoners as they serve their sentences. For example, are we considering placements for women as near as possible to their homes? Are we staffing visitor centres with facilities for prisoners' children, as I saw in Holloway? Are resources being invested in a range of community sentences for those who are no risk to public safety? Perhaps above all, are we monitoring those who sentence and asking why they send women to prison rather than using other penalties in the community?
The Prison Reform Trust has been extremely helpful to me during my preparation for the debate, and I believe that Juliet Lyon, its director, is absolutely right when she observes:
"As long as there is a crisis driven prison system, vulnerable women are at the bottom of the heap".
I shall end by quoting from a statement by a government department. It said:
"The best way to reduce women's offending is to improve women's access to work; to improve women's mental health services; to tackle drug abuse by women; to improve family ties: and to improve the life chances of young women at school and in the community".
I am sure that my noble friend will agree with that approach, because the source of my quotation is none other than the Home Office.
12.38 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking the most reverend Primate for a golden opportunity to pool a great deal of impressively accurate knowledge and very sound philosophy on the sentencing and treatment of people who offend against the criminal code. As he made clear, the purposes are set out in Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Having accepted that list, we can ask ourselves whether what we have been doing for the past 20 years has been working. Punishment is the first requirement, and anyone who has been in prison can safely say that it is a punishment. Of course, not all sentences involve prison.
What about the reduction of crime? One indicator is the prison population itself. In 1983 it was 36,300, and a fortnight ago was 75,000 plus a few. The Home Office says in a paper that a quarter of the working-age population of the country actually have a previous conviction. Like the noble Baroness, whose speech I commend, I rely on that as a good authority.
What about rehabilitation? Has that worked? The present rate of re-offending is 58 per cent overall, is much higher for juveniles and most people who re-offend are returned to prison.
Is prison protecting the public? I sought a more unusual and dramatic figure to illustrate this. The Library has kindly provided me with the figure for "999" calls received by the police in a year, which now stands at over 10 million. In the Metropolitan Police it is 2.5 million. In Surrey it is 1,400 per day; in the West Midlands it is 1,800 per day. So I do not believe prison is working in that direction.
What about reparation? That is the last heading that has been tried thus far. Let us hope that something comes of it.

969
However, have we tried to make the system work in the past? We certainly started by building more prisons and ending the practice of slopping-out. When I became Minister for the Prison Service in 1982 I discovered, thanks to dear Frank Longford's Unstarred Question, which I had to answer within six days, that I had inherited an estate in which not one brick had been put on another for any adult secure accommodation since the end of the 19th century. That is where we started from. Prisoners were two to three in cells designed more than half a century before to hold one. So building more prisons has not worked.
What about the switch to long custodial sentencing as a priority? I endorse the welcome given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the fact that prison is now the last resort. As the most reverend Primate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, suggested, and as has been proposed in legislation, what about connecting the cost of sentencing and the people who do the sentencing with the people who pay for the sentencing? When I was Minister for prisons I had a lovely pipe dream that the judicial service should be made responsible for the prisons. I was not brave enough to suggest it to Willie Whitelaw but I thought that it would bring home this issue. Of course the idea was not feasible. Then there was the question of whether there would be savings by handing out non-judicial sentences. I thought that there would be, until I read the Answer to a Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I am glad to see will answer this debate in her usual lucid and convincing style, said,
"The average weekly cost per prisoner during the financial year 2002–03 was £697.
However, she continued:
"The average cost of an offender completing 40 hours of community service in the calendar year for 2002 was £706".— [Official Report, 11/3/04; col. WA 190.]
I see heads shaking, as did my noble friend's, and he was sorry that he could not be here long enough to make that point himself, but I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will address the matter in her reply or in written material later.
Have we tried to improve the regimes? Yes, indeed, we have. I welcome concentration on education and I hope that there is now sufficient escort power available among prison officers to ensure that prisoners who have an education programme in one part of a prison can actually get there from another part. Often we are proudly told how many hours of education provision is available and how many people there are to teach it, but the prisoners are locked up because there is no one there to escort them.
We have tried to provide meaningful occupations for prisoners. I was somewhat depressed when I discovered in the prisons that I visited that prisoners were assembling light switches or pulling a lever on a machine that shaped plastic forms so that a sandal or a pen case came out at one end with powder going into the other. They were monotonous occupations and I
970
discovered that what counted was not the meaningfulness of the occupation but the opportunity to talk to other prisoners—to associate—which they naturally stopped doing as soon as I came around the corner.
We have tried by legislation. Have we not tried? The Criminal Justice Act 2003 was no less than the 17th criminal justice Act that we have had since the present party came to power. I say that not to make a political point but because that happened to be the relevant date in my statistics. During that period—although I do not doubt that my party was also an offender in this regard—there have been an average of no less than 150 new offences created each year. We are providing a growing spider's web in which to catch the unfortunate criminals—if, indeed, they are unfortunate, and we need to examine that, too.
One is beginning to ask, "If sentencing doesn't work, would something else?". We have tried at least keeping people out of the mainstream with restorative justice, which I believe is extremely important. Noble Lords will know a great deal about that. It evolved, surprisingly, from the tribal practices of the Maoris, which came via America to this country, and we should be grateful to them. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for the offender and the victim to be reconciled. Here, I am on the most reverend Primate's ground, because it falls exactly within our instructions to turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies. That may sound a strange and anachronistic suggestion but my medical friends tell me that one can see the benefits to the forgiver in the immune system of the forgiver. I do not know whether that is a good preaching point, but, for example, I harboured for years a deep grudge against someone who had done me a great harm. I realised that it was shrivelling me inside and the moment of forgiveness was a moment of release for me. A system should be available to people so that assistance is provided by the community for members of the community when they fall out.
Before dealing with what I believe is fundamentally wrong with the whole system, I point out that keeping people out of the system altogether must be the most intelligent option. What is the point of catching 10 per cent of criminals at prices that beggar the Exchequer, when one could spend a tenth of that money on stopping them becoming criminals? Others have addressed ways in which that could be done and I shall not repeat them. I refer to one invention by a noble Lord who sat on these Benches, when in opposition, during his last years; before that he was a Minister in the previous Labour government, which fell in 1979. He was then David Ennals, later to be Lord Ennals. In the last weeks of that government he invented the intermediate treatment fund. I declare an interest, because I was its chairman for a while. It did two unusual and important things. One of those was to travel around looking for run-down estates where there was nothing for the kids to do. That is the real principle—most people fall into crime because they have nothing better to do. There are many others who take up crime for other reasons, but it is a principle

971
inducement for young people to start wrecking things, creating mayhem, wanting to hear the police siren behind them and so on.
The fund had to identify areas that lacked social amenities and locate in them youngish adults who saw what was happening, wanted to reverse it, and had an interest, whether it was a jazz band, rock climbing, water colouring, hiking, orienteering or, very often, football. The fund could pass on their enthusiasm and allow it to catch fire in the hearts of the young people. With little money, seed corn grants were provided to give them football strips, goal posts, guitars and so on. That had a remarkable impact and I could tell noble Lords stories to prove it, but there is insufficient time.
The other half of what the fund did, before the criminal justice system evolved with teamwork across disciplines, was to call together all of the people concerned with, particularly juvenile, justice, the probation service, magistrates and so on, sit them down and say, "These are the resources available to you—magistrates please listen—which do not involve sending people to prison, will actually work better than sending them to prison and will cost a great deal less".
That system, under those circumstances, was appealing. I am sorry that it was stopped and I hope that it will be started again. However, it could not address the underlying flaw that I see, which is this: when a person is convicted, he becomes a prisoner and ceases to be the responsibility of the community from which he comes. There is discontinuity because no one in his home community is responsible for him. When such people return, everyone is afraid of them but no one is responsible for them either—it is the state.
There needs to be some continuity between the treatment of offenders and the communities in which they live. I was greatly encouraged earlier this week to read of a new system being evolved in the United States called "Justice Reinvestment". I am afraid I have lost my piece of paper so I cannot give your Lordships the precise figures. I am not sure that they matter, except that they are jaw dropping. An analysis was done of various states and that of Oregon remains in my mind. It was possible to calculate the money which the state spent in locking people in the different geographic locations. It was also possible to focus on individual communities in individual towns and for the state to say, "That block there is costing us X hundred thousand"—sometimes X million—"dollars a year. How would it be if you had to pay for that?".
A system was evolved whereby the state remitted to the county the cost of incarceration in return for the county supervising the people sentenced in meaningful employment for the community. That was an enormous saving to the counties because they were able to put those people into community work which benefited the local society—the parks, the canals, the roads and everything one cares to mention. And they had money over to improve the amenities and provide preventive services. The rate of incarceration of juveniles from, I believe, Deschutes County was cut by 73 per cent in one year.
972
That is a spine-tingling figure and it turned around the community. Instead of having strangers coming back to threaten the community, it had young people who had acquired dignity, who had done something useful and who could point to what they had done. And on the way they learnt a trade. That is a reversal of how we do it and I beg your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government to give it close attention. The organisation whose publication I have been remembering— but not, unfortunately, its charts—is the United States Open Society Institute.
I am deeply obliged to the most reverend Primate for giving me the opportunity to say something of which I hope many people will take note.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, too, am deeply obligated to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this extremely important debate. In his eloquent speech, he referred to Winston Churchill's remark to the effect that the quality of a nation's prisons is a barometer of its moral fibre. I should like to supplement that with a similar remark by Mahatma Gandhi who, unlike Churchill, spent five years of his life in Her Majesty's prison in colonial India and had the opportunity to see what prison can do to a man of his quality and calibre. He also had the opportunity to interact with ordinary criminals. He said that the nation's prisons were a measure of its quality of civilisation. More importantly, he said, having seen ordinary prisoners go out of the prison, "I can't remember any who came out either with his pride or with his humanity intact". Prison means not just loss of liberty, as we keep saying; it is also a loss of some portion of one's humanity and pride.
Prison represents a twofold failure on the part of society. First, it indicates that society has failed to raise citizens with a sense of responsibility and some measure of self-discipline. And it also represents a second failure; that when it produces such citizens, it cannot think of better ways of dealing with them than locking them up for a certain period of time.
As prisoners are, by definition, invisible because they are locked up in a remote corner of our society, we tend to ignore them and prefer not to think about them. Prison represents an unflattering reflection of ourselves. In this context, the most reverend Primate is right, both as a Christian and as a sensitive human being, to alert our attention to this extremely important question about which we would rather not talk.
Let me start in a boring academic manner with certain basic facts about our prisons. Today's total prison population is 74,594. According to the Carter report, it is likely to rise to 80,000 by the end of the year and to 93,000 by the end of the decade. Contrast that with the operational capacity of our prisons, which is in the region of 75,291. In other words, we are just about reaching the outermost limits of our operational capacity.
In England and Wales, our prison population averages out at 141 per 100,000 members of the national population. Sad to say, that is the highest in

