Sitting of 4 May 2004

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

    Accident and Emergency Admissions
    Brian Cotter: What action his Department is taking to help accident and emergency departments cope where there are increases in the number of patients who are admitted for treatment. [169823]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Department has set up substantial national support for accident and emergency departments. The latest figures show that more than 90 per cent. of patients were treated, admitted or discharged from accident and emergency in less than four hours, compared with 78 per cent. in December 2002, even though in many areas there has been an increase in the number of patients using the service.
    Brian Cotter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Weston-super-Mare has a particular problem, in that a department designed to treat only 25,000 patients in fact treats 45,000. Historically, we have also had problems with fair funding because of our proximity to Bristol. I hope that the Minister will pay special attention to that issue, as we also need assistance for paediatrics and other departments.
    Ms Winterton: It is true that the number of patients has increased, and some £240,000 has been provided in the past two years to improve resuscitation services. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Weston area has put together an action plan to improve the accident and emergency department, in particular by establishing a paediatric minor injuries unit and an urgent care centre. In the past week, Weston NHS trust qualified for a capital incentive payment of £100,000 to be spent on locally determined projects, which should improve the situation.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Kettering general hospital a few weeks ago; the members of staff, management and patients to whom she spoke appreciated her visit. If she had been able to stay longer, she could have seen the
    1192
    refurbished and modernised A and E unit, the new CAT scanner, the new MRI scanner, the new orthopaedic theatre and the new ophthalmic unit—I could go on for ever, if you would allow me to, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that that contrasts starkly with the years when wards were closed and padlocked under the previous Government?
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was a great pleasure to meet the dedicated and committed staff in the A and E department. They were given a £100,000 incentive payment for achieving 94 per cent. of target two weeks ago, and if they continue in the same way—as I am sure they will—they will qualify for some £500,000 in extra funding to improve services locally. My hon. Friend is right: no one can imagine going back to the bad old days of cuts, under-investment and poor staff morale.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Will the Minister consider supporting the formation of clinical networks in accident and emergency, so that A and E departments can share expertise and staff with local minor injuries units, thereby increasing the scope of minor injuries units and lessening the load on A and E departments?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such networks can be helpful. We have established emergency services collaboratives, whereby various A and E departments have been able to spread best practice. We are also setting up emergency care networks to consider some of the issues that he mentions. It is important to consider not only A and E departments but the contribution of ambulance trusts, primary care and pharmacists, so that we can build proper choice into the system of emergency care.
    Siobhain McDonagh: What weighting is given to A and E numbers when considering the amalgamation or closure of hospitals, especially in built-up urban areas? In my constituency, we are concerned that St. Helier hospital might move to the Sutton hospital site, which we predict would mean an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 extra patients at St. George's.
    Ms Winterton:As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is for local primary care trusts, working with strategic health authorities and trusts, to ensure that any reconfiguration of services is not to the detriment of patient care or involves missing any targets. She will know about the four-hour target and about those for ambulance trusts, which are designed to ensure that people receive care within a certain time. Any reconfigurations must take those targets into account, and I hope that that is happening in her local area.

    Racial Discrimination
    Dr. Evan Harris: What assessment he has made of racial discrimination in medical careers in the NHS. [169824]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The national health service is fully committed to the principle of race equality, both as an employer and as a provider of services. In relation to careers in medicine, new legislation that I expect to come into force later this year will provide new routes to entry on the specialist register for associate specialists and for staff-grade doctors. The postgraduate medical education training board will also oversee the provision of new top-up training, allowing doctors in that group to gain entry to the register.
    Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He must be aware that his Department recently had to pay a doctor damages of more than £600,000 for discrimination. The Government did not appeal, on the basis that the tribunal found the Birmingham declaration of 1996, which governs the transition to specialist training in order to become a consultant, to be indirect racial discrimination. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other doctors may have been affected. Will the Minister seek them out so that they can be fast-tracked to consultant status with fair treatment, or will he expect each of them to drag the Department to the courts if they are in time to do so?
    Mr. Hutton: Obviously, we take all those issues very seriously indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to that case, but it was complicated by the provisions on permit-free work time that then applied. The arrangements changed subsequently, so I do not think that those problems will be repeated. The key is to get the postgraduate medical education training board up and functioning as soon as possible, and we are committed to doing that. We can then activate article 14 of the new specialist training order, which will allow the postgraduate medical education training board to take a much wider view of work-based experience when assessing whether someone is suitable to go on to the specialist register. I agree that that will take time, but the issues are complicated. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that it is our responsibility to treat doctors fairly and equally in the NHS, which is precisely why—with that purpose in mind—we have changed the law.
    Andrew Selous: We all abhor racial discrimination against NHS staff, but does the Minister think it right that there is so much age discrimination against NHS staff? The policy of one of my local trusts is not to employ people aged over 70, yet there are medical secretaries who want to carry on working and are entirely competent. It is very difficult to recruit such secretaries, so will the Government look into that matter?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I shall happily look into it for the hon. Gentleman. It is sensible for NHS trusts to adopt a flexible policy in relation to such matters. However, I should point out that he and his hon. Friends constantly complain about ministerial intervention in the decision making of local NHS trusts, so I am not sure that he and his hon. Friends would necessarily be the first to welcome my interference in that case—but perhaps I am wrong.

    Medical Students
    Rob Marris: If he will make a statement on the number of students entering medical training schools in (a) the current year and (b) 1997. [169825]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): In autumn 2003, English medical schools admitted 6,030 students. In 1997, the figure was 3,749. That is an increase of more than 2,250 medical students, or more than 60 per cent. since 1997. It is the largest increase in medical school places since the national health service was established.
    Rob Marris: As we say in the black country, those figures are bostin'.
    My late father was, for more than 25 years, a consultant radiologist at the hospitals that now form the Royal Wolverhampton hospitals NHS trust, and I, too, worked there. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Wolverhampton trust is playing its part in helping to train that record number of doctors, and that NHS funding, especially for training, will be maintained?
    Dr. Reid: Indeed, I can. I know that my hon. Friend takes a familial and political interest in these matters as well as a constituency interest, so I took the trouble to check the figures on the Royal Wolverhampton hospitals NHS trust. In 2002, more than 180 medical students undertook practice placements in the trust; in 1997, there was none. The trust has expanded its postgraduate doctor placements by nearly 35,000 in two years. My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that the nearby Birmingham medical school admitted 428 students in autumn last year, compared with 215 in 1997 a 99 per cent. increase.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: The Secretary of State has referred to the increase in the number of medical students, but he has not referred to an increase in training in complementary and alternative medicine for medical students or doctors, in line with the recommendations of the Lords report on alternative and complementary medicine, which even his Department admits is a benchmark. What increase has there been in training in complementary medicine for doctors, and does he plan to increase the percentage?
    Dr. Reid: There has been an increase in the training of doctors in almost every single field. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks rather quizzical, but between 1979 and 1997, when the Conservative Government were responsible, not a single new medical school was opened and, indeed, two dental schools were closed. However, this Government have opened four new medical schools since the autumn of 2002 alone, so there has been a marvellous upsurge in the number of medical places and doctors in practice as well, and that goes right across the field. As the hon. Gentleman knows, unlike the previous Government, provided that there is always reasonable regulation and empirical evidence to substantiate the efficacy of alternative medicine, this Government are intent on extending choice and information to patients in the national health service.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: In the 1970s, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors got their predictions for our dental work force very badly wrong, and our constituents are living with the consequences. Given that the best guess that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), was able to reach in European Standing Committee C for the number of doctors that we would have to train to take care of the European working time directive was between 6,000 and 12,000, how much confidence can Ministers have in his predictions for our future medical man force requirements? Will he tell us the net number of doctor hours that will result from those increases by the year 2009?
    Dr. Reid: Today is the 25th anniversary of the unfortunate election of Baroness Thatcher. On that date in 1979, the message repeatedly given was that everything was the fault of the Labour Government in the early 1970s. After 25 years, the record has not changed at all. In fact, there are now 2,000 more dentists than there were in 1997, and the reason most of them are not doing as much NHS work as previously is the disastrous contract that the Conservatives introduced in 1992.
    On the working time directive, while we do not for a moment diminish the difficulties that two legal judgments have caused, an enormous amount of work is being done to ensure that, both in methodology and numbers, we can cope in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman talks about the 1970s, but Britain, including the British national health service, is working once again, and it would be an absolute disaster to let him and his colleagues ruin it once again.

    Medical Research
    Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on his Department's funding of medical research. [169826]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): We are making an additional £25 million available for medical research each year for the next four years. That increase of £100 million by 2007–08 will help to increase the total Government budget for medical research from £lbillion a year to £1.2 billion a year by 2007–08.
    I can tell the House that Birmingham Women's health care trust has won the bid to run the new £1.8 million genetics education and development centre, which will help to educate NHS staff about haw they can use the latest genetic knowledge and techniques in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of common diseases, such as breast cancer.
    Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of interest in gene therapy research, as it could provide a treatment not only for common diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, but for inherited conditions, such as muscular dystrophy. I understand that the Department has recently announced a funding package for further research in that area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that research institutes throughout the United Kingdom, not just in London, will benefit from that new funding?
    Dr. Reid: I can indeed confirm that. As my hon. Friend suggests, I recently announced another £4 million to support research into gene therapy in the United Kingdom—an area of scientific research where I can say with all due modesty and not the least complacency that this country is playing a leading role at the cutting edge, to the benefit of patients here as well as throughout the world. I can also confirm—my hon. Friend will be particularly pleased to hear this—that the beneficiaries of that £4 million grant include Dr. Linda Scobie of the university of Glasgow, who received £450,000 for very important research on the safety of retroviral vectors.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Secretary of State accept that the provisions of the Human Tissue Bill and the European Community clinical trials directive seriously undermine the increase in medical research funding that was announced in the Budget?
    Dr. Reid: It is rather churlish of the hon. Lady not to accept that, when we announce an additional £200 million for scientific research, it in no way undermines the value of research that is conducted in this country for patients. On the Human Tissue Bill, we are responsible to the people of this country for ensuring that what happened in Alder Hey and other areas never happens again. People's bodies belong to them; we own our bodies and all their parts. We must therefore not presume but seek consent. If there are difficulties, we will listen—as we are currently listening—to an array of interested parties, including researchers, to ensure that the benefits from future research are balanced by the rights of individuals over their bodies.
    Miss Anne Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of money for gene therapy. However, I emphasise that embryonic stem cell research is also important. The first licences have been issued and I look to the Secretary of State to promise that some of the money that is set aside for medical research will go into that area, which is so important, especially for people with neurological conditions.
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The subject is important and has potentially enormous benefits. We should be proud that the United Kingdom, with effectively 1 per cent. of the world's population, funds 4.5 per cent. of the world's science and produces 8 per cent. of the world's scientific publications and 9 per cent. of the world's citations. We maintain such a position only by continually making the resources available to the ingenuity, application and determination of the scientific community in this country. The ultimate benefit is to those who suffer from some of the diseases and illnesses that my hon. Friend mentioned and knows only too well. We shall continue to do all we can to alleviate that pain and distress.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: How much are the Department and the Food Standards Agency spending on research into the

    1197
    carcinogen acrylamide, which appears in, for example, baked potatoes, chips, crisps and other food that is cooked at high temperatures?
    Dr. Reid:I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reply off the top of my head but I promise to write to him with the figures.

    Day Surgery Facilities
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on the expansion of day surgery facilities in the national health service. [169827]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are committed to expanding day surgery in the NHS. The proportion of elective care carried out on a day case basis has risen from 59 per cent. in 1996–97 to 67 per cent. in 2002–03. Our investment of £68 million in the past two years in day surgery facilities and more than £350 million in NHS and independent sector treatment centres will help to maintain that expansion.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. We have a successful 23-hour ward in Warwick hospital. It opened in temporary accommodation in January but moved to its permanent site two weeks ago. It has already treated 600 patients and is contributing to a further reduction in waiting times and waiting lists at the hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more such units will be needed if we are to reach our target of performing 75 per cent. of all elective surgery on a day care basis?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I agree that we shall need more facilities such as the excellent example that he has drawn to the House's attention. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the hard work of staff in his local NHS trust and of the excellent service that they provide to his constituents. It is more convenient for patients to be treated on a day case basis and more efficient for the NHS. All Labour Members want the extra investment to which we are committed to make that difference in treatment for NHS patients.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that the Audit Commission report for 2001 stated that there was scope for an additional 120,000 day surgery cases to be carried out with the facilities that were available then. What progress has been made on fulfilling that report's recommendations?
    Mr. Hutton: As I said in my answer, we are treating more and more NHS patients as day cases, and that is an excellent way to ensure that the extra investment in the NHS reaches the front line and improves the service for all our constituents. There are now 850,000 more operations being done as day cases than in 1996–97, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who always takes a balanced and fair approach, will recognise that we are making good progress in this field.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the Minister will agree that increasing the
    1198
    proportion of day case surgery is indeed a way of heightening efficiency in the NHS and that leading hospitals are already treating about 75 per cent. of elective in-patient admissions as day cases. Will the Minister therefore tell us why he and his colleagues are discussing—privately, in ministerial meetings—what is referred to as "official data" showing that productivity has fallen steadily since 1997, with a 10 per cent. decrease overall and a 15 to 20 per cent. decrease in health and education? On what statistics are Ministers basing that 15 to 20 per cent. reduction in health productivity? Will the Minister also tell the House why 200,000 finished consultant episodes, which in past years had been used for comparison, have mysteriously disappeared from the statistics in the Department's annual report on hospital activity trends, which he published 10 days ago?
    Mr. Hutton: These is only one message that the hon. Gentleman wants to give to the people of the country and to Members of the House, and that is that the NHS is getting worse, but every published indicator reveals that it is getting better. In relation to his point about productivity, it is fair to say that the current measure of productivity fails to take into account some very important things that are going on in the NHS. One example is that we are making more statins—the cholesterol-busting drugs—available to all our constituents. As a result, fewer people who would have gone on to develop coronary heart disease will now need coronary artery bypass grafts and other procedures that we count as an activity in the NHS. So on one measurement, because we are making our constituents healthier, the NHS is said to be becoming less productive. What a ridiculous state of affairs! Anyone who has a reasonable view of these matters would say that the case for looking again at that measure of productivity was overwhelming.