973
the European Union. In Germany, it is 98 per 100,000; in France it is 93; and in the Netherlands it is 100. By and large, in many of the Protestant and Anglo-Saxon countries, the average, for reasons I do not quite understand, tends to be higher. If ours is 141 per 100,000, New Zealand beats us by 151 and Australia comes close with 120.
It is not just the average that bothers me, it is also the composition. A large number of our prisoners are female. As my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen points out, that is an extremely disturbing feature partly because of the havoc it causes to the family and partly because of the damage it does to the women concerned. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two-thirds of those women prisoners are there for dishonesty or minor offences which could have been dealt with in many other ways.
I am also worried about the proportion of young people in our prisons. Young offenders in our prisons number about 8,000 and nearly 75 per cent of them are there for 12 months or more. I need not emphasise the proportion of ethnic minorities. The Afro-Caribbeans, who number about 1 per cent in the population at large, account for 12 per cent of the prison population. That is staggering and nothing whatever to do with the genetic structure or the original sin of the black Afro-Caribbeans; it has a lot to do with the way that offences are defined, with poverty and with many other factors. Although we are not here to debate that, there is also evidence that there is a systematic increase in the Muslim population in our prisons. That, too, will be a subject of considerable concern in months and years to come.
The Carter report states that a person is five times more likely to be given a custodial sentence for shoplifting today than he was 10 years ago. If the point of prison is to reform, sadly, it has not been very successful. About one fifth of the prison population commit crime again—if not the same, of some other kind. While prisoners are kept away during the time of their imprisonment, the weekly cost, according to my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal in one of her Answers to the House, is £697 simply to maintain them. That averages about £37,000 per year.
Locking up young people, in particular, is counter-productive because they have very poor educational opportunity and, not surprisingly, a disproportionately high rate of illiteracy. They have little chance of obtaining employment once they come out of prison and, therefore, there is a far higher rate of recidivism among the young than among adults.
Having presented this picture, I ask: what should we be doing? I know that the Government have been trying out, or are planning to try out, all kinds of progressive and sensitive measures, and I welcome them. Electronic tagging, serving gaol sentences at weekends or at night, and community services are all useful ideas. But my own feeling is that they largely involve tinkering with the problem rather than taking a radical and thorough-going, critical approach to the whole system.
974
Many noble Lords who have spoken before me in the debate have proposed interesting ideas and many others who follow me will do the same. In that spirit, I want to end with four simple suggestions. First, poverty is obviously an important factor and it calls for well targeted programmes of economic development. As I said, we spend around £37,000 per prisoner per year. If that is multiplied by the 74,000-odd prisoners we have, we reach the astronomical cost of something like £2 billion a year in our prisons alone. If we can spend even a quarter of that amount on helping people who are caught up in the cycle of deprivation, we shall reduce not only the cost of maintaining prisons but also the enormous waste of human potential that occurs when we lock people up.
Secondly, our concern should be to reintegrate offenders with their communities—a point brilliantly made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Therefore, we should not treat offenders as isolated individuals, uniquely and exclusively responsible for their deeds, but we should see them as members of communities and should involve their communities in finding the best ways to deal with them. Families and relatives and even schools and religious organisations should be involved in taking responsibility for the offenders.
Thirdly, prisons should become schools of reintegration and reform. That means that they should be less punitive, less humiliating and less distrustful, and that they should be conducive to self-reflection, fostering awareness of social responsibility and restoring pride and self-respect. Therefore, prisoners need to be trusted more than is the case at present so that, when they let us down, we can induce in them a sense of guilt and even perhaps a sense of shame. The more you trust people, the more you are likely to get the best out of them.
As Scandinavian and other experiments have shown, it would also help to introduce some form of democratic self-government into our prisons by asking the inmates to tell us how they would like to be treated. They would then go out as finer human beings than they were when they entered prison. In any case, we should stop brutalising people and subjecting them to degrading treatment because that is the surest way to destroy all sources of pride and self-respect.
The social life of which prisoners were once a part and of which, eventually, they will again be a part should be reproduced within prisons. Prisons need not be bleak places where isolated individuals live out their allotted time. We should try to introduce within prisons some semblance of community life: wives, children, friends, relations and others should be allowed to visit more often than is the case now and they should be able to interact more freely with the prisoners. A little love, encouragement and gentle pressure on prisoners can have a far greater effect than a system of coercion and humiliation.
My fourth suggestion is of a slightly different order. In this country, given the speed with which we industrialised ourselves and did so with the enormous power of the state, we have built up a certain deep-seated tendency in our social and political culture to rely on force and

975
coercion and to lock people up in a spirit of retribution. That culture needs to be drastically reassessed. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop said, prison is a default position to be used only when all other methods have failed, and then, too, it should be used with a sense of regret.
The subject of today's debate is: what is the social purpose of sentencing? I would put that in the plural and say that the social purposes of sentencing are threefold. The first is justice—that is, a crime, not a criminal, deserves to be punished and the victim needs to be reassured that his suffering has not been in vain. The second is reform so that people go out as better human beings than when they entered prison. The third is reintegration within the community. Every offence implies a disruption of the ongoing life of the community, and our job should be to restore the sense of community which has been temporarily broken. Therefore, reintegration within the community and helping individuals to rebuild their broken and fragile selves are important.
Three objectives must become the guiding principles of our policy, and every policy either within the prison or outside must be judged by those three criteria. Does it do justice to the person who has been guilty of committing an offence? Does it reform him? And does it eventually succeed in reintegrating him with the community of which he was once a part and of which he will become a part again?
When we follow those principles, we build public confidence in our system of justice so that people are not tempted to take the law into their own hands. We also reduce human wastage and—a point which has not really been discussed so far—the enormous amount of moral wastage in our prisons, where souls are mutilated and human beings come out broken and fragile. Lastly, we also create in society at large, just as we do in the prisons, a sense of humanity so that we begin to treat each other with respect, affection and pride. If we can show that kind of attitude to our prisoners, there is no reason why we should not be able to show the same spirit in our relations with each other.
1.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, as has been said by several noble Lords, there are many signs of hope. When, before taking office, the most reverend Primate gave his Dimbleby lecture, he remarked that our expectations that government will, as a primary objective, steadily increase our prosperity make it difficult to keep prison reform and such subjects on the agenda. He was, of course, right. But the fact that he has launched this debate is itself a sign of hope.
Although he is not in his place, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is himself a sign of hope of humane rationality in this very difficult area. I am sure that in his role as chairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, he will have in mind what is said in this debate, and that, too, is a sign of hope. The attentiveness of the Minister who
976
is to reply to the debate is also, I believe, another sign of hope: there is attentiveness in government about these issues. None the less, we know that all is not well and there are many things that we need to pick up.
I am particularly grateful for the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Gibson. They drew attention to a matter on which I was intending to spend some time, but shall not now need to do so—that is, the issue of the relatively faster-rising number of women in prison. After some years in my present diocese, I still find visiting Her Majesty's Prison at Brockhill—a women's prison—the most searing experience that it is possible to have. One is aware of the enormous burden of suffering that lies behind the often very drained and glazed faces that one sees in such institutions. Of course, it is true that those who work in the Prison Service include some of the most dedicated and committed people—especially when they join idealistic people—that it is possible to meet.
However, in the face of what is stacked against them, it is not surprising that many become cynical and lose heart. Women's prisons highlight in the sharpest possible way the philosophical difficulties inherent in our sentencing process and in the thinking behind it.
I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and for the passion which he brings to the issue of children and young people in our criminal population and the way in which they are treated. Whatever conclusion can be drawn, once people reach their mid to late twenties, thank goodness many of those with criminal tendencies grow out of them. That also raises questions about what we were doing in the years before then.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, did not dwell on the issue of ethnic minority communities in our prisons. However, it is important to recognise that their proportion of the prison population is rather too high and among victims of crime is far too high. For many members of ethnic minority communities that represents a kind of "corporate" punishment being meted out to them. It is not that I ascribe to individual sentencers a kind of prejudice or discrimination, but the social process that operates in the incarceration of many members of ethnic minority communities is a serious matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, commented on the number of Muslims in prison. That leads me to say that it is extremely heartening that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should mention the work of the chaplaincy, which is another sign of hope. In many ways our chaplaincies are ahead of our communities in pioneering inter-faith dialogue and co-operation so that what could be a source of serious conflict, both in our prisons and in the communities, is moderated by humane and co-operative activity.
Some initiatives have proved to be extremely dated. The most reverend Primate mentioned the notion of indeterminate sentencing. My introduction to the Prison Service was in the State of California in the mid-1960s where indeterminate sentencing was the fashionable idea

977
of the time. That resulted in inmates working out whether Alcoholics Anonymous or attendance at bible study was more likely to secure them an early release. I am not in a position to say which it was. It produced a lot of fruitless effort on the part of convicted criminals in working out what it was the system wanted them to do, and then doing it without it necessarily affecting the deeper levels of their conscience and motivation.
I suggest a reason why we need to think of alternatives to custody and to major on restorative justice, which so far in the debate has not been mentioned. Mention has been made of the number of cases of self-harm and suicides. In recent months and years there seems to have been an epidemic in my diocese. That points to something which we do not easily face. Most of us understand that the effect of imposing a fine on someone will depend on how much money that person has. Obviously, the £60 speeding fine is small change to someone who is very wealthy and rather more serious for someone who is very poor. What we do not recognise nearly so easily is that incarceration, the loss of liberty, has an extraordinarily variable effect on individuals.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Gibson, pointed out the unequal effect on the families of women who are locked up. However, I suggest that the effect on the individuals is very unequal. It is a hugely different experience for someone aged 19 or 20 to be locked up than for someone aged 55. As happens in many cases, the former may be so shocked by the experience that they are brought to the edge or even over the edge, of suicide. The middle-aged person may have become institutionalised and has come to regard prison as the only safe place. Those are not equal punishments.
The punishment visited upon a woman who is incarcerated is not the same as for a man of the same age. Until we face the fact that custody is not an equal punishment, we shall not come to terms with the fact that alternatives to custody need to be devised—that means restorative justice in its various forms—that have the capacity to fit what is demanded to the actuality of the convicted person. Unless and until that is done we shall fail not only to rehabilitate people but to dispense justice.
Restorative justice, processes of mediation, which admittedly, are labour-intensive, are ways of putting people in touch with the nature of their offence; with the offended person if the offended person is willing for that to happen, and with the offended community. That is the only way to make people equal before the law and to face equally the consequences of their criminal behaviour.
That brings me to the question of drugs. It has been said several times that behind much of the difficulty in our criminal justice system lies drugs. The percentage of crime which is drug-related is now enormous. Behind the drugs lies the drugs industry. Behind that lies the international trade mechanisms that promote it. That takes us well beyond the confines of the debate. However, one of the social purposes of sentencing must be to lay bare before all of us our involvement in the context that leads people into crime. If we do not notice
978
that, if we simply put people out of sight and out of mind we shall not be facing the responsibility that rests on all of us to create a climate in which crime does not flourish.
We are in a situation of very considerable hope. I suggest that the launching of this debate by the most reverend Primate is part of a longstanding tradition. The move from sheer dungeons to the modern Prison Service is something in which people of faith in this country have played a particularly strong part since the 19th century. I look forward to taking from this debate to the General Synod of the Church of England next July the insights that will lead to a further debate on restorative justice. It is the task of people of faith and goodwill everywhere to keep this matter on the agenda. I am glad that we have a government who are willing to keep it high on the agenda. We must play our part in supporting that attentiveness and those who have the difficult job of making the individual decisions which together make up our sentencing policy.
1.19 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I too am grateful to the most reverend Primate for initiating this important debate, to which it is an honour to contribute. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, who compressed all the profound volumes on penal reform that have been written into 13 magnificent minutes. It was very good to hear it and to remember how compelling it is.
When the debate was first announced, I thought what an excellent opportunity it would be to pick up on what many noble Lords have alluded to as the "hope agenda"; to talk about a new vision of criminal justice with restorative sentencing; with local communities taking more responsibility for the crime in their midst; with sentences that mean something to the convicted person and to her or his community; and which do not waste so much money unproductively on locking people up and making them work.
However, I am afraid that recent events have made me feel that I should talk about something else. I want to concentrate on one area, which is the amount and use of punishment in England and Wales today. I want to ask whether we are content with the amount of punishment we as a society inflict on those convicted of wrong-doing, and whether we feel we are inflicting it appropriately and justly.
I must start by noting the substantial increase in the amount of punishment that we as a society have chosen to impose over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, whose experience on these matters always illuminates our debates, gave some facts about the increase in the number of criminal offences. The amount of punishment has not increased proportionately to the amount of crime, which has been falling, or to the growth in the population of the country, or to the growth in the numbers of the crime-prone age group; that is, young men. It is an absolute increase.
The Chief Inspector of Probation, Professor Rod Morgan, in a lecture last December said,
"a growing proportion of offenders is becoming mired deeper and deeper within the criminal justice system for doing less and less".