    Health Care (West Worcestershire)
    Sir Michael Spicer: If he will publish his latest plans for the future of the health service in west Worcestershire. [169828]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): South Worcestershire primary care trust is responsible for commissioning health care in west Worcestershire to meet national and local health priorities. Over the current three-year period, the funding allocation to enable the PCT to achieve this will increase in cash terms by £60.6 million, or more than 30 per cent.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Is the Minister aware that South Worcestershire primary care trust is seriously concerned that it might not have sufficient funds to honour the commitments to the GP contracts arranged by the Government, let alone to service the capital requirements for the four new medical centres and two community hospitals promised in my constituency?
    Dr. Ladyman: Funding in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has massively increased. If there are any concerns about what funding is to be available in the years to come, let me put them in context. In the last year

    1199
    of the previous Conservative Government, spending per head in his constituency was £623 In 2002–03, the last year for which we have audited outturns, it was £894, and by 2005–06 his constituents will be having £1,061 per head spent on them. There should therefore be no concerns whatsoever about having the resources to meet those obligations.
    Mr. Michael Foster: Will my hon. Friend explain how the 31 per cent. increase in funding for South Worcestershire primary care trust was raised? Does he agree that, while the residents of south Worcestershire have every right to ask for more resources to be spent on our local health service, there are two residents of south Worcestershire, both of whom are Conservative Members, who have no right to call for extra money, given the way in which they voted in the House when the money was allocated?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The huge increase in local spending resulted from this Government's decision to increase national insurance by 1 per cent. to pay for extra investment in the national health service. The Conservatives opposed that. The 70 per cent. per capita increase that I have just described would be wiped away if they ever got back into power.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister not recognise that the Government's mismanagement of those increased resources has led to cuts in services for the primary care trust, a massive debt at the acute hospital and the prospect of all the new services that we need for GP surgeries and cottage hospitals being abandoned? We know that the extra money the PCT has is not enough to pay for the GP contract and those extra surgeries and hospitals, so will he say over what time scale those new surgeries, and the new hospital at Pershore, will be delivered?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away: the Conservatives would not spend one penny extra on health services if they were returned to government and he voted against the increases that we are discussing. Local decisions are now being made about prioritisation, because we have decided that we cannot make all the decisions for his constituency at the centre. I am flattered that he would like me to make all the decisions for his constituency, but that simply would not be a good way of doing things, so the funding of new GP premises in his constituency will be prioritised locally, which is exactly as it should be.

    NHS Dentistry (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: How many dentists in Liverpool have ceased providing NHS dental treatment over the past two years. [169829]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): There has been a net reduction of 34 dentists providing NHS dental services in the Liverpool area over the past two years. However, that figure should be treated with caution because it is not a whole-time equivalent. It also includes people who have
    1200
    retired. The three PCTs in Liverpool have been allocated £356,700 specifically to improve access to NHS dentistry locally over the next year.
    Mrs. Ellman: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the information on the extra funding for NHS dentistry in Liverpool, but can she give us any further information on how the proposed new contract will help to retain and recruit dentists to work in the NHS?
    Ms Winterton: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, if a dentist leaves the NHS the money spent on NHS dentistry in the local area returns to the centre. The new contract and the proposals in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 will ensure that the money to support dentistry goes to the local level so that there can be proper provision made locally—the money stays locally. The contract removes the treadmill and bureaucracy introduced by the previous Government, which have been so unpopular with dentists and caused them to walk away in the first place.
    Mr. John Baron: What is happening in Liverpool is typical of what is happening around the rest of the country. Indeed, recent Government figures have shown that, after seven years in power, over half a million fewer patients are registered for NHS dental treatment than in 1998, while the British Dental Association stated recently that millions of people are unable to register with an NHS dentist. Five years ago, the Prime Minister pledged that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist within two years. It is now blatantly obvious that this Government have yet again failed to deliver on a promise. Will the Minister be honest, admit that the Government have got NHS dentistry badly wrong and set about putting it right immediately?
    Ms Winterton: That is a bit rich coming from the Opposition. It has been said before, but it is worth repeating, that they introduced the incredibly unpopular new contract in 1990, cut dentists' fees and closed two dental schools. We have brought about the biggest reform of NHS dentistry in 50 years. We know that—
    Mr. Baron: Half a million fewer patients.
    Ms Winterton: About 1.7 million more courses of dental treatment have been provided within the last year. There are undoubtedly particular problems in certain areas, which is why we have put aside about £90 million in the last year to address access problems at local level. That is for the short term. In the longer term, we are changing the system so that the money held centrally is given to local PCTs, enabling them to plan with local dentists the provision at local level. That has been welcomed by the BDA, in contrast to what it has been saying recently about the contract introduced by the Tories and the way in which they closed dental schools and cut fees.

    Edgware/Colindale Hospitals
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the planned sale of land at Edgware and Colindale hospitals. [169830]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): In accordance with local plans, Barnet primary care trust and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey mental health NHS trusts are disposing of surplus land at Colindale and Edgware hospitals. The land sales are being managed locally to ensure that the needs of the local NHS are met.
    Mr. Dismore: Given the substantial growth in population expected in the area—45,000 extra people in Barnet over the next few years, and possibly extra people in Harrow and Brent—the real demand that has been identified for parking at Edgware and the need for affordable housing for key workers locally, particularly those in the NHS, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the decision on those land sales? It is pretty clear that we will soon need some of that land for NHS purposes, rather than selling it off for expensive housing, which is what is likely to happen otherwise.
    Miss Johnson: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made his representations to the local PCTs, who are responsible for commissioning and providing services. As he will know, the trusts are currently considering a land disposal at the Edgware hospital site and, as part of that, building key worker homes at the Colindale site. One of the options on the disposal of some land at Edgware is that part of the land may be retained for car parking and other facilities at Edgware community hospital. If my hon. Friend is not content with the discussions that he is having locally, I am sure that we would want to meet him and discuss his concerns in the Department.
    Chris Grayling rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is keen to get in, but the question is about north London.
    Chris Grayling: May I ask about land sales in the south-east?
    Mr. Speaker: That is too wide.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What advice is given to primary care trusts to assist with recruitment of general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [169831]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government have established work force confederations to take forward local recruitment initiatives to expand the national health service. In addition, we have invested more than £38 million in financial incentives to support flexible and new ways of working to encourage doctors to enter, and return to, general practice. As a result, the NHS now has more GPs than at any time in its history.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate the Government on the increase in nurses, doctors and consultants, more of whom are now employed by the NHS than ever before. My concerns are that in the north of England, and particularly in the
    1202
    Wakefield area, we seem to have shortages of GPs, which affects a substantial number of my constituents. From my exchange of correspondence with the chairman of the Wakefield West PCT, it appears that it has little influence in trying to engage GPs to fill vacancies. Can my right hon. Friend give any further advice to ensure that my constituents, particularly the elderly and disabled, have GPs, and to ensure that the requirement for GPs in the Wakefield area is met'?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the progress that has been made. In Wakefield, there are now 27 more GPs than there were in 1997. I accept entirely his view that there are still not enough. Clearly, we look initially to primary care trusts to fill those vacancies, and a range of resources is available to help them to do that. As he knows, we are making more progress in making sure that every primary care trust has its fair share of resources, and that the extra growth available for the NHS goes to those parts of the service that need it the most. That would certainly include my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister will know of the important role played by GPs in community hospitals up and down the country. Given that, will he offer some assurance about the current state of play with GPs who are already opting out of working in community hospitals, or who plan to do so in the near future? Health Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have recognised the disaster that that would represent and have started negotiations about the problem, so why does it appear that he still has his head in the sand?
    Mr. Hutton: On this occasion, I hope that I do not have my head in the sand. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself of the recommendations of the doctors and dentists review body this year, which suggested that we should take this forward as part of the review of the non-consultant career grade for doctors in the NHS. We are happy to do that. Those issues are being discussed with the British Medical Association as we speak. Obviously, we also need to take the view of the NHS Confederation, which from this October will become the new employers' organisation for the NHS. Clearly, it is important that we make sure that services are provided to community hospitals by GPs. The new GP contract has nothing whatever to do that, as those arrangements are dealt with separately, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement on that in the very near future.
    Mr. David Watts: The Minister will know that it is most difficult to recruit and retain GPs in some of the poorer areas. Is there not a case for add-in incentives to persuade them to come to and stay in very deprived areas?
    Mr. Hutton: There certainly is. That is why—as my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, will be aware—we have increased the golden hello scheme payments for GPs in areas with too few doctors from £10,000 to £12,000. The increase has partly succeeded, in that it has enabled us to recruit more GPs, but, as my hon. Friend will know, we are looking

    1203
    carefully at all the issues. I have received representations from a number of my hon. Friends about GP shortages in their constituencies. Along with the NHS, we are trying to find ways of providing further incentives. As my hon. Friend rightly observed, general practice is at the heart of all our NHS reforms.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that Government claims to have met the GP recruitment target are complete and utter nonsense? Is it any wonder that no one believes a word Ministers say, now that they have been caught blatantly distorting the true picture by ignoring the difference between full-time and part-time Gps?
    Will the Minister confirm that the number of longterm GP vacancies is now rising alarmingly? Will he also confirm that as the country faces an incipient crisis with the retirement of large numbers of GPs in the next three years, it is a disgrace that the Government's only answer is to try to fiddle the figures?
    Mr. Hutton: I was wondering when we would hear from the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, I do not think that any of us would have minded too much if he had spent the half-hour session just nodding quietly to himself—[Interruption.] Was that the best that the could do? He is trying to carve out more space for himself and other Front Benchers by recognising improvements in the NHS when they happen; but where was that today? May we hear one word from him acknowledging that there are 2,000 more GPs in the NHS today than there were in 1999?
    The hon. Gentleman says that we are fiddling the figures. We collect the figures for the number of GPs in exactly the same way as they were recorded in 1997 under his party's Administration. He should be careful about chucking around allegations that the figures are not correct. They are collected by the Office for National Statistics, and if he thinks that the ONS is fiddling the figures he should raise the matter with the National Statistician rather than chucking around pathetic and totally unfounded allegations about their accuracy.
    David Taylor: Are not GPs more likely to be recruited if practices are well funded and well housed and offer a wide range of services? How often do we see the situation described to me in recent weeks by practices in North-West Leicestershire? Following the implementation of the general medical services contract, a number of doctors have been unable to offer minor injury and other non-core services because the funding for primary care trusts and the prices that they are offering are not enough to pay for such facilities. What guidance is given to PCTs about minimum levels of off-contract funding? What happens if the levels are very low?
    Mr. Hutton: We have introduced a number of reforms to the way in which primary care is funded. I suspect that those local difficulties are partly connected with arguments about the definition of the new class of enhanced services under the GMS contract, and I hope that they can be resolved.
    It should be borne in mind that the new contract will be accompanied by a 33 per cent. increase in spending for primary care, which I am sure my hon. Friend will
    1204
    welcome. First and foremost, however, disputes need to be resolved at local level. I do not think it would be very sensible for me to try to intervene in each one, but I assure all my hon. Friends that the new contract is being fully and properly resourced. We have introduced important reforms that will help to ensure that the additional money we have earmarked for primary care is spent on improving GP services.

    Waiting Lists (Romford)
    Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on waiting lists in Romford. [169832]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): The main acute hospital providing health services for residents of Romford is Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust. The trust is currently achieving both the elective admission and first out-patient appointment waiting time targets.
    Mr. Rosindell: I do not think my constituents will be convinced by that response. I have countless examples of people from Romford who have been waiting for months, if not years, for essential operations.
    What does the Minister say to senior citizens in my constituency, who worked hard, paid their taxes, expect a health service now that they are older and feel utterly betrayed and let down by the Government?
    Ms Winterton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be keen to let his constituents know that the number of patients waiting for elective surgery in Barking and Havering health authority in March 1997 was 10,077 and that the number of patients waiting in Havering PCT in February this year was 5,268. That is a difference of about 50 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves.
    Angela Watkinson: When the new Oldchurch hospital was planned, a series of specialist GP practices throughout the area was also planned, to be developed concurrently. The purpose was to relieve pressure on the new hospital and to shorten waiting times. The hospital is due to open in 2005, but to date it has not been possible for the primary care trust to develop one single specialist GP practice. What assistance can the Minister offer to the primary care trust to enable it to meet its deadline?
    Ms Winterton: As the hon. Lady knows, under the policy of shifting the balance of power, decisions on local provision of services rest at local level. Obviously, if she wishes to raise a particular problem, she can write to us about that with notice and we will respond to it accordingly.

    Green Minister
    John Barrett: If he will make a statement on the work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months. [169833]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I have a number of responsibilities that contribute to sustainable development goals. Those include tackling health inequalities, healthy eating and physical activity. Our public health consultation, "Choosing Health?", which will run until the end of May, will also make an important contribution to the sustainable development agenda.
    John Barrett: Given that disposable nappies cost the NHS £1.5 million a year and that often no choice is available to new mothers in maternity wards, does the Minister agree that one way of tackling the environmental damage caused by hospital waste would be to make a commitment to promote the use of the traditional towelling nappies?
    Miss Johnson: There is no reason why individual NHS trusts and individual midwifery units should not pursue policies in line with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Indeed, I have had discussions with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on just those topics. We try to ensure that all the material that goes out to new mothers clearly indicates that disposable nappies and terry nappies are both options and should be considered alongside each other in making decisions.
    Bob Spink: Could the Green Minister, in the drive for sustainable development, ensure that the move towards centralised, very large GP centres in communities that previously enjoyed many dispersed small practices does not unnecessarily reduce access to those practices for vulnerable people—in other words, that the centres are not too centralised and that there are a number of different centres in a community?
    Miss Johnson: From what he is saying, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman basically agrees with our policy, which is to decentralise decision making and services as far as possible. There is increasing support for access centres and for rural provision to ensure that people do not have to travel long distances, except where they need specialist facilities that can be provided on only a limited basis. Most patients would rather go where they can get the best possible care.