979
In other words, more and more people are being convicted and punished more severely for perpetrating less serious acts. Sentencing is about punishment—penalties. Punishments in this country are quite punishing. Imprisonment is the most severe penalty available to the courts. It implies the loss of many basic human rights: the loss of freedom of movement; the loss of the right to enjoy family life, as we do not, unlike some countries, allow prisoners to have private visits with members of their families. There is no freedom of association; no freedom to work and carry on a business; and there is a gross loss of privacy. Many experiences, such as body searching and urinating in front of other people for drugs testing, however well the prison staff carry out the procedures—and they usually do it so well; it is a credit to them because the work requires great human sensitivity; and they do it well in spite of the poverty stricken amount of training they receive—assault and destroy self-respect.
For many years afterwards there are the disabling effects of the stigma of a prison record, preventing access to many parts of the labour market and making it difficult to get insurance or credit. Prison is a hugely socially exclusionary penalty. It clearly marks out the convicted person as different from others and continues to put that person at a disadvantage for many years, sometimes for ever.
As the most onerous penalty available to us that may well be right. There has to be a penalty that makes clear society's abhorrence of terrible crimes. But if that is so, it should be used proportionately.
Other penalties available to courts are also punishing. They require convicted persons to follow the requirements of probation officers and supervisors; to spend their time in a prescribed way; to submit to the judgments of others about their personal deficits and how they should change themselves; and perhaps to wear a stigmatising electronic device. Even carrying out work for the benefit of the community is a real restriction on freedom, although it may bring consolation by the feeling that someone is benefiting.
For those on low incomes a fine—the least intrusive punishment—means more hardship. There is much more use of these punishments. Our imprisonment rate is 142 per 100,000, as of last week, compared with an EU average of 102. England and Wales has 5,445 life sentence prisoners, more than the rest of the European Union put together. Sweden and Italy have no juveniles in prison; Denmark has 12; Hungary has 161; Spain has 172; France has 775; and England and Wales has 2,498.
It seems that we are less reluctant than we used to be to impose these punishing penalties on people whom life has already punished severely in other ways. Examples are always more telling than statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is still hoping to have a debate in this House about the sad case of Joseph Scholes. He was the 16 year-old boy whose short life was shaped by abuse and mental illness who, while waiting for his trial, cut his face with a knife 30 times, creating so much blood that his room in the children's home had to be completely repainted. He was sent to
980
prison for two years for being out with a crowd of youngsters from the home and stealing three mobile phones. The judge made a recommendation, as he sent the boy down for two years, that he should be "looked after". Nine days into his sentence at Stoke Heath prison for young people he killed himself.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for her compassionate and well informed contribution about the tragic women suffering from drug addiction, who are sent to a prison with no detoxification facilities and who kill themselves there.
I want to refer to the grossly uncompassionate treatment of Mrs Amos. She is the mother whose daughter Jackie will not go to school. Her right to privacy is totally denied. She has been made into a national scapegoat and media symbol—the symbol of feckless parents everywhere, although according to press reports her two elder daughters are both doing very well. She is undertaking methadone treatment to deal with her drug addiction. I can find no example of a jurisdiction anywhere in the world that convicts mothers of the criminal offence of not sending their children to school and then sends them to prison. I am deeply ashamed that that is what we do in this country.
Mrs Amos is a well known example. There are many others. Information about the people who are given these punishments shows that they are dramatically disadvantaged. They are a subset even of a disadvantaged population. On every indicator, those in prison are 13 times more likely to have been taken into care as children; 10 times more likely to have truanted from school; and at least 40 times more likely to have three or more mental disorders. Women are particularly disadvantaged; and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, for her very thought-provoking contribution on our imprisonment of women.
These people seem not to have benefited or received access, as they should, to the health services, the social services or education and a chance to go to university. However, when the time comes for them to be punished there is no shortage of punishment and no rationing.
Why is that happening? Why is a sentence to punishment becoming a substitute so often for social and welfare services? With great respect, I suggest to the Minister that that is the direct consequence of a set of government policies. I suspect that she will say in reply, "It is nothing to do with us. Sentencers do the sentencing; they are the people who punish, not the Government". But in fact many government policy decisions have led us to a more punishing society. I have time to cite but one.
The Criminal Justice Bill that we discussed here last year, had as one of its aims, "to close the justice gap". Closing the justice gap, it turned out, had a meaning that I found rather shocking. I thought that it might have something to do with some of the problems that we have been discussing today, but it turned out that closing the justice gap means prosecuting more people.

981
The National Policing Plan for 2004–07 sets out the Home Secretary's key priorities for policing. One of those is:
"Narrowing the justice gap by increasing the number of offenders brought to justice".
That does not mean serious offences or particular offences that do great harm, just offences. So shoplifting will do; drug-addicted women selling small amounts to their neighbours will do.
That policy gets worse, because there is a target. The Government require that 1.2 million more offences are brought to justice by 2005–06. I note in passing that according to the plan, 13 police areas have not yet met their targets to prosecute more people. One wonders whether, instead of that, they have been listening to their local community, taking up local priorities and using their judgment to make decisions more likely to create social peace and a feeling of security.
In the light of our current crisis in the prisons, I might say that that policy is surely mad. However, as we do not use such language in this House, I shall say that that policy may be a trifle ill-advised.
The Minister is deeply respected in this House not only for her formidable intellect but for her strong ethical approach to the issues with which she deals. Could she therefore tell me whether, from that ethical perspective, she is satisfied by the extent to which punishment has penetrated so deeply into social policy and has become so skewed against the poor and the disadvantaged? Has she any doubts about how we have treated Mrs Amos and all her daughters? Does she really think that communities will be safer and happier when we close the justice gap and prosecute another 1.2 million less serious offenders?
1.33 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is a particular privilege to participate in a debate initiated by the most reverend Primate. As have all the other speakers, I warmly congratulate him on arranging this debate, and on the breadth of wisdom and compassion contained in his excellent speech.
There are many Members of this House who know far more about criminal justice than I do—I admit that at the start of my remarks. Indeed, one of them has just spoken in one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard in this Chamber for many, many months. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for inviting me to the meeting earlier this week at which speakers from the United States Open Society Institute, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, were able to address five noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate—one was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the meeting was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
We received an eye-opening account of how restorative justice can make a real difference. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on almost getting the figure right. The restorative justice service programme in Deschutes County reduced youth
982
incarceration in state facilities by 72 per cent—a national high, according to the National Centre for Juvenile Justice.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction. May I take the opportunity to say that I forgot to include in my remarks that Deschutes had to pay for any people who did go to prison so it was not one-way traffic?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is helpful to have that on the record.
I should like to make one or two points not as a great criminal justice expert but as, I hope, an informed citizen and layman. I shall deal also with a particular aspect of the criminal justice system where I believe that the policies and practices that we follow in this country are well behind those adopted in other advanced, civilised societies.
The most reverend Primate is right to remind us that there must be a social purpose to sentencing—something that can be forgotten if one relies on most of our tabloid newspapers to set the agenda for criminal justice issues. They see punishment and retribution as the primary purposes. Indeed, if you read what Charles Murray has argued in the Sunday Times, you will see that the solution is simple: concentrate on retributive punishment and forget about the rest. According to him, it is all the fault of the liberal intellectual elite for making the situation so difficult.
Undoubtedly, if punishment and retribution were to disappear entirely, there would be a real danger of damaging public confidence in the system. But punishment should be no more severe than the offender deserves, as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reminds us.
What alarms me is that public feeling, the media and some politicians have tended to make that a floor rather than a ceiling. We seem to be working on the principle that punishment must be severe enough to satisfy the public or public confidence will be entirely lost. I should like the courts to be able to observe the spirit of the Act, rather than be guided by the language of politicians who are afraid of what the Daily Mail or the Sun may say.
A distinctive feature of the Criminal Justice Act is its emphasis on creative possibilities for sentences—or rather, the programmes operated under sentences—to change lives and benefit individuals and communities. As my noble friend knows, an area of public policy that concerns me greatly is the law on prostitution. I first raised concerns about the way that the law treats women who work in the sex industry during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. I did so again when we debated Section 56 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and on an Unstarred Question that I initiated last October on recommendation 53 of the Home Office paper Setting the Boundaries, which stated:
"There should be a further review of the law on prostitution".
I raised those concerns most recently in a Starred Question on 2 February when I asked when the review would be set up.

983
At the end of January, I was invited by the Metropolitan Police to join its street offences and juvenile protection unit on patrol in Brixton. The officers were conducting a four-week intensive campaign on street soliciting. The evening started with a briefing at a police station in Camberwell, two walls of which were covered with photographs of prostitutes known to work in the area. I was told, matter of factly, that it was certain that a number of those women would be arrested for soliciting during the course of the night—which was exactly how it turned out.
One of them was a 23 year-old known as Judy. As a known prostitute, she was arrested walking down a side street in a red light district of Brixton. She had a string of convictions for soliciting and a reputation for never appearing in court unless taken straight there from a police cell. She worked in the sex industry to fund her cocaine habit. What I found particularly disturbing was that no one appeared to make any attempt to get her off drugs. Instead, she was in a cycle of soliciting, arrest, a court appearance, a fine, and then more soliciting to pay the fine and buy the drugs.
Another woman was called Susan, aged 47 and a grandmother. She was arrested while waiting at a bus stop, where, she said, a client was supposed to have picked her up. She told me that she could not work from home because her daughter and grandchild lived there. They thought that she went out in the evening to work in a bar. She, too, will have been taken to court and tined. If she did not pay the fine, she would have gone to prison. But for what purpose? How can it be sensible for the criminal justice system to be used in that way? I have not the slightest criticism of the way in which the police officers went about their work. Indeed, I was enormously impressed by how caring and sympathetic they were when dealing with the women they arrested and subsequently charged in the police station at Sutton. But is that a job that they should be doing at all? Should it not be social workers skilled in dealing with drug dependency who are in the front line?
The one hopeful development in this very bleak landscape is the work carried out by a Christian organisation called Trust, based at Christ Church in Brixton Road. There the project manager, an impressive and interesting woman called Diane Martin, offers a court diversionary service for women arrested for soliciting or loiter prostitution in the borough of Lambeth. When I visited her, she explained to me how it works. A women's criminal justice worker employed by Trust attends Camberwell Magistrates' Court each Wednesday and gives women due to appear there on prostitution charges the chance to opt on to a scheme that involves the making and keeping of two appointments with her over a four-week period. That allows the case to be discontinued and avoids a conviction.
Trust's aim is to engage women with the services that they need to support changes in their lifestyle. By offering alternatives to crime, homelessness and street prostitution, they hope to reduce re-offending rates and improve the community areas most affected by prostitution. In time, Trust hopes to be able to offer
984
accommodation for those women who choose to exit prostitution and to recover from life on the streets. That organisation is positively helping women in a very important way and providing support for those who need detoxification and rehabilitation.
The Fawcett Society has kindly forwarded to me a copy of an e-mail message that it has received from Sue Jago, the Home Office official who is preparing for the review of the law on prostitution. One of the most encouraging things that she says is that the Home Office is looking primarily at women working on the streets, which is where exploitation is most obvious and widespread. I have Sue Jago's permission to quote from the e-mail. She says that,
"we are looking at good models of outreach etc. to support women to leave prostitution, and exploring the levers available to us to ensure that local Crime Reduction Partnerships address the issue where it is a local problem. Since we won't eliminate street prostitution, we are also looking at ways to minimise the impact on local communities, in a way that does not stigmatise those involved in prostitution even further".
The e-mail continues:
"We will be looking at the law. The street offences don't seem to achieve a great deal. They neither succeed in taking women off the streets to please local residents, nor do they deter women or help with any exit strategy/drugs rehab etc."
I suggest to the Minister that the work that Trust does in Lambeth could well provide the outreach model for wider application elsewhere. I am sure that her team in the Home Office will look at that. If I can jog the Minister's memory when she replies, perhaps she will bring us up to date on the long-promised review of prostitution law and tell us when it will be announced, what are its terms of reference and how people can make representations to it.
I hope that the review of the law in this area will be mirrored by new approaches to sentencing more widely. The establishment of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is an opportunity for a fresh start. Its success depends on being able to match sentences to capacity. It also depends—this is just as important—on the culture, will, morale, efficiency and leadership of NOMS itself. Martin Narey deserves all our good wishes, as he is doing his best in a very difficult climate. Noble Lords who heard him on the "Today" programme this morning will agree with that assessment. I can understand why the Government are in a hurry and want to be seen to be getting quick results. But mistakes made now, or simply things overlooked, will be difficult to put right later.
There are a number of important considerations. For example, there must be proper communication with the courts so that they have an input to the commissioning process. There need to be genuine partnerships with the voluntary and community sector. The approach can genuinely contribute to programmes of civil renewal—what the Churches are attempting to achieve in Lambeth in respect of street prostitution and soliciting is very much part of that.
"Contestability" must be applied in a generous and creative spirit, and should not be seen simply as a means of driving down costs. There must be full consultation with staff, with the aim of creating a sense

985
of ownership and commitment. Local communities must be involved so that they, too, can have some sense of ownership and confidence, even pride, in what is being done on their behalf.
There is an important role for probation boards, or their successors, and a link with the Home Secretary's plans for civil renewal. There is a critical role in all that for the Sentencing Guidelines Council and its advisory panel, which must be given adequate support. Furthermore, there will need to be mutual confidence between the judiciary and the executive.
The whole process must be supported by a programme of research, as distinct from limited short-term evaluations. Evidence-based policy needs to replace policy-based evidence.
1.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, as this week's duty Bishop I hope that I can crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House to make a small contribution to a debate inaugurated by my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The debate is timely in every sense. Many noble Lords have expressed their gratitude to the most reverend Primate for this opportunity to look at an important issue from such a rich and inter-disciplinary perspective; I add my name to that long list.
I should like to confine myself to three issues. First, the sometimes almost deterministic way in which a criminal reaches the point of standing before a judge and awaiting sentence. The best way in which I can illustrate that is by describing a lunchtime address given by a judge in a church that I once served. Hypothetical crime was described in some detail, but much more time and detail was given to describe the perpetrator with every conceivable disadvantage—home life, lack of proper parenting, family history, education or lack of it, emotional instability and friendships with people who dominated rather than liberated him. It was not a list of clichés; it felt very real, as they say. All the tramlines from birth had led him to that moment in time. The address ended just before the judge had to find an adequate sentence. We, the audience, were left in mid-air. A few seconds' silence followed, and then a spontaneous, very deep burst of applause. Although we do not applaud in this House, noble Lords know the different kinds of applause that can be offered on different occasions, and this occasion was unforgettable. I think that everyone present on that Friday lunchtime occasion went away, not wondering what the sentence might have been, but how we would have coped had we been the judge—that is, without turning ourselves into unfortunate armchair experts.
The second issue is the importance of programmes to help offenders from re-offending. Here I pay tribute to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I wish to use an example from Portsmouth to illustrate the point. In 1998, Portsmouth City Council took a careful look at some statistics produced by Hampshire Constabulary, to the effect that 76 per cent of local crime was committed
986
by a small number of juveniles. That attracted much local publicity at the time, although there is no reason to suppose that those statistics were necessarily radically different from those anywhere else.
The Portsmouth Preventing Youth Offending Project—PYOP—was born. A suitably qualified manager was appointed, with money both from the city council and from the local SRB round 4. PYOP decided to take a holistic approach from the start, working with whole families and not just the offender. This involved such things as parenting classes, anger management, counselling, healthy eating programmes—I dare not mention that in the lunch hour—as well as support for non-offending siblings. In all the evaluations that are monitored—as is the whole project—by the rigours of the department of criminology at Portsmouth University, one theme stands out. It is not one single part of the programme that produces results; it is the holistic approach. This is a fruitful, innovative project, but it will take years to deliver its fullest potential. The constraints of SRB funding; too age-specific and too geography-specific, mean that in the long term it may run out of money.
There will be an opportunity to look at the area of children in the coming weeks as we consider the Children's Bill. The Children's Society, whose president, the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is unable to be here today, would want me gently to register some alarming facts. At any given moment, 3,000 children are in prison. In England and Wales from the age of 10, and in Scotland from the age of four, children are held criminally responsible. This figure of 3,000 has almost doubled in the past 10 years. It is surely an example of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, described as the cancer of the present system. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is watching the situation carefully, with an eagle eye on the extent to which such sentencing really is the last resort. I am thinking of the earlier remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I return to that lunchtime address by that judge, perhaps as a way of qualifying any seemingly episcopal arrogance that might be construed from comments such as these on sentencing. Of course sentencing is a policy matter that concerns everyone. Here, as elsewhere, I pay tribute to my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who is also Bishop to Her Majesty's prisons, and for whose wisdom on this matter, as on so many things, I am very grateful. On the other hand, it is the judge, in an isolated and sometimes unbearably lonely role, who must pass the sentence. Thank heavens that we are not applying the principle of letting the punishment fit the crime in the bizarre manner of WS Gilbert's burlesque figure, the Mikado. We are, rather, in the business of trying to find new ways of letting the punishment fit the criminal, if I may use my lay language; and the relationship between the criminal and those who have been specifically offended—here I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—over and above society as a whole.

987
That whole area has much in common with the pioneering work of one of the most reverend Primate's predecessors in the Lady Margaret chair at Oxford a century ago. Robert Campbell Mobaley pushed away at the boundaries of thought on the relationship between personality and justice and the nature of both. For him—though I fully appreciate that it is not accepted by everyone—the figure of Christ becomes the perfect penitent, in whom are placed the twin and mutual demands of justice and mercy, not only to construct a healthy theology, but to construct a healthy society. For my money, the one is useless without the other.
If the depth and realism that have been the hallmarks of this debate can be translated into both attitude and practice in the community at large, we have some cause for hope.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, will be permit me to add one further fact to the list of information that he provided on children in prisons? I omitted it from what I said. I welcome the recent decrease in the number of children in prison. Yet, the National Audit Office report points out that the number of children on remand is increasing. This is a concerning matter, because these are the most vulnerable children in prison. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for introducing that additional fact.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I promise to take cognizance of it when the Children's Bill comes here. Thank you.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I seem to be alone among your Lordships. I had hoped this morning to find my name on the list of speakers, but by some mishap, for which gracious apologies have already been given, that did not occur. I hope that the most reverend Primate will allow me to say that I found the experience extremely good for my soul. I venture into the gap briefly, only to pay respectful tribute to the speeches—without exception, distinguished—that have been made by those whose names were on the list, in particular, the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I thought that his strictures on the inadequacy of training for prison officers and the heartbreaking shackles imposed on their primary task of rehabilitating offenders, strictures that were delivered with tremendous knowledge and passionate, well merited indignation, were enormously impressive.
The theme of this debate has long been close to my heart; namely, that we must reach back to what may be called the springs of criminality and find out what influences were implanted, nearly always at an early stage in the life of an offender, that constituted those springs. It is not enough to deal in terms of party conference language, which has been totally absent from our debate today, with these enormously intractable problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, mentioned Her Majesty's Prison at Send. I remember many years ago when I was a Home Office
988
Minister, visiting Send when it was an experimental detention centre. It was in the days when it was thought sensible—understandably so—to administer a short, sharp, shock to young offenders. It had limited success. When I visited it, I was met by a splendid person who was the chairman of the local liaison committee for the community. She said, "We are so proud, Mr Mayhew, of the young men we send out from here. You can always tell them. When they next appear in court, they stand to attention and address the chairman of the bench as 'sir'". That was a start. I ventured to suggest, but unfortunately, the recidivism rate remained obstinately in the region of 80 per cent. That experiment was discontinued. It taught us that there was much more to the role of the sentencer than that.
I thought the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, chimed exactly with the theme of every speech in this debate, namely that the primary social role and purpose of sentencing must be rehabilitative. Of course, there remains a place for what the Book of Common Prayer calls the,
"punishment of wickedness and vice",
but the rehabilitation of the offender must come first. That has been the theme of every speech and it would have been of mine.
1.59 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we now come to the concluding part of this important debate. I am looking forward to the contribution of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who has often shared her concern about prisons and the prison population. She is the best hope to impress on the legislator to ensure that they should never forget the human lace of our criminal justice process. A distinguished list of speakers was led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose brilliant analysis set out the framework for our discussion today. I hope very much that we will have opportunities in future to have his lead on such matters in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, on that point, I add that it was very refreshing to have the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and all other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. That includes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who made the right use of the gap in the speakers' list.
I shall start on a sad note. Your Lordships heard the precursor of this story from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Joseph Scholes was a deeply disturbed boy who had disclosed a history of alleged sexual abuse from an early age. On 24 March, 2002, he hanged himself in his cell at Stoke Heath young offender institution in Shropshire. His death occurred just nine days into his two-year sentence for street robbery. Joseph's death and other tragedies like it raise serious issues about the ability of the present system to cope with society's most vulnerable young people and provide them with a safe and secure environment. The

989
question that arises is how we can best identify any systematic failings and the lessons that ought to be learnt from them.
It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about a disturbed boy who had had an unhappy childhood. It included his parents' acrimonious divorce; severe sexual abuse by family members; and suicidal thoughts and mutual self-harm. At the end of the process, political posturing about street crime and how crime involving mobile phones was distorting the statistics resulted in a two-year detention and training order. The rest is history.
Almost everything went wrong in Joseph's case. Two suicides a week: that is the shameful statistic. I have tabled an Unstarred Question that will provide the occasion to probe the Government further on why we fail Joseph Scholes and others like him.
As has been said again and again, we have the highest prison population in the European Union. The question is not, "Why have we incarcerated such a large number?"; the question is, "Where, in the criminal justice system, have we produced such discrepancies?". How do we explain the increased use of incarceration? I quote the Carter report:
"Generally, the increased use of prison and probation could reflect a combination of three factors: an increase in the number of offenders caught and sentenced; an increase in the overall seriousness of the crimes brought to justice; an increase in sentencing severity for specific offences".
The increased use of prison and probation in the past six years reflects the increased severity of sentencing for specific offences. The Carter report expresses the view that sentencing should always be driven by the need for justice. How do we ensure that the process is proportionate and balanced? Justice is not only for the victim; it is also for the perpetrator.
David Faulkner, at one time a senior civil servant in the Home Office and now at the Centre for Criminological Research at Oxford, highlights the point in his response to the consultation:
"There is an awkward ambiguity about the notion of punishment. To most people it implies something unpleasant, something which anyone would naturally try to avoid. In criminal justice, a distinction used to be made between the sentence of the court, which was punishment, and the offender's treatment under the sentence, which was not. The distinction reflected an essentially retributive view of sentencing and a utilitarian or rehabilitative view of the offender's treatment (or management, as it would now be called). On that view, conditions in prison should not be made deliberately harsh or austere, and programmes under community sentences should not be a deliberately unpleasant experience. On the contrary, if offenders are to be guided towards a better life—and that has usually been the intention, although with varying degrees of optimism—they need a degree of respect and motivation that cannot be achieved under conditions of continuous punishment. That view allowed a convenient distinction between the functions of the judiciary and those of the executive; it protected judicial independence; and it was part of the basis for criminal justice policy for most of the twentieth century".
How do I see the social purpose of sentencing? I am guided by a number of experiences that I have had over the years, as a member of a board of visitors, as a member of a police authority, as a magistrate, as a member of the parole system review body and now as president of the
990
National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. The four most commonly advanced purposes of sentencing are punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation. I argue that, although all four of those purposes have a legitimate place in sentencing, we need to place a much greater emphasis on rehabilitation and reparation, if sentencing is to be effective in its overriding aim of reducing crime.
I shall first consider punishment. Society has the right to punish offenders as a means of protecting the weak; namely, the victims of offences. That point was ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. To be more legitimate, punishment must include a sense of proportionality, in which the sentencer tailors the severity of the punishment to the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. If sentencing involved no notion of punishment or just deserts, it would be not a system of justice but a method of social engineering devoid of moral content.
In choosing an appropriate type of punishment, sentencers have a duty to consider what practical good their sentence will do. For example, most of the offenders who are sent to prison in this country receive sentences of less than 12 months. As half the sentence is normally served in custody, most prisoners are, in practice, released after a maximum of six months in prison. In most cases, such short sentences do no good. They do not provide significant public protection, they are too short for significant rehabilitative work to take place, and they are followed by high reconviction rates.
Most such offenders would be better dealt with through supervision programmes in the community. We have an increasing number of intensive and rigorous community programmes that place demands on offenders and significantly restrict their liberty. They are a genuine punishment, but they hold out more hope of preventing re-offending than a short prison sentence.
There are two kinds of deterrence—general and individual. All the research evidence suggests that the general deterrent impact of sentencing—in other words, its capacity to deter other potential offenders—is greatly overrated. Many offenders commit their offences thoughtlessly, impulsively or under a range of pressures. Rational calculation of deterrence does not come into it.
Those offenders who plan and calculate their offences in a premeditated way plan not to get caught. They plan to avoid detection and believe that they can. Increasingly, the level of punishment will have little deterrent effect on them whereas increasing the likelihood of conviction can.
Research into recent trends of falling crime in the United States of America has found that falls have been no greater in states that have increased the severity of punishment, but that there is a strong correlation between improvements in detection rates and greater reductions in crime.
The second deterrence is individual—in other words, deterrence of the individual being sentenced from doing it again. Here again, research does not back up the idea