    In-patients
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress has been made in reducing waiting times for hospital in-patients since 1997. [169834]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): We have made huge progress in reducing waiting times. In 1997, there were 118,000 patients in England waiting longer than nine months for an admission. I look forward to the publication of figures this Friday, which I am confident will show that the nine-month waiting list has been eliminated in the same way as the 12-month, 15-month and 18-month waiting lists, on which now only a handful of people remain.
    Dr. Starkey: I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that thanks to the Government's overseas clinical teams initiative, Milton Keynes general hospital has just benefited from a team of anaesthetists and clinicians from France using our spare operating theatre capacity at weekends. As a result, the waiting lists for varicose veins and hernias have been reduced from over nine months to under six months. While thanking the Secretary of State for the additional money he has given to Milton Keynes to cope with population growth, I remind him of the extremely high rate of that growth. Will he continue to keep the situation in Milton Keynes under review so that if additional funding is needed, we can keep those waiting lists at their current low level and, if possible, reduce them still further?
    Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the situation under review. We have only recently made an additional allocation that I hope assists in that direction, not least because of the efforts made by the hospitals in Milton Keynes. My hon. Friend will know that we have met our targets to abolish 18-month, 15-month and 12-month waits. Our target now is to go ahead and abolish nine-month waits, on our way to eliminating six-month waits, on our way to reaching a target of a maximum of three months by 2008. I am glad to tell the House that, in Milton Keynes, there have been no breaches of the 12-month target for over a year. I fully expect that there will be equal success in eliminating nine-month waits.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, being at the heart of Europe means that we have to take on the working time directive. How many extra staff will be needed post-1 August to ensure that waiting lists and times do not spiral out of control? Are there any specialties where we are having more difficulty in recruiting? Will we have to scour the world age in for nurses and doctors to ensure that those waiting times and lists do not increase?
    Dr. Reid: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the congratulations to NHS staff on achieving the reductions in waiting times that I am sure he would have given in his question had he time. Secondly, enormous efforts are being made to make sure that we can balance fairness to staff, through the working time directive, with the continuation of services to patients. A word of caution; to use expressions such as "scouring the world" in relation to the many members of NHS staff who, over the last 60 years, have come here and provided marvellous health care to the people of this country is to do those staff less than justice, despite the Conservative party's intrinsic dislike of foreigners.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the welcome and encouraging earlier answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he share my concern about a leaflet being circulated by BUPA Heartbeat personal health plan that is well out of date, by over two years, and claims that well over 1 million people are currently waiting for an operation? Does he agree that BUPA needs better information and must get up to date, and that in trying to put facts into the public domain, it should not rely on past propaganda?
    Dr. Reid: I do not want to make any comment about any particular private care operator. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I genuinely do not, because, Mr. Speaker, you will have read in the Financial Times and other newspapers recently that the NHS is now beginning to improve not only itself, but the whole of the health market. If anyone has a publication that says that more than 1 million people are on waiting lists, those concerned are way out of date; they are obviously thinking of the last Government. We now have considerably fewer than that figure and have had for each of the last 12 months. I suppose that by the time they reprinted the leaflet with today's waiting list figures, it would be out of date, such is the rate of reduction in waiting lists and waiting times.
    Hywel Williams: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the NHS in England has had to hail out the Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government with extra hospital places? Despite the Secretary of State's heroic efforts, however, because of that Government's incompetence more than 6,000 people in Wales are still waiting for a first out-patient appointment, 8,500 have waited 12 months for their first in-patient treatment and 1,401 pour souls are still waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment in Wales.
    Dr. Reid: In all the time that I was a territorial Secretary of State I never had a compliment from a nationalist, and it is nice to receive one today. However, I am afraid that I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's point because figures for the Welsh health service are outwith my responsibility.

    Schoolchildren
    Bob Russell: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the health of schoolchildren. [169835]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Skills meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues about the health, social care and education of children.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that for the first time in 100 years life expectancy is falling, because today's schoolchildren are less fit and healthy than their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were at the same age? With that in mind, if we are to have a national health service rather than a national sickness service, will she work better with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that our children have a minimum of two hours' physical education in the school curriculum?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. First, life expectancy is continuing to extend and, secondly, we work very closely with the Department for Education and Skills on all sorts of aspects of health in schools and matters that relate to the health of young children. In addition, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have a major consultation
    1208
    under way. I agree with him that obesity is a major issue, but that is why we are having the consultation, with a view to publishing a White Paper on public health during the summer. That consultation is open until 28 May. and I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that one critical aspect of improving the health of schoolchildren is encouraging the eating of fresh fruit. I am sure that she shares my constituency experience of encountering widespread enthusiasm for the adoption of the fruit in schools programme, which this Government have pushed forward. However, does she share my wish that the current programme, which is confined to key stage I except where a school chooses to extend it, should be extended to key stage 2 children, many of whom are very envious of what is being offered to key stage 1 children?
    Miss Johnson: I obviously share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the fruit in schools programme, which is encouraging infant children to eat more fruit both in and out of school. It has been shown that 25 per cent. more of them are eating fruit outside school and that 50 per cent. of families are recognising the value of fruit and vegetables in a healthy diet. That is why we are rolling out the programme across the country, at a cost of £77 million. We will evaluate the programme, and I will bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind when we do that.
    Chris Grayling: Central to that issue is childhood obesity. On Thursday, the Minister will chair a summit on obesity, a sure sign if ever there was one of Government policy failure. Can she tell us what her plans for that summit are, whether the Department for Education and Skills is involved in it and why, if it is a serious event, she needs a television presenter to chair it?
    Miss Johnson: We have been discussing all those matters widely with the DFES, and part of Thursday's event is to ensure that we are feeding the views of a wide range of people into the public health consultation that I mentioned a moment ago.

    Midwives
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: What steps he has taken to ensure that local health services publicise details of how women can access midwives directly; and if he will make a statement. [169836]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): "Building on the best: Choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS", published in December last year, encourages local health services to publicise contact details for midwives. The children's national service framework, which will be published later this year, will emphasise best practice.
    Mr. Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How can we encourage more people to take up training as midwives, to ensure that more women can have access to the midwife service?
    Dr. Ladyman: We are working closely with the Royal College of Midwives and a range of other partners on a whole raft of initiatives, including a leadership programme and an examination of the barriers to midwife recruitment. We are doing everything we can to increase midwife numbers, and I am pleased to say that we are having some success: there are now 1,500 more midwives in the NHS than there were in 1997.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister agreed that it is a long time since the Select Committee advocated increased midwifery services.
    1210
    What is the hindrance? Midwives, as opposed to obstetricians, still deliver more than 70 per cent. of babies, so surely they should be given more of lead role.
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a much greater role to be found for midwives in the future. We are doing as much as we can to ensure that mothers are aware of that. For example, just before Christmas I launched a guide, produced with Dr. Foster, to explain to new mothers what services were available in their locality. We have to go a lot further to ensure that women have a genuine choice of a midwife-led birth if that is what they want.

Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners
3.31 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I am grateful for this opportunity to report to the House following the serious allegations that have been made in recent days about the conduct of some British soldiers in Iraq. Any decent-thinking person will have been disturbed by photographs published in the Daily Mirror on Saturday, appearing to show the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.
From the outset, we have taken the allegations seriously and taken the photographs at face value, and we will continue to do so unless there is evidence to the contrary. The special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police was immediately informed, and an investigation launched. RMP special investigation branch teams are currently following up lines of inquiry in Iraq, in the UK and in Cyprus, where the First Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment is currently based. Investigating officers are in touch with people at the Daily Mirror, to see what further information they have that might help get to the bottom of the incident. To date, they have handed over a total of some 20 photographs.
It would be wrong for me to speculate about the outcome of this investigation, which must be allowed to take its course. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it is not appropriate for Ministers to interfere with police investigations. I can assure the House, however, that if British soldiers are found to have acted unlawfully, appropriate action will be taken. Our immediate priority is to establish the truth as quickly as possible. That is why I urge individuals with relevant information to come forward. We are determined to leave no stone unturned.
The House will know that a number of other allegations have been made concerning instances of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners and Iraqi civilians, some of which have resulted in fatalities. These are also serious matters and are being thoroughly investigated. There have been suggestions that such investigations are not being pursued properly or are unduly slow. I believe this to be unfair to the investigating personnel. Many of these investigations require detailed work to be undertaken in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. They cannot and should not be rushed. I am confident that they are being carried out properly.
It is my intention to release as much further detail as possible on all these incidents, bearing in mind the rights of all those involved. It would be quite wrong to prejudice this process by applying undue pressure for haste, or indeed to point the finger of guilt outside the due process of law.
The Daily Mirror article will have caused some people to question the integrity of British soldiers and the validity of their mission in Iraq. Thousands of service personnel have served in Iraq over the past 14 months. They have done an exceptional job in testing circumstances, and in turn have secured the support of the majority of Iraqis. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the superb work that our armed forces are doing both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. While treating these
1212
allegations with full seriousness, we should not allow them to colour our judgment of the quality or integrity of our troops, or of the Army as a whole.
Very grave allegations have been made that challenge the reputation of the British Army here, in Iraq and elsewhere. We must ascertain their truth or otherwise. At best, such allegations undermine the excellent work that our armed forces are doing under the most difficult conditions today in Iraq. They undermine the progress that we have made with our coalition partners in moving Iraq forward from the tyranny that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein. Our forces serve with distinction throughout the world, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Their achievements and professionalism are rightly praised worldwide. That is why we must establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations.
3.35 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier this afternoon.
The allegations in the Daily Mirror are extremely serious and must of course be thoroughly and swiftly investigated. But the whole House will agree that they are the more shocking because of the outstanding reputation of the British armed forces not only for their remarkable war-fighting capabilities, but for their abiding humanity and decency in peacekeeping operations, and because of the ethos and values of the British Army, which have sustained it so successfully down the ages.
A great deal is expected of our soldiers. They are required sometimes to deploy on operations that are extremely dangerous, to obey orders that may put their lives at risk, and to live and work for long periods under the most challenging conditions. This House, the country and the media badly need to understand that military service is like no other in the demands that it places on individuals and the organisation. Soldiers exist to engage in war, and war places unique demands upon them. They overcome those challenges only if morale, discipline and training are of the highest order. From every soldier is demanded an exceptional level of commitment, self-sacrifice and, above all, mutual trust. We therefore wholly support the most vigorous and detailed investigations to restore the good name of the British Army.
As I said, the allegations made in the Daily Mirror are serious and must be pursued as a matter of urgency. I should be grateful if the Minster clarified the following. Has his Department's investigation been able to confirm the authenticity of the photographs published by the Daily Mirror? Has his Department any evidence of the Daily Mirror offering financial inducements for providing alleged evidence of such behaviour? How many alleged incidents of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers have been reported? How many alleged incidents involving British troops are being investigated by his Department, and when will they reach a conclusion? Is the Minister satisfied with the training given to our troops in the handling of detainees prior to deployment and when they are in theatre?

1213
If these incidents have indeed taken place, the most vigorous action must be taken to protect those in military custody in Iraq and elsewhere, and to restore the good name of the Army. The values and standards of conduct under which our soldiers are trained make it absolutely clear that in bearing arms they have an exceptional responsibility of respect for others, and those values and standards demand from them the ability to distinguish clearly between right and wrong, and to maintain the highest standards of decency at all times.
Finally, the allegations centre on the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, which is more than 300 years old and carries more battle honours on its regimental colours than any other infantry regiment of the line. Its battle honours include Quebec and Waterloo. It fought with distinction throughout the South African war, in France and Flanders, and at Ypres, the Somme, Paschendale and Gallipoli. It covered the evacuation at Dunkirk, fought in the far east and north Africa, and was one of the two assault battalions of the 3rd Division that captured the beachhead at the Normandy landings. In the recent campaign in Iraq, its commanding officer was awarded the distinguished service order, and the regimental sergeant-major was awarded the military cross. If wrong has been done, it is clear that it must immediately be dealt with, but let this House and the wider country keep in perspective 300 years of the most loyal, gallant and distinguished service to the Crown and the nation.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his message of support for our troops and the superb work that they are doing. He asked several questions about the authenticity of the photographs, but, as I said in my opening statement, it is not for Ministers to interfere and involve themselves in the minutiae of an ongoing investigation. It is a matter for the investigating authorities to bring to a conclusion. I therefore have no evidence one way or the other on the matter. Clearly, given the speculation outside, it is right and proper that the appropriate authorities are pursuing that line of inquiry.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) asked how many cases are currently in the process of investigation. So far, 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or ill treatment have been investigated in Iraq: 12 are ongoing, and 21 have been completed. Of the completed cases, 15 were found to have no case to answer, and six recommendations are currently being considered. That is the current position. Those recommendations will go through the appropriate process of law, which means independent of the chain of command and with no ministerial involvement.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the training of our troops and I know that he is aware of the answer. We give our troops the highest level of training in all aspects of international law, the Geneva conventions and human rights issues. Indeed, we are renowned internationally for the work that we do in helping failed states to raise their standards through various post-conflict initiatives. We sometimes help countries to come back into the wider community of nations. Anyone visiting such countries would hear of the
1214
qualities spoken about by those who have been trained by our troops, showing that what we teach our troops is imparted with full vigour elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman rightly ended by highly commending the QLR, which is indeed a first-class regiment. He is right to point to the significant number of high awards received by its troops during the recent conflict in Iraq. I am sure that the vast majority of them, if not all, will be very concerned about these allegations.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement. I welcome it and I congratulate him on his words. We believe that there are serious doubts about the authenticity of the Daily Mirror photos. Whether or not they are genuine, I agree with the Minister that, the sooner we can sort out this story, the better for all concerned. However, there can be no doubt about the photos taken of US troops, or, indeed, those of UK forces taken by a fusilier who was arrested last year. I ask the Minister to tell us the outcome of that investigation.
Liberal Democrat Members have asked many questions about the alleged instances of mistreatment. When will those questions be answered—they have not been answered since January—and how many legal cases does the Minister expect to be brought as a result of families' actions this week? It is suggested that the US military did not co-operate with the Red Cross at Abu Ghraib prison camp. Will the Minister give an assurance today that the Red Cross will be given full and complete access to all detainees held under UK control in Iraq?
Finally, the Ministry of Defence stated last month that the European convention on human rights does not apply in Iraq, despite the fact that the UK has signed it and that many courts believe that it applies to the agents of those states that have signed it. Under what position and under what human rights laws are Iraqis held in UK custody in Iraq?
The men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces have an unequalled reputation for professionalism and honour—and that includes the QLR. If they continue to demonstrate that in Iraq as they have been, the whole House and the country should support them. However, if that reputation is to be preserved, the Government must act on this matter with speed and with transparency.
Mr. Ingram: In closing, the hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about the need for openness. That is why I said that I would seek to impart to the House as much information as possible about all these ongoing investigations when we are able to do so. Subsequently, the information will be imparted to the wider public. We must also bear it in mind that we have to protect the rights of everyone associated with what may be a legal process. It is not for us to judge—only, perhaps, to examine, to ask questions and to move the process forward by ensuring that all the proper procedures are being applied.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many legal cases we expect to emerge from this matter. I cannot predict that. Aggrieved persons must determine what laws they will seek to apply in any given circumstances. Our best judgment is that the European convention on human rights does not apply. I assume that that will be tested in