991
that the most effective punishments are the harshest ones. The types of sentence that has the best impact on reducing re-offending are those that involve highly focused work on attitudes to offending, help offenders to restrain impulsive and aggressive behaviour, increase their empathy with victims, develop their employment skills and provide help with drugs and alcohol problems. That kind of work is usually better carried out in the community than in custody.
In contrast, research into more punitive approaches, such as boot camps in the United States, has shown that the highest re-offending rates resulted from those regimes that concentrated solely on punitive approaches and had no element of education or drug rehabilitation.
The third purpose of sentencing is rehabilitation of the offender. All the evidence shows the importance of rehabilitation to protect the public from further offending. According to one recent study, providing offenders with basic skills education cuts the likelihood of reoffending by two-thirds. Getting offenders into jobs reduces their likelihood of re-offending by between one-third and one-half, depending on which research study one looks at. Getting ex-offenders into stable accommodation reduces their rate of re-offending by between one-fifth and one-half. Offenders who get into and stay in a drug rehabilitation programme have an average rate of re-offending that is one-fifth of their previous level. Ex-offenders who have support from their family are reconvicted at a rate that is between one-sixth and one-half of similar offenders without family support.
In view of that overwhelming weight of evidence, we must ensure that sentencing gives a high priority to the rehabilitation of offenders if we are serious about wanting to reduce crime. That means taking seriously the adage: first, do no harm. Imprisonment does a great deal of harm to the prospect of rehabilitating offenders. It is not just the criminal contamination effect; that is, what offenders do not know about crime when they go into prison, they will have learnt by the time they come out.
It is also the fact that of those prisoners who previously had jobs, two-thirds lose them as a result of imprisonment. One-third of those sent to prison lose their homes as a result, and more than 40 per cent lose contact with their families and friends during the sentence. Yet, having a job, stable accommodation and support from family makes re-offending less likely. Imprisoning offenders causes direct damage to the prospects for rehabilitating them. That is another argument for minimising the use of custody and aiming to use community punishments wherever possible.
The fourth purpose of sentencing is reparation and restitution. A number of noble Lords identified the extension of restorative approaches throughout the criminal justice process—which I, too, strongly support—and, in appropriate cases, as an alternative to it. Restorative justice has a range of powerful advantages over other forms of sentencing. It involves the victim in a much more positive way than the conventional justice system, which often uses the victim merely as an aid to the prosecution in proving the offender's guilt.
992
In a restorative justice setting, many victims value the opportunity to tell the offender about the full impact that the offence had on them. They also value the opportunity to ask the offender questions, the answers to which can set their mind at rest; for example, whether they had been watched over a. period of time and deliberately targeted. Many victims also value the opportunity to take part in a process that can help to rehabilitate the offender. Restorative justice can have a salutary effect on many offenders, confronting them with the impact of their actions on victims. There is persuasive emerging evidence of its effectiveness in reducing reconviction rates.
We need a different mindset in sentencing. Instead of simply asking, "Will this sentence punish the offender enough?", we should be asking, "What good will this sentence do?". Evidence shows that if we want to do the maximum good in reducing the rate of re-offending, sentencing needs to give a high priority to the aims of rehabilitation and restoration.
Another matter has not yet been identified. We have talked about prisoners participating in the affairs of prisons—again a point identified by a number of noble Lords. I shall go a step further. The European Court of Human Rights may soon decide that convicted prisoners should be given the right to vote, as elsewhere in Europe. This is a way to ensure that practitioners pay attention to what happens in our prisons.
In conclusion, all contributors to today's debate point out that we should look at where things have gone wrong. The ultimate success of our criminal justice process and the credibility of the Government will be judged not by following soundbites generated by tabloid newspapers, but by how we can reduce our prison population—and reduce it drastically.
2.14 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with his unrivalled experience of the justice system. I, too, want to take this opportunity to thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this debate. We had expected much in the way of deep thought and broad coverage of this issue and we have not been disappointed. Moreover, his particular contribution has provided the stimulation for many speakers in the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, this country has the unenviable distinction of being the gaol capital of Europe. He went on to cite very depressing statistics, including the fact that we are now within a few hundred of the operational usable capacity. I should add that the benchmark of that in itself includes a degree of overcrowding. I would go further than the noble Lord by saying that the projections for the end of the decade suggest that the prison population will be between 91,000 and 110,000. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, commented that when he produced his report on Strangeways 12 years ago, the prison population stood at 42,000. The comparison is marked.

993
Several factors contribute to overcrowding in prisons, one of which is the huge number of remand prisoners. What amounts to a minor scandal is the number who are acquitted. Of the approximate number of 58,000 people held on remand at any one time, around 12,000 will be acquitted. As noble Lords will be aware, it is remand prisoners who are the cause of the insidious practice of "churning". Sentenced prisoners have to be moved from gaol to gaol to make way for remand prisoners who have to be accommodated close to the court in which they are to appear. The effect on the family lives of sentenced prisoners who are moved is obvious.
Out of a prison population of around 75,000, no fewer than 16,000 are thought to be "doubling" in cells designed for one. My noble friend Lord Elton said that the position has improved since at least there are not three to a cell now. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who was in his place earlier, for whose work and that of his colleagues on the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group the House is greatly indebted, said on launching its report on prison overcrowding:
"Prison overcrowding—which occurs because courts send more people to prison for longer—squeezes out education and training and impedes efforts to offer a route to a more useful life".
Let it not be thought that building new prisons is a solution to overcrowding. Of the 13 prisons built over the past 10 years, nine are already classified as overcrowded.
That brings me on to the subject central to this debate—that of sentencing. We are particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for his informative exposition of the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I take the opportunity to say how much we appreciate the Canterbury initiative which he described. My noble friend Lord Elton remarked that such initiatives should be much more highly publicised. I also refer to the Berkshire initiative outlined by the most reverend Primate.
The report funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation by South Bank University's Criminal Policy Research Unit found that while overall crime rates and the number of offenders appearing before the courts have both fallen since 1991, over the period there has nevertheless been a 71 per cent increase in the adult prison population. Several noble Lords have referred to this development. The research unit came to the conclusion that this has come about as a result of the increasingly punitive climate of political and media debate about crime and punishment, a climate which has almost subliminally drawn along with it our magistrates and judges. Courts are now more likely to imprison offenders who, 10 years ago, would have expected to receive either a community penalty or a fine.
I shall cite one example. People convicted of petty offences such as theft and the handling of stolen goods are three times more likely to go to prison than they were in 1991. My noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, both referred to this increase in penalties.
994
"Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" is, in many ways, a laudable sentiment, but it has contributed to a mindset on the part of the media and the general public into which magistrates have been almost subliminally drawn. It is a major contributor to the rise of the prison population. There is a climate of intolerance, which leads to the assumption by large sections of the population that prison is the default option. We shall all listen with interest to the Minister's reply to the electrifying speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, which was followed by equally informed comments from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
There is disturbing evidence that the courts are using prisons as kinds of holding centres, a matter referred to by the most reverend Primate, who quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talking about "warehousing". I heard one example of an offender who was sent to prison as a way of speeding up a psychiatric assessment which would otherwise have been delayed.
In the admirable volume produced by Andrew Coyle entitled A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management—Handbook for prison staff, which was sponsored by King's College in the Strand and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he states:
"It is the responsibility of prison administrations to make legislators, the judiciary and the public aware that prison should only be used as a place of last resort"—
a phrase referred to by many noble Lords today—
"in cases where there is no other reasonable disposal. In all other cases it should be possible to make use of alternatives to custody".
Several noble Lords have spoken about these alternatives and the factors that can directly or indirectly contribute to a reduction in prison numbers.
Perhaps I may comment on the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that there is surely a difference between prison and the alternative sentences even though they all fall into the generality of punishment. Community service, rehabilitation programmes, home detention curfew, purposeful activity and restorative justice have all been commented on by noble Lords today. Many of these are treated with a degree of scepticism and suspicion, but they are, every one of them, laudable in their object and it is vital that they are persevered with; jointly and severally they are capable of addressing the serious problem of re-offending.
Community service does not have a good name with the general public. There is a general impression that any offender on community service can work the system and that proceedings for breaches of a community sentence take place against only a small proportion of offenders. However, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act has given a welcome stiffening to community service conditions.
Community service works well and effectively in many other countries and I urge the Government to put resources behind it so that it may play an ever increasing role as an alternative to prison or as a part of the graduated sentence framework instituted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

995
On the subject of rehabilitation programmes, I again refer to Andrew Coyle. He describes a rehabilitated prisoner not as one who learns to survive well in prison, but as one who succeeds in the world outside prison on his release. It is an enormously important part of the prison regime and one which can so easily be moved down the list of priorities when prison resources are put under strain for any number of reasons, of which overcrowding is probably the prime example.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in operation for 25 years and we await legislation to simplify the procedure for disclosure of convictions on release. The end aim must be to give the released prisoner the greatest chance of reintegrating with society, of obtaining employment and to be less of a re-offending risk. The Government announced their response in April 2003 to the paper Breaking the Circle and I shall be grateful if the Minister can tell the House what progress is being made in implementing its proposals for rehabilitation disclosures.
Perhaps I may again refer to restorative justice, which has been well covered today. This is in its early stages. The institution of the referral order was established under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. Under it, the offender is referred to a youth offenders board, where an essential feature of the contact between victim and offender is reparations to the victim or wider community and a programme of activity to prevent further offending.
It is a sensitive operation, for it should include an element of what is called "reintegration shaming"—that is, of shaming the offender before his family or peer group, and by making him aware of the consequences of his own offending behaviour by hearing victims talking about the harm done. There is still much to be learnt, inter alia, about its effect on communities and how appropriate it is for different offences such as sex crimes, domestic violence and racially motivated crimes. It is an interesting comparison with the Oregon experience referred to by several noble Lords, which I have no doubt is complementary.
We very much welcome the fact that restorative justice in police cautioning has been given statutory basis in the Criminal Justice Act, building on the success of techniques developed by Thames Valley Police. The Government have made a very good start in their restorative justice strategy which was published last year. I hope the Minister can assure us that we can look forward to early implementation, as this has the capability of playing a vital role in saving many offenders from the courts and in preventing re-offending.
I should like to refer to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. I recently visited a prison where the waiting room very closely resembled, in size, an airport waiting room. It was manned by two prison officers and there were about 70 people there. I stood by them and saw that there was a huge amount of space where people's activities could not be seen. I think that it was probably one of the great exchanges
996
for drugs. A prison officer told me that there was a CCTV camera but that it did not work and he thought the prisoners and their visitors probably knew that. I hope that this is not an indication that the service is throwing up its hands regarding the introduction of drugs.
Several noble Lords have paid tribute to prison chaplains. I have the privilege of being chairman of a hospital, and we have as our chaplain a former prison chaplain. The experience in pastorality which he brings from the Prison Service is vital in a very complementary occupation. I have only just learnt that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester is the bishop responsible for prisons, and I would like him to know that.
I will leave this debate with one remark that sticks in my mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said—referred to not for the first time in this debate—no prisoner leaves prison without leaving some of his humanity behind. Against that, I would also cite the much more hopeful remark of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I think that that should be the tone of this debate.
Once again, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this valuable debate. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this country has the highest proportion of prisoners per head in Europe. If for no other reason, we owe it to our communities to ensure that we have the most effective, enlightened and humane sentencing policy that it is possible to achieve.
2.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is a very great privilege to respond to this debate initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in which so many extraordinarily distinguished noble Lords have spoken. Looking down the list of speakers, it was rather like a roll call of honour. It reminded me very much of the speech in "Henry V" when he lists the names. In our case it would be Canterbury, Woolf, Massey, Ackner, Listowel, Gibson, Elton, Parekh, Worcester, Stern, Faulkner of Worcester, Portsmouth, Mayhew, Dholakia, Bridgeman— in our cups these names will be long remembered.
I say that because we have had one of the insightful and important debates that this House has been privileged to listen to. It deals with an issue that is sensitive and important to each person who has spoken. I listened with pleasure to the most reverend Primate and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and felt that there was not only a synergy between what those two great pillars of our community had to say, but an echo around the Chamber from all other noble Lords—and there was little with which I could disagree.
This is a moment of great hopefulness. We have embarked on a journey that started a long time ago, but which is based on the empirical data that we have culled from the past. It would be too easy to say that all that we have done before lacked utility, humanity or purpose. That would not be so, because from those lessons we have learnt much.

997
The most reverend Primate outlined some of the things that have happened—the genesis of what we are doing now. He mentioned, rightly, if I may respectfully say so, our paper on restorative justice, the Carter and Halliday reports, the creation of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and the improvements in the youth justice system. All those things were created not on a whim but as a result of will. I express pleasure and some modicum of satisfaction that the crafters of some of those instruments or tools were, in part, Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was right to outline in her powerful speech some of the real challenges with which we are faced. Our humanity is very much on trial in this regard. However, in seeking to narrow the justice gap and bring offenders to justice, the Government's purpose is not to increase the number of people in prison but to make sure that those who cause harm to individuals and to the community are brought to justice. I say very clearly to the noble Baroness that we believe and reiterate the statement that prison is the course of last resort.
We do not believe that community punishment is a soft option. There are those who say that the softer option is to allow a young man to lie on his back in prison 23 hours a day watching television and doing little more. Many of our young men have grown accustomed to that activity outside prison. We demand much more from them: we demand change and positive creative restoration.
The system that we have put in place in the new Criminal Justice Act 2003 enables sentencers to do something that they have longed to do for many a year. There is now a palette from which a sentencer can choose, and the criminal justice agencies can also choose. If one looks at the availability of caution with conditions, for example, there is a question to be asked: which is the most efficacious course? Should one caution an offender, imposing appropriate conditions that will attack the offending behaviour and address that pattern, or charge and prosecute through the system and come to a conclusion that may be less effective?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, alighted on this point as well as saying that we need a prisons Minister who is dedicated and skilled and who will stay in post for some time. I believe that my honourable friend Paul Goggins is such a skilled prisons Minister. It is my privilege and pleasure, as the Minister of State at the Home Office, to work with him to create what we hope to be a proper understanding of what our response in this area should be. I join the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in saying that I hope Paul Goggins remains in situ.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my only worry is that he will not be there long.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is not within my gift and it is not within the noble Lord's gift. I am hopeful that those who make those decisions may listen to this debate.
998
This debate concerns the social purposes of sentencing. For the first time, the Criminal Justice Act lays down in statute the purposes of sentencing. I was very pleased that both the most reverend Primate and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice applauded the fact that the purposes have now been consolidated and put into statute so that it is clear what they are.
The justice system should not exist simply to punish offenders. We need an holistic approach that addresses the harm caused by crime and drives down crime in a sustainable way. That means focusing on restitution and restoration and getting offenders to make amends; for example, through community service and, where appropriate, through restorative justice. It means focusing on rehabilitation, which was underscored by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. It means minimising recidivism by helping offenders to address their behaviour and tackle their problems so as to minimise the risk of re-offending.
Reparation, accepting responsibility, and giving victims a greater voice are key to that approach. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was right to emphasise that aspect. That is why we want to maximise the use of restorative justice where we know it works well, and ensure that a good quality service is delivered to victims. We have firm evidence that at least 75 per cent of victims who take part in restorative justice processes are glad that they did so. Restorative justice can be used at various stages in the criminal justice system. In appropriate cases, and only if both parties consent, victims will meet offenders. This gives victims the opportunity to voice their feelings and to express the effect the crime had on them, while offenders have the chance to face up to their actions, to apologise and to make amends in a meaningful way, either to the victim, should he want this, or to the community.
I had the privilege of watching one such restorative justice session and I can reassure noble Lords that the healing aspect of forgiveness mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was very clear in that instance. The victims felt that the restoration that took place was not simply a restoration for the offender but was very much a restoration for them. Satisfaction is a matter of great importance.
I have mentioned rehabilitation. We now know more about the factors that are vital to maximise offenders' chances of rehabilitation. Prisoners are much less likely to re-offend if they get and keep a job on release. That is why we have been investing £14.5 million a year, since April 2003, in the Custody to Work initiative. This is linked to a target of 31,500 prisoners getting a job, an education or training place on release in 2003–04. We are currently conducting a resettlement survey to help to measure progress against this.
The new National Offender Management Service will be seeking to increase the number of offenders securing jobs or training places and stable accommodation as key contributions to reduced reoffending. In April 2003, 30 per cent of released prisoners had a job or training place to go to and 71 per cent had accommodation

999
arranged. We want the new service to improve on these outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to emphasise those as very important ways of curing the ill that brings about recidivism, delay and decay.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke about the prison system. I reassure him that the prison system has delivered 42,348 basic skills awards up to the end of February 2004 against a yearly target of 36,631. In 2002–03, 896 basic skills qualifications were achieved by offenders supervised by the National Probation Service. In the first three quarters of 2003–04, 1,659 qualifications were achieved. So it is getting better.
We have a substantial agenda of action in hand to deliver stable housing for released prisoners. This includes: statutory changes to underpin the importance of this in local authority decision-making; the development of prison-based housing advice and support services; the development of regional and local links between prisons and housing authorities and other housing providers; and the Supporting People programme which, from April 2003, has been pulling together on a multi-agency basis the planning and development of all supported housing. The kind of initiatives that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spoke about in Kent will not be a one-off; we hope that that working together will spread right across the country.
We recognise that the number of people in prison has to be addressed. Noble Lords will know that the figures fluctuate on a daily basis, but today the figure is 75,167. The goal of reduction of crime through the reform and rehabilitation of offenders is hindered where prisons are overpopulated. A number of noble Lords have made that absolutely clear. We shall address this by a complementary package of measures: in the shorter term we are expanding prison capacity—there will be 3,800 more prison places by 2006. But, and this will have greater long-term significance, we shall work with sentencers to ensure appropriate, consistent and well-targeted use of sentences through the Sentencing Guidelines Council which was established in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, chairs. I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has probably the longest experience of sentencing of any of us who have spoken in this debate. If I may respectfully say so—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does she agree with my noble friend Lord Dholakia that if the European Court decides shortly that prisoners have a right to vote in general elections that would concentrate the minds of Ministers and the prison authorities wonderfully on the need to do something about their conditions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would probably be safer for me to say that I hear what the noble Lord says.
I was about to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he expressed confidence in the ability and humanity of our Lord Chief Justice.
1000
That confidence is very well placed. The role of the judiciary in exercising discretion in a way that is proper will be much enhanced by the work done by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. We look for parity of treatment; we look for equality; we look for fairness. We believe that in the Lord Chief Justice's Sentencing Guidelines Council we shall find all those qualities well reflected.
The issues raised by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen in relation to drugs were well made, as were those by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen about women. Those are issues to which I would very much have liked to spend some little time responding, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do so in a much more staccato form than I would ideally like.
Before I come to those specific issues, I should make something clear on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about how much we spend and the difference between community and prison. I do not know whether he believed that the figures indicated that it was more expensive to put someone on a community-based sentence or in prison. I reassure him that the £697 figure is per week how much we spend per prisoner. The cost of a 40-hour community punishment, the longest period on which someone can be put on community punishment at the moment, is only £706. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, gave the figure of £37,000 spent in prison compared to a community sentence of £706. The anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on that was misplaced.
My noble friend Lady Massey talked about the transfer of responsibility for prison healthcare to the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly. We agree that that will raise the standard of healthcare in custody to that provided in the rest of the national health system. Through staff training standards, continuity of care is enabled from custody into the community. The outcomes so far already prove the fruitfulness of that approach. Community resources are being taken into custody. We have an extra 26 sites in 2002–03. The new health reception screening process across prison is working well, and there is £10 million of improvement in prison healthcare. Prison healthcare is included in the National Health Service guidance, and a national service framework is established.
A comprehensive framework of drug interventions continues to be provided, including detoxification, counselling, assessment, referral advice and thorough service provision, together with intensive drug treatments. The Criminal Justice Intervention Programme aims to get drug-misusing offenders out of crime and into treatment, just as my noble friend indicated. There is significant new funding for that, with £447 million made available over the next three years to help the local and national partners to play their part. Real benefits are coming our way.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a very important point about the training of our prison officers. Last year, the Prison Service delivered 310,376 days of in-service training, the equivalent of more than a week—6.8 days—per officer. The establishment of a single national offender

1001
management service will allow for enhanced joint training of those managing and working with offenders in custody and the community, promoting consistency of standards and shared learning.
I have had the privilege of going to a number of prisons and talking to prison officers about what is happening. I assure noble Lords that one of the most exciting things that I have seen is that those long experienced in the Prison Service—I will not call them "old lags"; that is not the language that we use in the House—have expressed excitement about what is happening. They say that they have never expressed that in the past. That gives me great courage and hope.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, very welcome new programmes are taking place in prison. I visited Wormwood Scrubs and saw the work of officers with sex offenders. They were enthusiastic and seemed very positive. However, a psychiatrist later told me that she had seen some of the programmes. She really felt that they were far less effective than they might have been, because the people who were implementing them originally had such a poor basic training. So I welcome the prospect that the Minister holds up and hope she will keep it firmly under review.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl that training is kept very much under review, but also that is why partnership working is so important—having health provision provided by health professionals, common training programmes between probation officers and the Prison Service, enhancing hand-over provisions so that we improve the skills of individuals and that we do not ask them to exercise an inappropriate method of working and expertise that they may not have. Those matters are in our minds. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also mentioned the number of children on remand. The figures are not going up, they are going down—albeit more slowly than we would like—and that is an issue for some rejoicing.
My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen was right to highlight the plight of women. My noble friend properly referred to the new strategy that we hope will make much difference. I reassure my noble friend that a great deal of energy and commitment is going into that strategy and we hope that the benefits that we will see flowing from it will be real and concrete.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester raised the issue of prostitution and of what will be contained in the new prostitution review paper. The review will look at policy and practice in relation to prostitution and it will develop a national strategy, reduce exploitation, protect communities and address the links with serious crime, particularly the illegal use of class A drugs. Those issues very much played into the story that my noble friend told us this afternoon. We will also examine what further changes to the criminal law are needed and hope to publish a paper for public consultation later this year. My noble friend will know how difficult and wide ranging that review has to be, because it will be a fundamental review, which has not
1002
taken place for almost 50 years, of all issues arising from prostitution. The time is now right for that mature debate.
The issue of deaths in custody was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I agree with him that one death in custody is frankly one death too many. The figures are going down. We are tackling prisoner suicides and self harm. It is an important area, but I would agree that we need to push that agenda hard and we will be doing much. I have a number of figures that I could give your Lordships but I will save them for another day.
The issues raised by the right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Bishop of Worcester, were powerfully made and echoed a number of the themes that came out from other noble Lords who have spoken. May I say how pleased I was that the echo came from all sides of the House, particularly in the response by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman? It was important that we had from the Benches opposite a reassertion of what we have all said in relation to prison; first, on it being a place of last resort; and secondly, on the efficacy of restoration, rehabilitation and, in essence, forgiveness. It was warming to hear those views coming from the Benches opposite, because it echoes so clearly what everyone else has said. Therefore, the most reverend Primate was right to say that this is a moment for hopefulness.
I hope that all noble Lords who have participated in this debate will use their energies to make sure that the journey upon which we are now embarked is not one from which any of us retires. However, we will support each other to ensure that what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, would like to see happen to our criminal justice system—namely, that it is one of fairness and justice for the victim and for the offender—takes place.
2.52 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I have listened with the deepest appreciation to the debate and I want to express gratitude to all those who have contributed to it, particularly those who have put enormous experience at the service of our discussions today.
I am particularly grateful for the emphasis placed on two points. First, a number of speakers have referred to the impact of custodial sentencing on family life and have clearly noted the impact of that on the wider community. Secondly, the importance of restorative justice has been accepted across all the divisions in the House and has been recognised and applauded. I can only echo the Minister in hoping that what has been said on all sides of your Lordships' House will become a reality and that there will be no retiring from the positions advanced.
I repeat my gratitude to the business managers of your Lordships' House who have made the debate possible. While I do not believe that we should underrate the difficulty of the changing mindset which we are all committed to seeking, it would be wrong to conclude the debate without reiterating the notes of