1215
law, as I believe that a community of people exists who will seek to do just that. We know that some groups of lawyers have already indicated that they propose to bring actions against the Government in this matter. We shall have to see how all that plays out.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the International Committee of the Red Cross would be given full access. The answer is yes: we seek at all times to work closely with the ICRC, which sets very high standards. It is right that we give it access, and that we listen to any comments or criticisms that it may make about how we deal with people in our custody.
I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's questions. If not, or if any other points arise, we can return to the matter at a later stage.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Many aspects of this matter will worry people, and that is understandable. However, what worries me is that, although the leader in today's Daily Mirror says that the matter is the subject of "concern and investigation", the headline on the front page talks, apparently conclusively and as though it were a proven fact, of British Army torture of Iraqis. That is a most unfortunate piece of journalism. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the rules of natural justice still exist in this country? Is not it an important principle that people against whom allegations are made remain innocent until they are proven guilty? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that that principle will govern the approach of the Army and the Government to this whole matter?
Mr. Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend, and in my statement I tried to highlight the principle to which he refers. I also noted that the SIB is in touch with the Daily Mirror, and I hope that the newspaper will give the investigators the fullest cooperation.
In its leader last Saturday, the Daily Mirror said that
"for the sake of the British Army's reputation and the integrity of every decent member of our forces, those who carried out this and other savage acts must be court-martialled."
I think that everyone can understand those sentiments, but the implication is that guilt has been established already. That is not the case. The Daily Mirror claims to know the identity of one of the attackers, saying that he and a colleague provided the photographs and the information that were the basis for the allegations. Nevertheless, the newspaper appears intent on protecting the identities of its informants, because, it says, the soldiers fear reprisals by the Army.
I genuinely do not understand the concern about reprisals. I have every confidence that everyone with relevant information will be treated fairly and lawfully, and that their rights will be fully respected. That is why I hope—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will agree with me on this—that the Daily Mirror will reconsider its position and assist the investigating authorities in getting to the bottom of these most serious allegations.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: At each stage of the detention process, from apprehension to theatre internment facility, it is very important that
1216
there is external scrutiny by independent nongovernmental organisations. That is helpful for individuals, and for Army units. What reports has the Minister received from external organisations about the way in which detainees have been handled?
Mr. Ingram: I fully recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman, whose question I sought to answer in my response to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). We do not deny access, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his own military experience. We fully comply with the requirements placed on us by international law. Indeed, we often tend to go beyond what is asked of us, to ensure that appropriate NGOs have adequate access to prisoners. Sometimes we go further, and allow individuals to visit detainees as well. That allows tremendous scrutiny of what is going on.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I had received any adverse or other reports. To date, I have received no such reports, but some may be in the process of being compiled. The ICRC is authoritative and operates in a precise and structured way. It will make known its concerns, and if we need to act on them, we will.
Ann Clwyd: The allegations, if true, shame every single one of us. Preventing abuse requires compliance with rules for the treatment of prisoners. I went to Abu Ghraib prison and the facility at Basra a few weeks ago. Many detainees in Iraq have been held virtually incommunicado under rules that have never been made public. I have been concerned about the general treatment of detainees since June and have made that point over and over.
I have a particular case to raise. An Iraqi woman who was taken prisoner was held for a long time without charge. I went to her house in Baghdad where she told me her allegations of ill treatment. Those allegations were passed on to the appropriate authorities. They did not concern British troops. They were made against American troops. In some cases, such allegations have been proved. I must tell the Minister, who has always been most helpful in assisting me to visit prisons and talk to people in Iraq, that it must be made perfectly clear to the US military, as well as ours, that the Geneva conventions must apply in all cases when prisoners are held.
Mr. Adam Ingram: I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked more than assiduously on all the tasks that she has just described and more. She is highly respected across the Iraqi civilian population, and rightly so.
On her comments about the United States, I must say that that is not really a matter for the UK Government, although we would be concerned if any coalition partner were in breach of parts of international law to which they had subscribed. There is a process by which we could raise that with them while working alongside them.
Insofar as our own troops and any mistreatment are concerned, I cannot respond to my hon. Friend's detailed points or any other cases that she may have in mind. I should be grateful if she would meet me to go

1217
through each example and see what we can do to take cases forward. I would be concerned if matters had been reported and not acted on.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The Queen's Lancashire Regiment has a base and a museum at Fulwood in Preston. The people of Preston and Lancashire are proud of their close association with the regiment for all the reasons that have been given about its distinguished past service, most recently in Bosnia and Northern Ireland.
Does the Minister agree that it might have been better for the Daily Mirror to pass on the photographs at the beginning so that their veracity and validity could be worked out and an investigation started before allegations were thrown about? Will he assure us that there is a way in which any serviceman or servicewoman is able to complain should he or she believe that any wrongdoing has occurred so that it can be thoroughly investigated? Will he assure us that the current investigation will be speedy and thorough so that the good name of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment can be restored?
Mr. Ingram: I echo those sentiments about the QLR and all the regiments that have served in Iraq and elsewhere in Her Majesty's name. So far as the Daily Record is concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Daily Mirror".] Did I say record? What is in the Daily Mirror is a matter of record, so perhaps that is what I had in mind, although the two papers are in the same group. I am grateful to hon. Members for correcting me.
In terms of what the Daily Mirror—I will say it again to make sure that I am not misunderstood—should have done, it must make its own judgment calls. It is currently assisting with the investigation and that is why I said that I hope that it will co-operate fully. These very serious allegations must be fully investigated and that can be done only if people co-operate fully, and that includes the journalists and editors of that newspaper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about wrongdoing and whether service personnel would feel confident about reporting it. I hope so. Given the scrutiny—the correct scrutiny—of such allegations, and everything that we are doing in Iraq, I hope that all officers in the command chain realise that they have to act with the utmost integrity. I do not question their integrity by saying that, but given the nature of what has happened I am sure that they will encourage full compliance and openness throughout the ranks.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about a speedy and thorough investigation. I can promise a thorough investigation. Speed may be of the essence, but it should not be the priority. We do want to get to the bottom of the matter as quickly as possible, but it is better to get it right than to get it done quickly.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The QLR is my local regiment and has the freedom of the town of Colne in my constituency. I wish to return to a question posed earlier by an Opposition Member. Has the Daily Mail—[Interruption.] I blame the Minister for that slip-up. Has the Daily Mirror been asked specifically if any
1218
money changed hands for the photographs? That is a central question, which has been asked by several hon. Members, but no answer has been given as yet.
Mr. Ingram: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in protecting the good name of the QLR, but he cannot have heard what I said. It is not for Ministers to interfere in the minutiae of investigations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, because if we answer one question, there will be another and then another. I therefore say to hon. Members who may be concerned about the issue that we should let the investigating authorities—the SIB of the Royal Military Police—carry out their actions according to their powers in the matter. The Daily Mirror has been asked by other newspapers—perhaps even the Daily Mail, although not the Daily Record—whether money changed hands. It is a matter for the newspaper. If it wants transparency from the armed forces, it should operate by the same standards.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Will the Minister accept that at a time of war the armed forces and Ministers in our free, open society bear special responsibilities, but so do the media? It is especially incumbent on an editor such as Piers Morgan to satisfy himself completely that allegations are correct and photographs are accurate. If they turn out not to be so, will action be taken against him and his newspaper?
Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman strays into areas for which I have no responsibility. It is a concern that when the press make such charges they can walk away having laid waste to people's reputations. The press have an obligation, but there is another issue. Those allegations have been spread across the Arab world, including Iraq, and the question arises whether lives have been put at risk by what may prove to be unfounded allegations. That should be on the consciences of those who have run such allegations. However, it is not for me to judge whether there would be any legal implications in that case.
Janet Anderson: While I understand what my right hon. Friend the Minister says about allowing the investigation and any possible legal process to take their course, does he agree that the allegations against the QLR are so serious that, should they prove to be unfounded, the editor of the Daily Mirror should resign forthwith?
Mr. Ingram: I am conscious of the anger that has been expressed, but my focus is on the good name of Her Majesty's armed forces, not on the good name or otherwise of particular newspaper editors.
Adam Price: The Minister mentioned the European convention on human rights. Is he aware that a case against the Turkish armed forces, following an incident in northern Iraq, has already been ruled admissible by the European Court of Human Rights? In the light of that, and regardless of the legal opinion, will he not send a positive signal to the Iraqi people that the Government are making a policy decision that article 2 of the convention,

1219
on the right to life, and article 3, on the prohibition of degrading and inhuman treatment, apply equally to Iraqi citizens and to citizens of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Ingram: I know the hon. Gentleman's position. He has been campaigning on a basis of presumed guilt in some cases, although no doubt he will disagree. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at our forces and we have debated that previously. In relation to the corpus of law that applies in this matter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that we do not apply international law with full rigour. The UK has the highest standards in its application of international law and its adherence to the Geneva convention. If any part of domestic law is wrapped up with that, as a result of a judgment, we have to apply that, too. We must carefully consider those parts of the law that are applicable and those that may or may not have import. That is a matter for best legal advice.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has come to a conclusion. I do not know whether he is a lawyer or whether he has taken legal advice—his opinion may be political—but I prefer to wait and see the argument in the round.
Mrs. Joan Humble: Is my right hon Friend aware that, as well as having a distinguished 300-year history, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment has more recently helped to rebuild 30 schools and two orphanages in Basra, and that it has also trained the police force in Basra? It is thus vital that the inquiry is undertaken as quickly as possible, given the caveats that my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, because the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and indeed our other forces in Iraq need to regain the trust of the people of Basra so that they can continue to do the vital work of rebuilding that society.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the QLR and other regiments haze done good work. They have made truly magnificent efforts, way beyond the call of duty, to re-establish—or establish—normal society in Iraq. Their good name has undoubtedly been besmirched, and we must demand all the information that is held by anyone so that we can find out the truth about the allegations. It is difficult to judge how much damage has been caused to our ongoing relationship with the people of Iraq, but I have no doubt that British troops and all that they do are held in high regard in our area of operation and that that will continue. That is why we must lay the matter to rest, Let us see whether the allegations are founded.
Dr. Vincent Cable: As British private security companies play an extremely important role in Iraq, can the Minister say what arrangements exist to regulate their relationship with Iraqi prisoners and civilians?
Mr. Ingram: First, their staff will have to be properly trained and their capability assessed. They will then be obliged to comply fully with the legislation relevant to their operations. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details about the regulations under which those
1220
companies operate—there are legal constructs and that is another matter where we must get proper explanation into the public domain.
Mr. David Borrow: I share the concern expressed across Lancashire by colleagues from all parties about the impact of the allegations in the Daily Mirror on our constituents and on families involved at one level or another with the QLR. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the allegations were true they should have been reported when the incidents were seen by members of the QLR? Had they been reported at that time—last summer, if the allegations are true—six or nine months would have been saved in relation to the torture or harm to Iraqi prisoners that may have taken place. Will my right hon. Friend explain the duties of soldiers serving in Her Majesty's forces who see something that should not be happening?
Mr. Ingram: All our troops are trained to report wrongdoing, no matter from what source. That deals with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If true—of course, that is the important phrase—the incidents should have been reported much earlier, and we may have to establish why they were not, either during the investigation or at some point thereafter. If lessons have to be learned, we must ensure that no serving member of Her Majesty's forces feels obliged in any way whatsoever to cover up for wrongdoing, as that is a complete denial of what they are sent out to do in the name of this country.
Hugh Robertson: The fastest way to clear up this matter would be for the Ministry of Defence to have access to the Daily Mirror's sources. If that paper's editor is not prepared to give them up voluntarily, has the Ministry of Defence investigated whether there is any way in which under military legislation, such as the Army Acts or something similar, it can compel the Daily Mirror to reveal those sources, given the security implications?
Mr. Ingram: We are too early in the process to give an opinion on that. We should call on the good name of the editor and the journalists of that newspaper to note the expressions of concern that have been raised in the House and elsewhere about the information that they claim to have—they state categorically that they have it—about those who carried out these acts. Perhaps they hold other information as well. We should allow them to co-operate; they are currently talking to our investigating officers, and we must take things step by step.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend yet consulted the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission about what the code says about payments by a newspaper to those who have committed or are complicit in criminal offences? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if it is established that those offences were committed, the sternest action must be taken against those involved? I say this as someone who served for nine years as a member of the Daily Mirror's staff and as a Member of Parliament for Lancashire who has visited the war graves of young men