1003
optimism, which have been repeatedly sounded, and the sense of being at a moment of opportunity and growth.
I want to express personal thanks for the appreciative remarks made about the prison chaplaincy. It has been a great pleasure to hear these tributes being paid to men and women whom I know only too well to be at the forefront of their ministerial profession. In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "executive powers"]:
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: When the Bill was given a Second Reading on 5 March, everyone in the House found Part 2, dealing with the Civil Service, satisfactory in the main. However, there was controversy over other parts of the Bill dealing with prerogative powers, treaty scrutiny and war powers. I listened carefully to what was said in the debate and decided that it would be sensible to cut down the Bill so that it became a Civil Service (No. 2) Bill.
Secondly, since that debate took place, the Public Administration Select Committee in its 4th report, published on 16 March, on Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, commended this Bill in so far as it deals with prerogative. However, it suggested that the right course would be for the Government to initiate before the end of the current Session a public consultation exercise on ministerial prerogative powers. I hope that the Government will agree to that, but it is a further reason why I shall make the following proposals to the House.
I shall make only one speech now, as it is my objective to break a land and air speed record in getting these formal provisions through. That will certainly appeal to the business managers of the House. I shall briefly explain all the amendments in one go and then I shall not have to speak to any of them. That may not be the normal procedure of the House but it will certainly shorten our proceedings.
1004
Starting with my opposition to the Question whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill, everything in the first group of amendments would delete Part 1 of the Bill, which deals with prerogative powers, and Part 3, which deals with public appointments. In addition, Clause 5, which deals with interpretation, becomes a different clause later in improved form. Therefore, the first group of amendments would perform a filleting operation.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12, which form the second group, put into the Bill the nationality discrimination provisions which appeared in the House of Commons draft Bill and which are now in an actual Bill introduced by Andrew Dismore MP. They would remove archaic restrictions, going back to the Act of Settlement 1700, on the employment of aliens in parts of the Civil Service. That is clearly explained in paragraphs 26 and 28 of the House of Commons report which I mentioned. The restrictions are archaic and need to be dealt with.
The next group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7—are improved interpretation provisions. I am indebted to the House of Commons draft Bill for those. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 deal partly with public expenditure but the rest are entirely formal. The last group of amendments would delete Schedules 1, 2, 4 and 5 because they are consequential on the other amendments.
I hope that I have explained sufficiently clearly what all these apparently technical amendments are designed to achieve. Now, all that is required is for me not to make a complete clown of myself by forgetting to say "yes" when it should be "yes" and "no" when it should be "no" as we go through the Marshalled List. Having said that, I wish to oppose the Question that Clauses 1 to 4 stand part of the Bill, but I understand that they will have to be called separately.
Clause 1 negatived.
Clauses 2 to 5 negatived.
Clauses 6 to 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 negatived.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—

PART 2A
  NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS

    REMOVAL OF EXISTING NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS
    (1) Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 (c. 2) (which, subject to exceptions, prevents persons born outside the United Kingdom from holding certain offices) shall not prevent any person from being employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown.
    (2) In the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 (c. 92), section 6 (which, subject to exceptions, prevents the appointment of aliens to posts in the Civil Service) is omitted.
    (3) The Aliens' Employment Act 1955 (c. 18) is hereby repealed.
    (4) The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1221) is hereby revoked."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 2:
    After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
    "POWER TO IMPOSE NEW NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS
    (1) Rules may be made imposing requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied by a person employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown specified in the rules.
    (2) The rules may also impose requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied by persons of a description specified in the rules who are related to, or living with, such a person.
    (3) The rules may be made—

    (a) by a Minister of the Crown; or

    (b) by any other officer of the Crown to whom that power has been delegated by a Minister of the Crown.

    (4) The rules may include provision—

    (a) exempting persons of a description specified in the rules (and persons related to, or living with, them) who were first employed, or first held office, in the capacity in question before a specified date; and

    (b) allowing any Minister or other officer of the Crown to grant exemptions in cases in which the Minister or officer considers it appropriate.

    (5) The reference in section 75(5)(6) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (rules relating to nationality etc. of persons employed in service of Crown) to the implementation of rules includes the grant of (or refusal to grant) exemptions under subsection (4)(b)."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 3:
    After Clause 20, insert the followig new clause—
    "REPEALS AND REVOCATION
    Schedule (Repeals and revocations) has effect."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 4:
    Page 9, line 19, at end insert—
    ""civil servant" means any individual who is a permanent, short-term or seconded member of the Civil Service who is vested with public functions to assist Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Executive or the National Assembly for Wales in the formulation of policies, the carrying out of decisions and the provision of public services;
    "Civil Service" means—

    (a) Her Majesty's Home Civil Service;

    (b) Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service;

    (c) the Security Service;

    (d) the Secret Intelligence Service; and

    (e) the Government Communications Headquarters within the meaning of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13);

    "Civil Service Code" has the meaning given in section 13(1)(a);
    "Civil Service Commission" means the Civil Service Commission for England, Wales and Scotland;"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
    Page 9, leave out lines 22 and 23.
    Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
    ""Recruitment Code" means the Recruitment Code for the Civil Service published and maintained in accordance with section 8;"
    Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
    ""Special Advisers' Code" has the meaning given in section 13(1)(b); and
    "special adviser" means an individual appointed personally by a Minister of the Crown (whether in a paid or unpaid capacity) to provide advice and assistance informed by views of the political party of which that Minister is a member."
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 22 agreed to.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 8:
    After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
    "EXPENSES
    There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Minister for the Civil Service under or by virtue of this Act; and

    (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums which under any other enactment are paid out of moneys so provided."

    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 8 deals with public expenditure, which is a necessary addition. I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 11:
    Page 9, line 34, leave out "Executive Powers and"
    Page 9, line 35, leave out -1" and insert "4"
    Page 10, line 3, leave out from "Service" to end of line 6.
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
    On Question, Whether Schedule I shall be agreed to?
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have already explained that in this grouping, each of Schedules 1, 2, 4 and 5 should fall consequentially on the amendments already made. I therefore oppose the Question that Schedule I be the first schedule to the Bill.
    Schedule 1 negatived.
    Schedule 2 negatived.
    Schedule 3 agreed to.
    Schedules 4 and 5 negatived.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 12:
    After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—

    "REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

    Title and reference

    Extent of repeal or revocation

    Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 (c. 92)

    Section 6.

    Aliens' Employment Act 1955 (4&5 Eliz. 2 c. 18)

    The whole Act.

    European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1221)

    The whole Order."

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    In the Title:
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 13:
    Leave out from beginning to "make" in line 2.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment and those grouped with it are consequential. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
    Line 4, after "advisers;" insert "to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown"
    Line 4, leave out from "advisers:" to "and" in line 5.
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Title, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2004
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2004. I am satisfied that the orders and regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Tax credits and child benefit together deliver support to virtually all families with children in the United Kingdom. The regulations and order before the House put into effect the next stage of our commitment to tackle child poverty, in particular, through increases in child tax credit. So I am pleased to introduce these regulations, which follow our first annual review of the rates and thresholds of tax credits,
1008
introduced in April last year, and to introduce the order, which raises the rates for child benefit and guardian's allowance.
From 12 April, child benefit will be worth £16.50 per week for the first child and £11.05 for subsequent children. For the first child this represents a 25 per cent increase in real terms since 1997. The Government had previously undertaken to up-rate the child element of child tax credit by earnings for the rest of this Parliament. That would require an increase of £50 a year from this April. The House will wish to note that we are exceeding our commitment. The regulations increase the child element of child tax credit by £180 per year to £1,625 per child per year, equivalent to a weekly increase of £3.50 benefiting 7.2 million children. In addition, the regulations also increase the disabled child elements of child tax credit in line with inflation for 2004–05.
The regulations increase the elements of the working tax credit in line with inflation for 2004–05. Also in line with the Government's commitments, the child benefit and guardian's allowance order will increase rates in line with inflation for 2004–05 from 12 April 2004.
We estimate that the full year cost of up-rating the tax credits, rates and thresholds alone to be £1.5 billion. The cost of increasing child benefit and guardian's allowance is £250 million. As a result of that new investment, this Government are on track to meet or exceed their PSA target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households by 2004–05 on a before housing costs basis.
A total of 3.7 million families and 7.2 million children will benefit from the increases in the child element of child tax credit, approximately half of all families with children in the United Kingdom. Seven million families will benefit from the increases in child benefit.
Overall, 6 million families are benefiting from tax credits in their first year. Alongside the child tax credit, working tax credit is providing support to working families, helping disabled workers and low-income families in work who do not have children. The take-up of tax credits is a huge success, and they are reaching the families that they are meant to help. By the end of January we had reached all of those whom we expected to have in the system this year.
With the increases effected by the instruments that we are now considering, we will be delivering even more support next year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have no particular axe to grind with the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2004 and The Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. They up-rate child benefits and guardians' allowances in line with the retail prices index inflation measure of 2.8 per cent. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would answer one quick question. While child benefits and guardians' allowances are being up-rated, I would be grateful for an explanation of why

1009
benefits for the eldest, or only, child living with a single parent are being frozen. I am sure that there is a simple explanation, but why are those benefits not being up-rated in line with inflation?
I note that the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2004 were discussed with some rancour in another place. Although I have some reservations about the order, I am sure that we will be able to establish a constructive tone. My principal concern is this: the order up-rates child tax credit, working tax credit and the first income threshold for the first time in two years for those entitled to child tax credit; however, certain key elements—the family elements—of the tax credits and certain thresholds are to be frozen. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why those elements are to be frozen. The Institute for Fiscal Studies—which I am sure the Minister recognises has a high degree of expertise in such matters—states that the Government will save £240 million through the freeze in 2004–05. By 2008–09, the Government will have benefited by an extra £1.2 billion. Is that correct? Was that the Government's reason for freezing the family elements of the credit?
Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address a related concern. In the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that,
"at a cost of El billion a year—we will increase, from April, the child element not just by inflation or earnings, but by 13 per cent".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/03; col. 1069.]
Yet the IFS has concluded that, while giving £1 billion with one hand, the Chancellor is taking away £240 million with the other. Was not the Chancellor's statement somewhat disingenuous to speak of a cost of £1 billion? Why were the changes announced in that way? Was it to hide the Government's real agenda—their re-distributive agenda? The IFS states that the overall effect of the Government's measure will be to,
"redistribute money within families with children, with 2.9 million middle-and high-income families with children losing in real terms from the freezes".
Will the Minister admit that the Government's agenda is redistributive?
I wish to make one further point. So far as I am aware, this order represents the first up-rates in the elements of working tax credits for two years. Yet the up-rates—of between 2.9 per cent and 3.2 per cent—are to the value of little more than one year's growth in prices. Why is that? Has the value of those elements of working tax credits decreased in real terms?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I have just two questions for the Minister. The first echoes the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox: why have certain elements of the child tax credit been frozen when others have not? The surprising thing is that this is not a longstanding policy that must be changed significantly because, after years of consideration, the Government decided that it is not working as intended. The policy has been in full operation for only a year; therefore, it seems odd to treat elements of it differently within such a short period.
1010
My second question relates to a point made by the Minister. I think he said that the take-up was on target or in line with the Government's targets. What is the percentage take-up of child tax credit? What is the target this year? What are the targets for the forthcoming couple of years?
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, if child benefit has been frozen for the eldest child of a single parent, that sounds like a good idea. There is a small advantage to being married, and I thoroughly approve of keeping the stable relationship of marriage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful for the implicit welcome for these orders and regulations. It was expressed in the form of a number of questions, which I will try to answer. The first question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was why lone parents had received no increase for a further year. We have believed for a number of years that support for families should be based on the needs of children rather than on family structure. Legislation introduced in 1998 ended the higher rate for lone parents, which provided lone parents with a higher rate of child benefit for their children than that of couples. All families making new claims since July 1998—whether lone parents or couples—receive the same rate of benefit. That has been the policy for virtually six years, and it is reasonably well accepted that it has been successful.
The noble Baroness then asked me whether the Government were saving £240 million from freezing the family element of the thresholds. We are not. The Government will spend £1.5 billion on up-rating the tax credit in 2004–05, which is new money, specifically focused on the child poverty targets. The Government have honoured all their commitments by up-rating the single person, couple, lone parent, and disabled worker elements of the working tax credit. On the child element, we have gone beyond our commitment to up-rate it in line with earnings. There has been no saving compared with what we were committed to in Budget 2003. In fact, by increasing the child element by such a large amount, we are spending about £900 million a year more than was envisaged even at that time. Increasing the child element by £180, an increase that is significantly larger than an increase in line with average earnings, will benefit the very poorest families that need it most. That means that an estimated 7.2 million children live in families that will benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, quoted the IFS about freezing the family element and the thresholds, saying that that will increase the number of families in poverty by 25,000. She will find that the IFS made two statements on that. After the first statement, which she quoted, and which was quoted by Mr Mark Prisk in another place, it published a more detailed briefing note. It now takes the view that the Government should comfortably meet our target, measuring incomes before housing costs, and are on course to just hit our target measuring incomes after housing costs. That means that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is slightly more optimistic than the Government.

1011
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked two questions. First, he asked whether I would now admit that these changes were redistributive. I do so with great pleasure. Secondly, he pointed out that I had said that we had take-up from as many people in January as we expected by the end of the financial year. He asked me how many people were not taking up these credits. That statistic does not appear straight away, in the sense that it is calculated from survey work that we carry out over the period of the year. During the course of this year, probably towards the end of the coming financial year, we will know from survey work—because we do not know it in any other way—how many people are taking up these credits, and we will be able to report to the House on that.
I was also asked why we were up-rating only by an amount that appeared to be related to one year's inflation, when the credits had been going on for two years. They have not; they have been going on since April 2003. I hope that I have got that right. I may not have read my notes adequately. I think that the question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I hope that I have covered all the points.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
3.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2004
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2004
3.26 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order seeks to increase the minimum threshold above which certain financial institutions are required to maintain deposits at the Bank of England under the cash ratio deposits
1012
scheme. Such non-interest-bearing deposits, known as cash ratio deposits, are invested by the bank. It uses the income earned to fund its sterling liquidity, monetary policy and financial stability operations, which benefit these depositors and other eligible institutions. The Government believe that it is right that those who benefit from the Bank of England's sterling liquidity, monetary policy and financial stability operations should also make a financial contribution to their costs.
A review of the CRD scheme last year concluded that it remained a suitable method of funding the relevant bank operations. The review also concluded that the ratio of 0.15 per cent used for calculating the value of deposits, which was set in 1998 and applied to the average eligible liability base of eligible institutions above a minimum threshold, should remain unchanged. It concluded, however, that the minimum threshold should be increased from £400 million, also set in 1998, to £500 million. While intended to maintain the level of income required to provide the appropriate level of funding for the operations concerned, the higher threshold, as at December 2003, would free 19 institutions from the scheme and benefit all remaining contributing institutions by reducing the level of their deposits by £150,000.
The review's conclusions were put out to consultation on 1 August 2003. The Government's response to consultation was published earlier this month, on 3 March. There were only four responses. The Government and the Bank of England concluded that it would be reasonable to take that as indicative of general endorsement of the review's recommendations. At the outset of the consultation process, the Government said that they attached great importance to making the statutory cash ratio deposit scheme and the principles underlying it more transparent. The Government work closely with the bank on that, and it is anticipated that the bank's forthcoming annual report will reflect progress to date.
The draft order before the House will, if made, increase the threshold at which cash ratio deposits become eligible from £400 million to £500 million but leave all other parameters of the scheme unchanged. We will continue to monitor the effect of the scheme and will conduct a further formal review at the latest in 2008. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, in 1998, when the value bands were set, our colleagues in another place rehearsed the arguments for cash deposit ratios and for the levels at which they should be set. I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I find it interesting to note that, six years ago, Members of another place were calling cash ratio deposits a "connoisseur's piece" and "the last relic of attempts at direct control of the volume of sterling money".
Even back in 1998, it was noted that banks' liquidity was actively managed by banks in accordance with the strict liability requirements of the Bank of England. It was therefore suggested that the proposal for cash

1013
ratio deposits was simply a tax to be borne only by banks and building societies. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the protected revenue in the next financial year to the Bank of England from the new levels of compulsory cash deposits.
Finally, it is six years since the value bands were uprated. They are now being uprated by 25 per cent. Why are they being uprated now? Why not before? Why are they being uprated by 25 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was very interested to hear the quotations from the 1998 debate, which were rather elegant. I think that I can answer the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Currently, there are £1.7 billion of deposits that earn £107 million in interest for the Bank of England. That is thought to be a reasonable amount bearing in mind the benefits that the banks and building societies obtain from the sterling liquidity monetary policy and
1014
financial stability operations of the Bank of England. The change will lose the Bank of England £21 million in interest because there will be a lower level of deposits. The noble Baroness asked why the value bands are being uprated by 25 per cent. They are being uprated by rather more than inflation over the period of six years. If we were doing it strictly in line with inflation, the threshold would be approximately £450 million rather than the £500 million that we propose. There is therefore a net benefit to the banks and building societies from that change. I imagine that, as always, the Bank of England is being very efficient in the way that it spends its money, as well as rational in the way that it collects money. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before four o'clock.

  Defence School of Languages
  Defence School of Languages
  Bowman Tactical Communication System
  Bowman Tactical Communication System
  Watchkeeper Project
  Watchkeeper Project
  Armed Forces: Married Quarters
  Armed Forces: Married Quarters
  Territorial Army: Pay
  Territorial Army: Pay
  Sea King
  Sea King
  Free-fall Bombs
  Free-fall Bombs
  Nuclear Submarine Personnel: Health Monitoring
  Nuclear Submarine Personnel: Health Monitoring
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am delighted to announce the award of a total of £192.5 million to three more housing market renewal pathfinders over the next two years to implement their strategic schemes. The funding comes from the £500 million market renewal fund announced in February 2003 in Sustainable Communities: building for the future.

  The investment from the market renewal fund will be complemented by significant investment from other public programmes and the private sector. This will enable actions to be taken which will lead to the creation of long-term sustainable communities.

  The allocation of resources to these schemes marks another key step in our commitment to deliver thriving sustainable communities in those areas devastated by low demand housing and abandonment.

  I am announcing today that the South Yorkshire market renewal pathfinder will receive £71 million, that the east Lancashire market renewal pathfinder will receive £68 million and that Oldham and Rochdale market renewal pathfinder will receive £53.5 million until March 2006 to help to tackle the terrible problems caused by low demand. This is in addition to an allocation of £4 million each for an early action programme which they received in June 2003.

  By March 2006 the pathfinders expect to deliver:
  In South Yorkshire, the demolition of over 1,600 homes; the refurbishment of over 2,000 homes; over 100 new homes built; significant improvements to housing environments affecting 21,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 16,000 homes.
  In east Lancashire, the demolition of almost 800 homes; the refurbishment of 1,100 homes; over 100 new homes built; significant improvements to housing environments affecting 43,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 73,000 homes,
  In Oldham and Rochdale, the demolition of nearly 300 houses; the acquisition of over 400 homes; the refurbishment of over 350 homes; significant improvements to housing environments affecting over 3,000 homes; and additional management measures to over 11,000 homes.

  Each of the pathfinder schemes has been independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission, which has published a report on each scheme. The Audit Commission has looked at the evidence base and the proposed strategy to help to ensure that the
  WS 48
  schemes are realistic, offer value for money and will deliver long-term housing market renewal. To meet this aim, the Audit Commission has made a number of recommendations about each scheme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and each pathfinder have accepted all the recommendations and funding will depend on compliance.

  Companies House: Performance Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2004–05:

  A fully electronic operation

  To achieve 15 per cent take-up for electronic submission of documents by the end of 2004–05, 35 per cent take-up by the end of 2005–06 and 55 per cent take-up by the end of 2006–07.

  Readily and freely accessible information

  To ensure that products and services on Companies House Direct and WebCheck are available for 98 per cent of the time between the core hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Friday.

  To ensure that the web filing service is available to customers for a minimum 98 per cent of the time between the core hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Friday.

  An efficient, reliable and up-to-date registry

  To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts and annual returns submitted of 92 per cent.

  To ensure that 96.5 per cent of all forms submitted to Companies House are captured error-free.

  To ensure that of 98 per cent of images placed on the Companies House image system are legible.

  To ensure that at least 99 per cent of images to be placed on the image system are made available within three days.

  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3 per cent in real terms on document registration.

  To achieve, taking one year with another, a 3.5 per cent average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets.

  To pay all bills due within 30 days, or on other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice whichever is later.

  WS 49
  Customers who are highly satisfied with our services

  To resolve 97 per cent of complaints within five days.

  The chief executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.

  To achieve a score of more than 82 per cent in each quarterly Companies House customer satisfaction survey.

  Insolvency Service: Performance Targets 2004–05
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that in the light of a strong performance by the Insolvency Service in 2003–04 I have been able to set it a series of challenging targets for 2004–05 and 2005–06 that reflect the general pressure on the public service to deliver increasing efficiency and value for money. Official receivers and their staffs have a major role to play in delivering the personal insolvency reforms under the Enterprise Act 2002 which come into operation on 1 April 2004 and the new financial regime to which it moves on the same date will provide the flexibility it needs to respond to variations in caseloads within financial years and over longer periods. Under this new financial regime the service is expected to generate sufficient income from fees and charges to defray the total cost of its case administration, estate banking and professional regulation activities. Improvement in its customer focus is reflected in high levels of customer satisfaction and I expect the service to build on this over the coming years. I have asked the chief executive to continue the development of a range of outcome-focussed measures, particularly in the regulatory area. At the same time as ensuring that its enforcement action is proportionate and aligned to the policies that promote enterprise and the responsible use of credit, I have also asked the agency to pay particular attention to its role in ensuring high standards of commercial conduct.

  The targets set out below reflect the variety of the service's operations.

  It will reduce the cost of its policy work by 9 per cent in 2004–05.

  The agency will reduce the average time for securing a disqualification from 24 months to 22 months.
  WS 50
  It will reduce the 2004–05 cost of enforcement activity by 4 per cent.

  It will establish a benchmark unit cost for enforcement activity during 2004–05 and then further reduce that cost by 25 per cent by March 2006.

  It will increase enforcement activity outputs by 41 per cent in 2005–06 over the 2004–05 baseline.

  It will action 90 per cent of redundancy payment claims within six weeks and will increase the manpower productivity of processing such claims by 11 per cent in 2004–05.

  It will increase the percentage of user satisfaction as measured by the user satisfaction index from 86 per cent to 88 per cent.

  It will retain Charter Mark by summer 2004 and will retain Investors in People accreditation in January 2006.

  It will maintain the amount of open insolvency cases at no more than 12 months' input and by 1 April 2006 it will reduce the case administration fee from that prevailing at 1 April 2004 by 8.5 per cent, on a like-for-like basis.

  It will action 100 per cent of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt, and 97 per cent within 20 days. It will also action 98 per cent of Insolvency Service account payments within four days of their requisition.

  Based on an expected reduction of 6.3 per cent in 2003–04, it will further reduce the costs of the accommodation and procurement functions by 8 per cent by April 2006.

  British American Tobacco
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In response to recommendations in a report dated 14 June 2000 on The Tobacco Industry and the Health Risks of Smoking, which was published by the Health Select Committee, my predecessor launched an investigation under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 to look at allegations that British American Tobacco has been involved in smuggling.

  The investigation has been completed. It has not uncovered material indicating a basis for launching a criminal investigation and the department does not propose to take any further action.

  Information obtained under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 is confidential and may not be published or disclosed except in strictly defined circumstances under Section 449 of the Companies Act 1985.