1221
in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment who died in their young manhood to defend the justice and rights of this country. Does he also agree that, if those offences are not shown to have been committed and the pictures are not shown to be authentic, the sternest action will be taken in those circumstances as well?
Mr. Ingram: In this case, my focus has been on the allegations against members of the QLR. Although I treat all the attendant matters with equal seriousness, we will have to come to them at a later stage. Again, I hope that those in that newspaper and in other parts of the media that may have acted similarly will listen to the views expressed in the House, so that they realise that they should tread warily. Again, it is not for me to take such action, but we can seek to stimulate it. It is for others to judge whether there has been any wrongdoing and, if so, what penalties should be levelled against anyone who breaches any Act of Parliament. If the stories are untrue, we have to ensure that the QLR's good name is reinstated. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that those untruths are put to rest in Iraq and elsewhere, where members of Her Majesty's forces are serving in some very difficult circumstances.
Mr. Hugo Swire: While I have doubts about the authenticity of some of the photographs, I have no such doubt about the wisdom of the editor of the Daily Mirror in publishing them at this time. We underestimate at our peril the damage in Iraq and the wider Arab world that the allegations cause to the reputation of the allies. Has the Minister held any discussions with our American allies, given the timing of the release of some of the photographs that allege wrongdoing by the Americans? If so, will he inform us of the nature of those discussions and what priority the Ministry is giving to talking to the Americans about restoring our reputation in Iraq and winning back the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?
Mr. Ingram: In one sense, I do not believe that we need to talk to the United States if we consider the serious way in which senior members of that Administration have reacted to the appalling photographs that involve US troops. Clearly, talks take place at the highest level—between the Prime Minister and the President and between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and Donald Rumsfeld. All those discussions are continuing but we must bear in mind that the allegations that relate to the United Kingdom are very new. We must therefore establish the truth and get to the facts. If wrongdoing has occurred, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, but their human rights must be protected. We cannot and should not take away people's rights in law. We must therefore be careful about ascribing blame or pointing the finger before any evidence that can stack up in a court has been presented.
The flavour of the comments today highlights the fine line that we are walking. Only time will tell the extent of the damage that has been done to our troops in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: There is anger and sorrow among the soldiers of the Queen's
1222
Lancashire Regiment and their relatives and friends. The photographs have besmirched the name of the finest regiment in the country. If they are found to be fraudulent, will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that the regiment's reputation is restored but that legal action is taken against those who produced and published the photographs? Does he agree that, if they are found to be fraudulent, the Daily Mirror will henceforth be known to Labour Members as "The Dodgy Daily"?
Mr. Ingram: I think that it is better to try to get to the facts. Although the reputation of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment—and the entire British Army—has been damaged, its good name ranks high internationally, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said earlier. The more hon. Members continue to play in the same territory as those parts of the media that want to undermine the quality of the work that has been done—I do not place my hon. Friend in that category—the more they will drag down our troops' capacity to deliver the sort of normal society that we support. That applies not only to Iraq but to Afghanistan, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and other parts of our troubled globe. Big issues are at stake and we must all be careful in rushing to judgment. Let us get the facts, ascertain what has happened and take it from there.
Rev. Martin Smith: While I agree that we should get the facts, does the Minister agree that, in the past, newspapers have rushed speedily into print with specious claims? One distinguished officer of the British Army, Colonel Tim Collins, was slurred but ultimately cleared. Given that some people have another agenda in the far east, Afghanistan and other places, Parliament and all our people must bear in mind the dangers that beset our troops.
Did the editor of the Daily Mirror approach the Ministry of Defence to say that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners had been brought to his attention and to ask for comment or did he publish without verification or notice? Should not we all keep quiet until investigations show what really happened?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to a previous case, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members could enumerate other examples of the media and others rushing to judgment before they have established the true facts of the matter involved. I do not think that this should be a "knock-the-press" day, or that we should knock the press in this statement and the question and answer session thereafter. The Mirror notified the Department early on Friday that it was going to publish the photograph. We did, therefore, have notice, but I understand that the photograph might have been in the newspaper's possession for some time. We did not have a lot of notice, and that is why, when we did get the information, we acted so promptly; I think that it is right that we did so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on: I have time-limited business to protect.

Domestic Energy Efficiency
4.15 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for energy efficiency in relation to fuel poverty and social housing.
The Bill will ensure that all agencies involved in the provision of social housing, both public and private, work towards the elimination of fuel poverty, particularly in the social and private housing sectors. It will also ensure that they provide information about effective insulation and the most efficient heating systems. This can be achieved in a number of ways. For example, proposals have been made to ensure that the new requirements under building regulations in the Government's Housing Bill apply to social housing as well as to the private sector.
It is not my intention to substitute my Bill for the Government's Bill. My Bill will try to introduce a number of remedies that the Government could support and incorporate into any future legislation. It must be recognised that the Government have achieved a great deal on fuel poverty. Their fuel poverty strategy, published in November 2001, sets out policies for ending fuel poverty in vulnerable households by the target date of 2010.
In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' UK fuel poverty strategy report for 2004, the Government have recognised that the elimination of fuel poverty remains one of their core objectives. They are committed to working with energy suppliers and organisations to focus on assisting the neediest households. This is the Government's second report on fuel poverty, and there are notable signs of progress being made. The estimated figures for 2003 show a further drop in the number of households in fuel poverty. The number of households in the UK estimated to be in fuel poverty in 2002 fell to about 2.25 million from about 3 million in 2001. Although it is evident that the Government have made progress on fuel poverty, more can be accomplished. A household that needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on household fuel can be defined as suffering from fuel poverty. That includes maintaining a satisfactory heating regime.
Fuel poverty is caused by a variety of factors, such as the energy efficiency of a home, fuel costs and household income. It can lead to damaged health, especially for disabled or elderly people and those suffering from longterm illness. The Government have a legal obligation to end fuel poverty by a specific target date.
Various organisations need to be thanked for their commitment to the elimination of fuel poverty and for their recommendations on tackling this complex issue. The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has made specific recommendations to the Government on improving the energy efficiency of homes and appliances, extensions to
1224
the successful schemes on energy to increase benefit take-up, and the use of the social fund to encourage the purchase of energy efficiency appliances instead of extremely inefficient appliances. Peter Lehmann, the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, has warned:
"Business as usual will not make sufficient inroads to remove fuel poverty and we hope that the Government takes our recommendations on board."
An estimated 1.4 million vulnerable households in England—many containing older people—lived in fuel poverty in 2001, and could not afford sufficient warmth to ensure their health and comfort, due to a combination of poor housing, inefficient heating and low income. Peter Lehmann recommends a package of insulation and energy-saving light bulbs to enable householders to keep warm without extra cost or to save £100 a year on their fuel bill. That is a considerable sum when the income of a single pensioner on benefit can be as low as £5,500 per annum.
The Carbon Trust is another organisation that has maintained a commitment to drag forward the UK's transition to a low carbon emission economy. Its programme, "Action Energy", promotes energy efficiency. The trust has estimated that 2.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was saved in 2002 as a result of its programmes. Following consideration of the various recommendations made by those organisations, my Bill will contain specific inspections and assessment of boilers and heating and cooling installations; energy certificates to establish general frameworks for calculating and integrating energy performances; the implementation of partnership programmes between health care professionals, local energy suppliers and social care professionals to identify those suffering from fuel poverty; and the development of standards for housing stock as well as the promotion of consumer awareness and demand for sustainable energy homes. Lastly, it will also contain a proposal to eradicate fuel poverty for all social tenants by requiring landlords to set, and work towards, achieving energy-efficient standards at an affordable cost.
I recognise that the Government have done much to eliminate fuel poverty, but much more needs to be done if we are to eradicate fuel poverty and achieve the Government's targets. For those reasons, I propose to introduce a Bill and ask for the support of the House for the proposals that I have outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Andy King, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Brian Jenkins and Mr. Jim Cunningham.

DOMESTIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for energy efficiency in relation to fuel poverty and social housing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 100].
Orders of the Day

  Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 77, on the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change, and the Government's response thereto, and the First Special Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 514.]
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  CONSTITUENCIES AND REGIONS
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 5 to 11.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
  New clause 1—Commencement (No.1)—

  'The provisions of this Act shall come into force by order of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) until the appropriate date of the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.'.

  Mr. Hood: Mr. Haselhurst, I rise to—
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at the outset, but, so that we may get matters right, I remind the Committee that I should be addressed either as Mr. Chairman or as Sir Alan.
  Mr. Hood: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, are all the warmer as I am one who should know the procedures as well.
  The Bill when first hatched may have been considered a little blip in the Government's business programme, or, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson),
  "the legislative follow-up to a political fix"—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1180.]
  Along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends I enjoyed my right hon. Friend's comments on Second Reading and found them very, very interesting. In supporting some of what he said, I think we must ask what public interest the Bill serves when we seek to gerrymander a constitutional agreement made in Scotland, by Scotland, for Scotland? What are we seeking to do with the Bill? It is not a tidying-up exercise of some constitutional arrangement. It destroys fundamentally the consensus achieved in Scotland in support of the Scottish Parliament in the 1980s.
  1226
  The Bill will be passed tonight with the Government's comfortable majority, against what the then Secretary of State for Scotland and first First Minister described as the settled will of the Scottish people—the Scotland Act 1998. The consultations have been much vaunted, yet it was not explained why there had to be two, or that the first bash had to be extended for six months because little interest was shown. It appears that sometimes there can be a thin line between consulting people and canvassing support for causes.
  To those of my colleagues who do an exceptionally good job in the Scottish Parliament, and who do not get credit for their work but criticism, for reasons known better to those who seek to criticise them—and to anybody who may question my motives in forming my view—I want to make it clear that I am on their side. Those who thought of this fix to save the 129 MSP jobs were not looking after the real interests of MSPs. They were not serving the good governance of Scotland. They were involved in what my right hon. Friend said—a political fix—and were not thinking through its consequences.
  I caution my colleagues if they think that the Bill will serve such causes, whether or not it saves a few careers of a few senior politicians. If so, they have failed to read the small print, because the consequences of the Bill will be that we have at least four different electoral systems in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, to his credit, identified that early, and has accepted, as we all do, that the status quo is not defendable. If we are not to support the Scotland Act 1998, I say to my colleagues in Holyrood that it will be replaced by something that is far worse.
  Our colleagues or the Opposition Benches, both here and in Holyrood, will be arguing for full proportional representation—single transferable vote for parliamentary elections. Those who propose that are thinking of narrow political interests, not of what is right for the people of Scotland. I am delighted to take on the charge, because the Labour party has had historically, and still has, huge support in Scotland, which, by the way, is well earned. I do not disguise other motives by saying that the people are better served when they have a representative on whose door they can knock, to say, "I've got a problem."
  4.30 pm
  If the Bill is passed tonight, the boundary changes are made at the next general election and there are 59 MSPs instead of 72 or 73, the consequences will be quite interesting. On Second Reading I gave the example of the Lanark and Hamilton, East constituency, where there would be one Westminster MP, three first-past-the-post MSPs, 16 list MSPs and 20 councillors. The Scottish Parliament is now discussing the STV system, and talking about halving the number of councillors in Scotland. There would then be twice as many MSPs as councillors in one constituency.
  That does not stack up. That is why I am telling my colleagues in Holyrood that the 1998 Act represented the settled will of the Scottish people. It is what we campaigned for, what we had a referendum on, and what we were comfortable with. For some reason, however, people it high places outwith the governance of the people and the Parliament decided that it was

  1227
  better to keep 129 and accept all the consequences. I think that all the consequences are dire, and that Back Benchers like me have a responsibility to say so. When it happens, people should not be able to point the finger and say "Why did you not tell us this in Parliament?"—for I doubt very much that there will be many plaudits for those who support the measures we are discussing.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend has stressed the issue of the settled will of the Scottish people. Surely one of the biggest arguments against multiplying the number of election systems still further is provided by the present list Members, who flounder around in our constituencies sending press releases with absolutely no local relevance just so that they can get a snippet into the newspaper, and sticking up surgery notices in villages where they may or may not turn up for half an hour before turning up in another village 40 miles away. Should we not be dealing with that problem rather than producing yet more systems and yet more confusion for the electorate?
  Mr. Hood: I understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, and might even go as far as to say that I agree with much of it, but I remind Members that it is all too simple to pick out the easiest argument and take your eye off the ball. We do not know who wanted the 129 MSPs to remain, but they took their eyes off the ball. I am talking about what is right for governance. The 1998 Act was thought through, and was part of a consensus on the constitutional convention.
  Pete Wishart rose—
  Mr. Hood: Is it not interesting that as soon as I mention the constitutional convention, the first Member to rise is from the Scottish National party, which wanted no part of it?
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a political fix and a consensus. The "political fix" includes some notable names, including the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Electoral Commission. All those people believe in the 129: there is a consensus. I have heard no one speak in favour of a reduction in the number. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say who supports it.
  Mr. Hood: I have tried to draw a distinction between canvassing and consultation. The political fix was fixed long before the SNP had an opportunity to get on board.
  John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the SNP had plenty of opportunity to take part in the constitutional convention and to formulate what was going to happen? It just chose not to do so.
  Mr. Hood: The constitutional convention was a difficult process for many of us. Some of us were dragged reluctantly to the table to agree to the electoral system—[Interruption.] Perhaps we were dragged kicking. We did not want anything to do with proportional
  1228
  representation. We know the dangers of proportional representation and of giving the 5 per cent. the power to say how the 95 per cent. will be governed. We know what we get from proportional representation. People say that votes under that system are fair. Well, they are unfair. It is power to the minorities, not to the majorities.
  Mr. Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman mentioned power to majorities and minorities. Does he accept that in Scotland all political parties are minorities in that no political party got anywhere near 50 per cent. of the vote?
  Mr. Hood: I accept that no system is absolutely perfect. Every system will always have problems of legitimacy, but first past the post has more legitimacy with the electorate than anything else. We are about to have an election on a proportional representation system. The last time we had European elections, it was a closed list. This time, it is an open list. Talk to some of my constituents, or even talk to me and ask what the difference is. There is not much difference between the two. It is a fix. Who are people voting to elect? Are they electing someone to represent them? They certainly are not under any list system.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Has there been a change in the proportional system for the European elections? The hon. Gentleman says that it has moved to an open list. It is still a closed list as far as I understand it.
  Mr. Hood: Is it a half-closed list or a half-open list? The hon. Gentleman has just proved the point. It is confusing him and it is confusing me. The election before the previous one was first past the post. Then we went on to a PR system. Now we are on the new system. Turnout was 24 per cent. in 1999. Here is a wager. If turnout is more than 24 per cent. in the June election—and I will try to ensure that it is—the tea in the Tea Room is on me. That is how confident I am.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hood: I ask hon. Members not to tempt me. I do not intend to speak for too long. I just want to make a few points, and the more I am tempted, the longer I will be. The constitutional convention got consensus. Everyone was okay. We went for a referendum and thankfully all the parties got together then and we got the vote.
  I remember that there was a huge row. I do not know what the rows were like in the Opposition parties but in the Labour party it was quite difficult. In fact, a Front-Bench spokesman resigned when the Prime Minister announced that we were going to have a referendum to entrench the will of the Scottish people.
  I remember going to the Scottish executive committee of the Labour party to hear the Prime Minister when he came to put his case—I was on the Scottish executive committee then. I supported him then overwhelmingly. The biggest reason for supporting the referendum was that one of our greatest concerns during the whole debate in favour of a Scottish Parliament was what guarantee we had that what we gave the people of

  1229
  Scotland with one Government could not be taken away by another Government. In other words, we were worried about the Tories. If we gave Scotland a Parliament, would the Tories take it away or change it? The biggest argument for a referendum was that it would entrench the will of the Scottish people. Once that was done, no Government would try to amend it. However, the first attempt to amend it has come from our own Government.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is arguing strongly that the Scotland Act should not be changed with regard to the 129 MSPs. However, his name is attached to every single amendment that effectively calls for an end to the PR system for the Scottish Parliament. Surely there is some inconsistency. On the one hand he does not want to change the number of MSPs; on the other, he is happy to call for the abolition of PR.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: He is just a lawyer.
  Mr. Hood: He is a courageous lawyer to intervene on me to ask about PR. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) who used his casting vote to give us PR when the Scottish Labour party would not have supported it. Perhaps we would not be having this debate were it not for my hon. Friend. We would have had the Scottish Parliament, because we had a big enough majority in 1997 to deliver it. We would have had first past the post, and a Labour Government in Holyrood. I admire his gall in intervening on that subject.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I realise that, eventually, my casting vote will be engraved on my hon. Friend's heart: he seems to remember it long after everyone else has forgotten. If someone had to use a casting vote, it suggests that at least half of those involved were also in favour of PR at the time. Leaving that aside, will my hon. Friend answer the question that I posed in my previous intervention?
  Mr. Hood: It should not be difficult for my hon. Friend to work it out but, as a lawyer, he may be confusing those who were for, those who were against and those who were in between. He may have found out on his travels that I have been, am and always will be for first past the post. I have never been seduced by any proportional representation system. If it had been left to me, the Scottish convention would not have gone for PR. Had I been in my hon. Friend's position, we would not have had PR. I think that we are being pushed towards a full PR system, away from the compromise of part first past the post, part PR. If so, I am on the side of first past the post and I will do what I can to argue that case.
  Pete Wishart: I am always interested in the views of the hon. Gentleman on PR. For the comedy value, will he give us his view on the decision of his colleagues in Holyrood to adopt PR for local government so enthusiastically?
  The Chairman: Order. I may be able to help. The debate is moving into much more generalised matters. I ought to remind the Committee of the amendment that I hope the hon. Member or Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will propose. If we go too far afield—I have allowed the hon. Gentleman 22 minutes of background—the Chair may take a niggardly view on the stand part debate.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Hood: Thank you, Sir Alan, for rescuing me from myself, if nothing else. The amendment seeks to delay the enactment of something that will have consequences for local government. Many of my hon. Friends—]although not too many of them, because we could never have enough—are experienced in local government. I am fortunate to have been in local government for 14 years and I know the value of local government from having been in it and seen what it can do.
  As hon. Members know, I do not make too many party political points, but during the years of the Thatcher Government we had two institutions that we could go to for defence. We had the trade unions, which were important at the time, although Baroness Thatcher was set against them, and we had local authorities, which protected us in some good measure. It took the Thatcher Government a long time to damage the local authorities, although they abolished the metropolitan councils and did away with the Greater London council. It was important that we looked to our local authorities and that is why I value local government; I have been in there and I value a. The people who value it more, however, are the people who rely on it more. As I said earlier, we do not want to have a situation where no one goes and knocks on people's doors to get them to respond. PR would do away with all that in local government.
  John Barrett rose—
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. Hood: I am going to move on, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. Wilson: I want to support my hon. Friend and bring him back to his amendment. There is unnecessary division here, because there seems—I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree—to be a remarkable degree of consensus in the Chamber. The consensus in favour of maintaining coterminous boundaries has extended, not decreased, since our last discussion. The nationalists, who tended to ridicule the principle last time, are now signed up to coterminous boundaries. No one on our side supports what is going through. The Tories oppose it. There is remarkable consensus, which my hon. Friend will want to build on. The only people who support the measure that is going through might be a couple of Liberals and perhaps the Minister. Everyone else regards it as a load of old rubbish.
  Mr. Hood: I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful and supportive comments. He is absolutely right. Coterminosity is the key to anything that we do. Without it, I do not know where we would be. Perhaps

  1231
  it is difficult to get our heads around the issue, and perhaps we are just using figures and not thinking it through, but we should seriously try to imagine life as a Westminster MP with 10 councillors, and 20 MSPs, with everyone going down different roads on the same subject. What we have is a war between the political classes, with members of the chattering classes starting to score points off one another.
  If we have gone into politics to do anything, surely it is to serve—to serve our communities and to help our constituents. They seem to be well down the pecking order when we discuss this constitutional reform and we need to put them back up it. The No. 1 priority on our agenda should be how we serve them, not how we find a political fix that suits all parties.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am trying to get to the root of the hon. Gentlemen's amendment. If, as the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggests, the Bill is a load of old rubbish and there is little support for it across the Chamber, why is it being introduced and what does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) think that that says about the power balance in the Scottish Labour party?
  Mr. Hood: I shall resist the temptation from the hon. Gentleman, but I shall say this: the Bill deserves the criticism that it has attracted and my right hon. Friend was right to say that there are not many people who argue its case, although a few loyal souls have put their heads above the parapet. Perhaps that tells the story better than any speech in the House of Commons.
  To seek enactment of the Bill before the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is evidence that the Government are in difficulty and are seeking shortcuts to cement this political fix. I commend the amendment and the new clause to the Committee.
  Pete Wishart: Unlike the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), I wish to speak to the amendment. I support it not for any reason that he gave but because I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity—this window of delay—to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is consulted and gives its consent before any changes are made to its voting arrangements or how its membership is determined.
  It would be almost inconceivable for such a significant change to be effected without consent. If the Scottish Parliament is to make such changes work, it needs to be on board. The idea that the House could impose them on a possibly unco-operative Scottish Parliament is simply not tenable and should be rejected out of hand. It would be almost impossible for a working relationship to continue in such circumstances.
  Mr. Davidson: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Westminster should not impose a system of election on the Scottish Parliament without its consent, does he also take the view that the Scottish Parliament should not impose a system of election on Scottish local government without its consent?
  Pete Wishart: The Scottish local authorities are fully engaged in the debate about the single transferable vote.
  1232
  The Scottish Labour party has just enthusiastically accepted proportional representation for local government and it should be congratulated on that big step forward. Labour Members should be cheering that to the rafters.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do. I have a closer link with the Scottish Labour party—if I may say so, with my modest local government background—than he has, and I can find no support for PR in local government anywhere in Scotland. Of course, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Cook, if I referred to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that they will bear that view in mind.
  Pete Wishart: I can detect no support for PR for Scottish local government on the Government Benches here, which is truly remarkable given that it is now Labour party policy. We are witnessing the emergence of two different Labour—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I have no wish to inhibit the enjoyment that is evident in the Chamber, but the Committee has already been admonished to the effect that it is seriously endangering any debate on clause stand part if that enjoyment continues in the same vein. We are not debating PR anywhere, so can we please make our comments more specific to the amendment?
  Pete Wishart: Of course, I shall return to the amendment, Mr. Cook, but it is interesting that there seem to be two Labour parties emerging: Lanarkshire Labour in Edinburgh, and London Labour down here—and never the twain shall meet.
  Mr. Wilson: I am not enjoying this at all, Mr. Cook. I want to get away from this banter and recognise the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If, for whatever reason, the nationalists are supporting an amendment calling for postponement until 2006, is that not a point of the utmost seriousness? As the nationalists are the official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, and they support the amendment, and the Tories support it, and the vast majority of my colleagues support it, why on earth is the measure being driven through today?
  Pete Wishart: That is a very good question, and the right hon. Gentleman can put it to his Front Benchers if he wants to. I have said clearly why I want a postponement until 2006. I want the Secretary of State to be able to consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish Parliament. That should be a prerequisite for any change in membership to, or voting arrangements for, the Scottish Parliament.
  We know that the membership, voting arrangements and constitution of the Scottish Parliament are matters reserved to this House. I have heard no good reason why that should be the case other than, "That's just the way it is." We should remember this House's record on these arrangements. It put in place, and enthusiastically adopted, the additional member system. It has not exactly covered itself in glory in dealing with these

  1233
  issues, perhaps because it got them wrong before. Let us think about giving the decision to somebody who might get it right, because we certainly have not got it right here so far. We have had the additional member system for only five years, yet we already have had seven amendments to try to put right a decision that was clearly wrong in the first place.
  The Scottish Parliament is perhaps unique among European legislatures, in that it has no right to determine its own voting arrangements and voting system. I have looked at some European legislatures, and even the most modest domestic regional assembly has the right to a say about its membership and voting arrangements. The Länder in Germany, for example, are responsible for their own constitutions. They can determine their own size, which can vary from 51 members in the small Saarland region, to 231 in the most populous area of North Rhine Westphalia. Surely, that is right. Is it not a sign of maturity and responsibility that any self-respecting Parliament worth its salt should have that responsibility and key function?
  All hon. Members will agree that the Scottish Parliament is now a fully grown institution. It is well into its second term and is the predominant and preeminent political institution in Scotland. The people of Scotland expect the Scottish Parliament to clarify and personify the national voice. Surely it should be allowed at least a say in its membership and voting arrangements.
  A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to be with several hon. Members in Dover house, where we heard about the new Scottish social attitudes survey. During that session, we heard the key concerns about the performance of the Scottish Parliament and discovered that the Scottish people are several steps ahead of us politicians. They want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they don't."] Hon. Members say that they do not, but they should look at the Scottish social attitudes survey. Every survey commissioned in the past couple of years has suggested that more than 50 per cent. of the Scottish people want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is a matter of fact. Given that the Scottish people want increased powers for the Parliament, we should at least make sure that we consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish people in respect of the Scottish Parliament's voting arrangements.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I, too, was at that presentation. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, at the end, the Minister warned against interpreting statistics too selectively. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that one conclusion of the survey was that support for devolution has increased since the referendum, whereas support for independence continues to slide?
  Pete Wishart: We are debating particular systems and I will continue to put the case for independence, just as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless continue to put the case for devolution. Who is in the best position to assess the requirements of the Scottish Parliament in terms of its size and membership?
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has wandered away from the amendment. He started by saying that he
  1234
  supported the amendment, which would in fact postpone implementation of the changes. Will he take a little time to tell us why his party thinks that the changes should be postponed, rather than focusing on his own amendment—it dealt with the role of the Scottish Parliament—which was not selected?
  Pete Wishart: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have already done that. I want this delay and window of opportunity to be used by the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In not addressing the amendment, I would be entirely consistent with the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who spent 25 minutes before he even got close to addressing it.
  I can sense that I am stretching your patience, Mr. Cook, so I will conclude. As I said, who is in the best position to assess the voting requirements for membership to the Scottish Parliament? Is it this House with its increasing and developing hostility to the Scottish Parliament—as evidenced by the remarks of some Labour Members today—or those who work in the Scottish Parliament who are accountable to the Scottish people for the decisions that they take? Surely those who live and work there and who are accountable to the Scottish people should be responsible for the voting and membership arrangements of the Scottish Parliament.
  The Secretary or State is happy to have his new commission report jointly to him and the First Minister. I congratulate him on that, because it shows that he is prepared to see a role for the Scottish Parliament in all of this. He obviously sees the Scottish Parliament having a role in developing arguments about its voting and membership arrangements. All I am asking for now is to have built into the Bill his acknowledgement that the Scottish Parliament has an important role and the fact that consent should be sought before bringing about any change to its voting or membership arrangements.
  5 pm
  Mr. Wilson: I shall he brief. I did not intend to speak at all, because I said my piece on Second Reading. However, I see some glimmer of hope in what we have heard so far, which we should build on. I am not interested in the banter or why the Scottish National party is supporting the amendment. However, the fact that it is doing so is of considerable significance, so we should examine the amendment to see whether something productive could emerge from it.
  I shall briefly outline the sequence of events that led us to this point. The Government made a commitment to reduce the number of Scottish seats at Westminster. That is settled and agreed: no one disputes it. The logic of that position, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was that the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament should be correspondingly reduced. At that point, the fix that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) described took place. There were discussions and it was concluded—wrongly, in my view—that the political imperative was to retain the 129 MSPs, so an amendment to the Scotland Act would be necessary.
  I believe that the fix was arrived at not because the overwhelming burden of Scottish opinion was in favour of 129 MSPs, but because the other political parties would perceive it as bad faith if the number of MSPs

  1235
  were reduced unilaterally by a decision taken at Westminster. That is why the unsatisfactory compromise facing us—to cut the number of MPs at Westminster without reducing the number of MSPs at Holyrood—was arrived at.
  I understand how that was all agreed, and I have already said that I believe that it was the wrong decision. I also understand the difficulty of escaping from it if the charge of bad faith could be levelled again for not implementing the agreement, but what we have today is something quite different. From a range of standpoints, virtually everyone in the House has come to accept the absurdity and lack of reason in what is being done.
  At this point I shall revert to my speech on Second Reading, in which I made it clear that I do not approach the matter from a party political or even a constitutional point of view. The only direction that I come at it is from the interest of our constituents—a fact that seems to have been totally overlooked in the calculations of those who created the fix. What is being created is gratuitous confusion, misunderstanding, cynicism and, in some cases, real deprivation for our constituents. In particular there will be gratuitous and quite unnecessary confusion over constituency boundaries—where it has never existed, was not envisaged under the Scotland Act and about which no one in Scotland has any interest in creating now.
  Mr. Salmond: We may be talking slightly at cross purposes. Our argument is that there is a consensus—certainly in the Scottish Parliament, where everyone except the Conservatives agree—that the 129 MSPs should be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is arguing—I think, persuasively—that, when it comes to designing an electoral system for the new Parliament, those in charge of the process of producing, hopefully, a more satisfactory system than the present one should be the Scottish parliamentarians themselves.
  Mr. Wilson: I fully understand that I understand the SNP's reasons, which are slightly different from my reasons. I do not necessarily disagree, but I have different reasons for opposing the proposal and for supporting my hon. Friend's amendment. That, however, is a secondary issue. The point is that the SNP is supporting the amendment, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) made crystal clear. I was so interested that I requested confirmation in an intervention.
  What the hon. Member for North Tayside is saying should be of interest to the Government. Any postponement would be made not out of cynicism, but for the reasons that I am setting out. Presumably, the statement of policy that the Scottish nationalists have made is the same as what they are saying in Edinburgh. The proposal has the support of the official Opposition in Westminster, and of the great majority of those Labour Back Benchers who are involved in the matter. Surely, therefore, it should be possible to hold some all-party discussion about how we go forward. Why does there have to be this lemming-like procession towards an outcome that everyone knows is wrong? The victims of that outcome would be our constituents.
  1236
  A lifeline has been thrown today, and it should not be blithely ignored. If the Committee ignores it today, I hope that those along the Corridor will take note. There can be no justification for going ahead with a plan that no party in this Chamber supports.
  Mr. Connarty: I follow my right hon. Friend's logic in supporting the amendment, which would postpone the implementation of the legislation. However, he said earlier that he wanted a different system, so it seems that he is arguing against the result, rather than the time scale. If, after a postponement of a number of years, the same proposals were brought forward again, would he oppose them?
  Mr. Wilson: With respect, that is not even an interesting hypothetical argument: it is just a hypothetical argument. We are talking about something that could happen years from now. I have always maintained that no logical system of voting practices in Scotland would contain the provisions that will be driven through the House tonight.
  I have no problem with the Scottish nationalist amendment that would introduce a system of single transferable votes based on contiguous constituencies. However, that is just my personal view. If the introduction of the Bill were to be delayed, all-party talks could be held and a logical structure for Scottish constituencies arrived at. There are plenty of formulae available for avoiding all the pitfalls in the Bill.
  Even at this late stage, we should build on the wide consensus that exists. We should not drive through a Committee of the whole House a measure whose real victims, I repeat, would be our constituents. The only winners would be the tiny minority of politicians with a vested interest in not losing face through backing down on this matter.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am glad that I was able to hear the Scottish nationalist spokesman announce his party's change of policy on the matter. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who wants to amend the Bill in a way that would render its format acceptable to him and his colleagues. Clearly, the Bill was drafted in a very expert manner. It took a long time, and the aim was to restrict as much as possible the debate on any amendments that might be tabled. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman has come up with a proposal that should be of interest to hon. Members of all parties in the Chamber.
  There is a consensus across the political spectrum, on both left and right—among Back Benchers and, I respectfully submit, most Front Benchers too—that the Bill is a shambles. No one wants what it proposes, and the result is chaos and confusion. Everyone knows that it will have a hugely detrimental effect on election turnout, yet we are expected to wave it blithely through the Chamber.
  I have great sympathy for the amendment, and for the endeavour of the hon. Member for Clydesdale to secure a postponement. The amendment would allow another opportunity for reflection. The incidence of U-turns among Government Front Benchers has become somewhat frequent lately, so perhaps there is a chance that the Government will make another—who knows?

  1237
  That would be a U-turn on a U-turn, as the whole Bill already amounts to a U-turn on previous Government policy.
  This is an opportunity for Labour Back Benchers to engage more productively with the Minister. I counsel them against falling out with anyone, but if we cannot get all parties in Scotland to recognise that we are sleepwalking towards an electoral system disaster and feel unable to do anything about it, there is something deeply wrong with how we organise politics in Scotland. We all know that disaster is looming. The amendment gives us a chance to take some time before we take an irreversible action.
  John Robertson: Why should we not want to wait to formulate a decent Bill and why do we have to rush into things? The consultation organised by the Government was a sham and a waste of everybody's time; the Labour Members who did not take part knew that. I want the Minister and the Secretary of State to take that fact on board and, in the words of the song, "Tae think again". They should do a proper consultation.
  It is my opinion, unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), that the Scottish people do not have the feeling that they did for the Scottish Parliament. We won their hearts and minds for the original vote, but the fine detail was not discussed then. Today, we are discussing fine detail, and the amendment gives us a chance to take another look at that. Why anyone would not want to do that I cannot understand. My colleagues among Members of the Scottish Parliament certainly see the need to look at the matter again, and I am sure that Opposition MSPs feel the same.
  I want to hear why the Liberals, who intend to oppose the amendment, do not want to make the Bill better. Why do they want to disrupt the whole Scottish political system and then, following a commission, do it all over again? Why would they want to do that twice, unless it was for political motives or so that they could put the Scottish people off voting? I would not put that past them; they have not distinguished themselves in getting out their own vote, whatever has happened with everybody else's.
  We have to engage in a conversation, like the big conversation that the Prime Minister is having. We have to listen to the people. I agree that we have to listen to the Scottish Parliament; I have no problem with that. Then again, the Scottish Parliament also has to listen to us, and we have legitimate cause for concern.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has moved an excellent amendment that has the support of two of the Opposition parties and many Labour Back Benchers. I doubt that many people in Scotland feel differently from me. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, to look again and to bring forward an Act that the people of Scotland can be proud of, rather than one that they do not understand.
  John Thurso: I listened with great interest to the introduction to
  1238
  this short debate given by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). He made a full and eloquent speech, and I waited for him to explain his amendment. I waited quite a long time, and I am not entirely certain—it must be due to my powers of comprehension rather than his eloquence—that I fully understand what he seeks to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would simply delay the Bill's provisions until 2006.
  Mr. Hood: The hon. Gentleman has been unkind to himself; he has understood exactly what the amendment would do.
  John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that I have read the papers correctly. I shall not disappoint Labour Members, because I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with his proposition. Like the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I believe that this is an important matter that goes to the heart of how the people of Scotland are represented. As he rightly says, it is our constituents who will benefit—or suffer—from whatever we choose to do this afternoon.
  5.15 pm
  However, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I believe that this modest Bill is highly desirable. It will retain the status quo and will not make any great changes to the voting system. It contains nothing that was not foreseen during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. All that will happen is that the status quo of 129 MSPs will be preserved, which was the will of all those who spoke in the Scottish Parliament when the issue was debated.
  Mr. Wilson: On balance, would the hon. Gentleman prefer the status quo or a variant of the status quo based on contiguous boundaries?
  John Thurso: I would have liked to have had time to deal with the matter properly in this Parliament before the next general election. Given that the Government did not consider the matter early enough in this Parliament, we are left with a choice between contiguous boundaries at some point in the future—which would not happen under the present legislation—or the chance to preserve the status quo. The best option is to preserve the status quo and to seek to have an input into the commission that the Secretary of State has set up. We will have to see what conclusions the commission reaches after input from all interested parties on the issues of coterminosity and the best voting system for the Scottish Parliament.
  Pete Wishart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amendments would significantly change the membership of the Scottish Parliament and the way in which it is constructed? They would do away with most of the additional Members and mean that two Members would be elected from most constituencies. We do not know what we will have by the end of the debate, because these amendments could change the face of the Scottish Parliament fundamentally.
  John Thurso: If the amendments were successful, my party's position on Third Reading might well change.

  1239
  However, at this point and given the likelihood that the Bill will emerge little changed, my party will support the Bill.
  The Bill—including clause 1—would not have any impact on the voting system. I hope that it is not uncharitable to point out that one effect of new clause 1 would be to delay the implementation of the changes that the Boundary Commission recommended for elections to this House. That might be one aim of certain Labour Members. My party sees no reason for delay and we wish the Government's proposals to be enacted. We want the status quo at Holyrood to be preserved, which is the settled will of Scotland, and we want the commission to do its work as soon as possible. We will provide our input into that process and await the results.
  Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned the commission and how it will be conducted, as well as the issue of timing. The amendment is all about timing. When the result of the first consultation became known—other hon. Members have given their opinions on its validity—part of the fix was a commission at some vague and unspecified time in the future. That was then moved forward and promises were made that the commission would be set up quickly, that it would report quickly and that its recommendations would be implemented quickly.
  However, if the commission is to be set up almost immediately and if it works hard and produces a report that may be implemented—as we have been told—before 2007, why are we making changes to the system now? We might have to change it again before 2007. Either the suggestion that the commission will report and that its recommendations will be enacted by that time has been put forward when there is no guarantee of success, or we are duplicating work that will be done later on in any case. In such circumstances, clarity from the Government about their intentions is essential.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. By way of introduction, I will restate the two commitments that underpin the Bill from the Government's point of view. We are committed to reducing the number of Westminster MPs to 59, as a result of the boundary commission proposals. We are also committed to maintaining 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Those are the twin pillars that support the Bill.
  I hope that colleagues will accept that we did not approach those issues in some Machiavellian way but that we actually consulted the Scottish people through the organisations that represent them. I put that on record so that we do not read in Hansard that somehow real people out there were not consulted. In total, there were 237 responses to the consultation; of those, 21 were from councils, including COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There were responses from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament groups, 27 individual MSPs and so on.
  1240
  Colleagues who have studied the history of the consultation know that there were responses both from civic and political Scotland before the Government made up their mind to maintain 129 MSPs.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend entertained us at Second Reading with the impressive list to which she has just been referring, but can she tell us who responded to the first consultation—the process that she had to extend for six months?
  Mrs. McGuire: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises the alleged extension of the consultation process. I assure the Committee that the consultation process was not extended; it ran from December 2001 to the end of March 2002—exactly as planned and announced. It is regrettable that we seem to be talking about the claim that the process was extended because in fact it never was.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Can my hon. Friend inform the Committee whether there was a great upsurge of opinion in the consultation to support the position set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)?
  Mrs. McGuire: It is fair to say that some people supported the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale. I should like to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend has been entirely consistent. His response to the consultation stated that he thought there should be a reduction in the number of MSPs and that the Scotland Act 1998 should be enacted in its entirety regardless of any other factor. He has been wholly consistent in his approach and for that I congratulate him.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I may have missed this point when my hon. Friend was going through her list of people who had replied to the consultation, so can she tell us how many Members of this House replied and how many were opposed to the maintenance of 129 MSPs?
  Mrs. McGuire: My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that some Members who responded to the consultation asked for the Scotland Act to be enacted in its entirety, but the overwhelming majority of those MPs who responded wanted the Scottish Parliament to maintain the position at 129 MSPs.
  Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as I have said many times, there are consultations and there are meaningful consultations? Some of us said vociferously that the consultation should consider the whole voting system, that the voting system and the Act should not be considered in isolation and that we should deal with the bigger picture. We now see the folly of our ways, as we seek to justify what we are trying to ramrod through today, even though it is not based on a meaningful consultation.
  Mrs. McGuire: I fully appreciate that some colleagues are struggling with this, but we cannot avoid the fact that a consultation exercise was held on preserving the number of MSPs. I accept that some of my hon. Friends

  1241
  think that the consultation should have been wider, but it took place within the remit and context laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) at the time, and we have the results of that consultation process.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Bill Tynan rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I will take an intervention from the leader of the Scottish National party because I am particularly interested in the position that the SNP has adopted this afternoon.
  Mr. Salmond: I am glad that the Minister is doing so because, unlike others, our concern is not with the figure of 129—the result of the consultation was overwhelming—but with the fact that the Bill is subject to amendment that would fundamentally alter the electoral basis of the Parliament. The Secretary of State can set up the commission, but will the Minister assure the Committee that she thinks it inconceivable that an altered electoral system could be imposed on the Scottish Parliament without its consent?
  Mrs. McGuire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that we have established an independent commission to consider some of the concerns, including those about electoral matters and—dare I say?—some of those raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends about coterminosity.
  Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend makes play of the consultation process that took place and the fact that that resulting decision seemed to produce the figure of 129. Does she believe that that consultation process resulted in the decision to reduce the number of MPs to 59?
  Mrs. McGuire: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the very purpose of the consultation process was to consider whether there was support for maintaining the number at 129 in the Scottish Parliament, essentially to decouple the number of MPs in Westminster and the number of MSPs in Scotland.
  Let me move on specifically to the amendment because it is important to reflect not just on what has been said today, but on what the amendment would mean if it were agreed to this evening. Amendment No. 8 would remove the provisions that introduce schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, which makes provision to deal, if necessary, with the period before the functions of the boundary commission for Scotland are transferred to the Electoral Commission. The proposed replacement—new clause 1—would give the Secretary of State the power to bring the provisions of the Act into force, but only after the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
  Section 16 of the 2000 Act relates to the transfer of functions of the boundary commission and allows the Secretary of State to transfer the boundary commission for Scotland's functions to the Electoral Commission
  1242
  "at such time as the Secretary of State, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs."
  The Government previously said that the current boundary commission's functions would not transfer until it had completed its reviews. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale believes that the amendment reflects that.
  5.30 pm
  However, the amendments would delay the Bill's enactment until after the boundary commission for Scotland had reported to the Secretary of State on its current review, had been formally wound up and had its functions transferred to the Electoral Commission. If the amendments were accepted, the order required to implement the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amended regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament election as well as that for a reduction in the number of seats at Westminster. The amendments would therefore proportionately reduce the number of Scottish Parliament constituencies for the time being since, at that stage, no power would exist to decouple them from Westminster seats. That is why I find the Scottish National party's position utterly perverse.
  If SNP members support the amendment, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  Pete Wishart: That is not the case.
  Mrs. McGuire: If the hon. Gentleman is right, I should like to hear him argue with greater force than he expressed in his contribution.
  Pete Wishart: I am delighted to have the opportunity to restate my earlier point. If the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) were accepted, such a fundamental change to the voting arrangements of the Scottish Parliament would have to be a matter for that body, which would have to consent to it. It is ludicrous to say that we can sign up to something that could change fundamentally the nature of the Scottish Parliament.
  Mrs. McGuire: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises which amendments we are currently debating. I tell him in all sincerity and generosity that if he and his party vote for the amendments, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of not decoupling. That would be the result of the amendments, which make no provision for maintaining 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: Here comes the cavalry.
  Mr. Salmond: A few seconds ago, the Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State had given an assurance that, if any change were made to the electoral arrangements, either through his commission or amendment to the Bill, it would be inconceivable to impose it without the consent of the Scottish

  1243
  Parliament. That is the position that she outlined. [Interruption.] A few seconds ago, she said that the Secretary of State had given that assurance. I merely ask her to restate what is already on the record.
  Mrs. McGuire: It is unwise to put words into my mouth. I said that the commission would consider a general consensus throughout Scotland as part of developing consensus on moving forward on coterminosity and voting systems.
  I revert to the perversity of the SNP position on the amendments. I repeat that, if they were accepted, the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amending the regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament elections.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the consensus that the Under-Secretary seeks through the commission or through amendment include the Scottish Parliament, on which the electoral system is being imposed? Will she say that it would be inconceivable to impose a new electoral system without the consent of the Parliament that will use it?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman continues to fail to understand the fundamentals of the constitutional arrangement under which we currently work. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is part of the constitutional settlement that established that body and is reserved. That is the top and bottom of the matter. However, having said that, I want to make it clear that, during our discussions on the matter, we have ensured that representatives of the Scottish Parliament, whether through its political or Executive structure, have been involved in the consultation. Earlier, I read out the list of those who were involved.
  Mr. Wilson: Are not the principles of this debate more important than the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about the precise translation of amendments provided by lawyers? If there is consensus among the nationalists, the Tories and the vast majority of the Labour party that there should be a delay until this whole thing has been considered holistically and we have achieved a rational outcome to the discussions in the interest of all our constituents, does my hon. Friend not agree that that consensus should be built on rather than being swept aside, which would be the effect of driving the Bill through?
  Mrs. McGuire: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's analysis. He and I go back a long way in terms of dealing with so-called mumbo-jumbo in motions and amendments, and I know that he and I were always of the view that what is meant by an amendment is what is in the amendment. I am trying to point out to him in the gentlest possible way that what is in the amendment might not be what he intends to happen. Perhaps, however, I am doing him a disservice; it might well be what he intends to happen.
  We have made a commitment to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament at 129. The consequence of the amendments would be to reduce the number of MSPs. That is not mumbo-jumbo, as my right hon. Friend has suggested. It is the reality of what would happen if the amendments went through, because
  1244
  we would need to undertake a reorganisation of the regional boundaries. If we intend to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, it would be ludicrous to reduce it by accepting the amendments, only to reinstate that number at some future date.
  I accept that I have perhaps not managed emotionally to engage with some of the arguments that have been made, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, may I say to them in all sincerity that they need to consider what is stated in the amendments? Their effect would be to reduce the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament that the Government have made a commitment to maintain at 129.
  Mr. Hood: I have enjoyed our exchanges in this debate. However, it would appear from the Minister's contribution that the lady is not for turning. I am disappointed by that, because I had a feeling earlier that there seemed to be consensus, certainly on her own Benches. She might win the vote if the matter were pressed to a vote in the Lobby, but she has not won the hearts and minds of members of her own party tonight. I had thought that she might say something in her summing-up that took cognisance of some of the points that have been made.
  I do not wish to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am pleased to have received her congratulations on supporting the Scotland Act 1998—I thought that we had all supported it. I supported the figure of 129 on Second Reading because that was the way matters were moving. However, we are now talking about the electoral system, and about how we can preserve the consensus. Perhaps I have not understood my amendments, as my hon. Friend has suggested, but where does it say that the result of putting off the enactment would be to alter the figure of 129? There has been no mention of that, and it is not my intention. Therefore, I am rather disappointed.
  I was hoping that my hon. Friend would offer the olive branch of offering to consider some of the contributions that have been made, especially from the Opposition Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has a point. While I am pleased to be corrected on the existence of a second consultation—there was just the one—I am led to understand that the motions were set in train long before we started going out to consult. There were consultations going on about keeping the 129 long before the formal consultations started. I would like those consultations to carry on.
  There is no argument about the 129. I am not arguing against it; nobody is arguing against it. We are arguing about where we go from where we are now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said earlier, if we have not got the message over to our Front Benchers in the Chamber tonight, I hope that some further consideration is given to the matter when the Bill goes down the Corridor.
  Mr. Salmond: Two aspersions have been cast on the hon. Gentleman during the debate—I am sure innocently, of course. It was suggested, or at least implied, that perhaps he seeks to retain the number of MPs from Scottish constituencies at its current level. Then it was suggested by the Minister that his

  1245
  amendment would rule out 129 MSPs. Can the hon. Gentleman say explicitly that neither was his intention in framing the amendment?
  Mr. Hood: Not at all. Not for the first time in my life, I am innocent. I stand wrongly accused, Mr. Cook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who has followed my contributions on this matter would never conclude that it was ever my intention not to support the cut to 59. That is not what this is about; it is about the good governance of the Scottish Parliament and of electoral systems in the country that we are here representing.
  This is where I take issue with Scottish nationalist Members: they do not have total ownership of representing Scotland and we Labour Members represent the Scottish people in equal share to anybody else who is a Member of Parliament here. How we are represented in Scotland is as much my concern, even though we are down here representing Scotland at Westminster. I happen to have a family in Scotland; I happen to live there; I happen to have roots there.
  It is so important that what happens in Scotland is done in the best interests of the Scottish people, but what I am seeing here tonight is not good governance. The Bill is not about that or about doing good for the people of Scotland. I think it will harm the electoral systems and, through that, the people of Scotland. That is why we are so passionate about these matters.
  The Minister could have her victory in the Lobby, but—let me put it this way—it would not be a total victory. I shall not push my amendment to the vote for one or two reasons. First, I would not wish to embarrass some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who passionately share my views, but who may be compromised by that. Also, I want to give the Government an opportunity not to trap themselves in the corner in which they have put themselves, but to come out of it.
  I hope that there are some discussions as the Bill travels down the Corridor; if we in the Chamber have closed minds, I hope that consideration is going on elsewhere. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No!
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 347.

  Division No. 157]

  [5:43 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bacon, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Barker, Gregory

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cameron, David

  Bercow, John

  Cash, William

  1246

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Maples, John

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Conway, Derek

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Norman, Archie

  Davidson, Ian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemipice & Howden)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Page, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Picking, Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Randall, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Greenway, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hague, rh William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Smyth. Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Spring, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hendry, Charles

  Syms, Robert

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, rh Michael

  Trimble, rh David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Walter, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wiggin, Bill

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Lidington, David

  Young, rh Sir George

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Mr. David Ruffley and

  Maclean, rh David

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainger, Nick

  Baird, Vera

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Barrett, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  1247

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Doran, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Borrow, David

  Etherington Bill

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Fisher, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burden, Richard

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burgon, Colin

  Gapes, Mika (Ilford S)

  Burnham, Andy

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gidley, Sandra

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey. John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heath, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Holmes, Paul

  Connarty. Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton rh John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Illsley, Eric

  David, Wayne

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  1248

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Perham, Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lamb, Norman

  Pound, Stephen

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purnell, James

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

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

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  MacDougall, John

  McFall, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salmond, Alex

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKechin, Ann

  Sanders, Adrian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Short, rh Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

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

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Southworth, Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire. Rachel

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mole, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Moore, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Margaret

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morgan, Julie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  1249

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Teather, Sarah

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Thurso, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Winnick, David

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wishart, Pete

  Truswell, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ward, Claire

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Derek Twigg and

  Weir, Michael

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  6 pm
  Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

  SUBSTITUTION OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE SCOTLAND ACT 1998
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'Shetland)' to end of line 14.
  The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
  `(2A) For each constituency provided for by Article 2 of the Schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/1037) there shall be two Scottish constituencies'.'.
  No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'eight' and insert `two'.
  No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
  '(3) Six members shall be returned for one region and five members shall be returned for the other region.'.
  No. 7, page 4, line 41, at beginning insert—
  '() The Boundary Committee for Scotland shall submit to the Electoral Commission a report with recommendations on the arrangements to be put in place under paragraph 1(2A) above.'.
  Mr. Donohoe: As we saw earlier, politics is not a pure science. On the basis of the previous debate, that is perhaps more the case in respect of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill than other Bills that have been before the House.
  In my estimation, the Scotland Act 1998 got some things wrong, but I believe that the position would worsen if this Bill were passed and that it would compound the problems created by that Act. From talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have identified the fact that both in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland there have been real problems
  1250
  with that Act—not least because the existence of the added list Members has created mayhem in the Scottish Parliament and in the constituencies of both MSPs and Members of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have examples of that.
  Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on touching on what is a sore point with many of us. In the city of Glasgow, for example, the 10 constituency MSPs can only raise cases relating to their own constituency, yet the seven additional Members can raise cases in all 10 constituencies. Not only that, but they raise reserved matters that are nothing to do with them. It is a prime example of mischief making. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking steps to remedy that.
  Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he and others have said to me over the period of the Act's existence, there are real problems in respect of added list Members. Members from every party in the House that is represented in Scotland have told me that.
  Pete Wishart: But that is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in his amendments. He is suggesting expanding the range of list Members, who will have more say in more people's constituencies if his amendment is accepted.
  Mr. Donohoe: As I develop my speech, it will become apparent to the hon. Gentleman that I have addressed that issue. At that point, if he still does not agree with me, he can intervene again.
  I am conscious of the fact that you, Mr. Cook, are a stickler for the rules. I will turn immediately to the amendments themselves. I emphasise that the figures that I have mentioned are based on the current review, which is expected to deliver 59 Members of Parliament. As things stand and as I think every hon. Member knows, that number is now conclusive. We are talking of 59 Members. My proposal is based on that number and not on any other.
  I have been made aware of some technical problems with regard to the amendments but, as I have already emphasised, my figures are based on those recommended by the Electoral Commission. I accept that the amendments may not be technically perfect in their own right, but having checked with the draftsman and others I have concluded that they are competent to be debated and voted on in the Committee. After all, they have been recommended by the Electoral Commission as the basis on which to calculate.
  Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any technical adjustments are required to his proposals, the best way to proceed is not to defeat the amendments but to make technical adjustments in another place?
  Mr. Donohoe: That is a possibility. My hon. Friend is right. That is what I will try to convince those on the Front Bench to accept, if that is required.
  A number of hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has just entered the Chamber, are on my side and support the amendments.

  1251
  Some 24 Members the length and breadth of the Committee support the idea that we need to look at the boundaries within the Scottish Parliament as well as within Westminster.
  Mr. Salmond: If the chairman of Heart of Midlothian is lined up for the amendments, there must be something to be said for them. None the less, how many Members of the Scottish Parliament has the hon. Gentleman consulted, given that it is their electoral system that he is changing, and how many have come out in favour of his proposals?
  Mr. Donohoe: That is not my responsibility but the responsibility of others. The consultation was open to MSPs. What is fundamentally important—I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened—is what my constituents and his think about the proposal. My constituents will be concerned about the matter today, but when the changes come about they will become even more concerned. Of that there is no doubt. I will expand on that issue as we move through the debate.
  What I am trying to say more than anything else is that we should not allow ourselves to sleep walk into things again, as we did in 1998. By virtue of what we have today, I am clearly of the opinion that we should address the issue with far more purpose than we have to date.
  The amendments call for Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament constituency boundaries to be coterminous. That is as far as they go. I do not go any further, although I could. I do not discuss the voting systems that we could create. I do not do anything in terms of gender balance. I say nothing of some of the other elements and problems.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I accept that the amendment says nothing about the voting system, but does my hon. Friend not accept that, in moving to a system of two-Member constituencies and of hardly any top-up Members, we will inevitably move away from the proportional system that was included in the Scotland Act? Is that not the effect, and indeed the intention, of his amendments?
  Mr. Donohoe: I would not expect anything less from the architect of PR north of the border, but I will develop the argument. I have perhaps allowed too many interventions, but I stress that I am not dictating terms. In the previous debate, it was said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) was perhaps dictating terms, but I am leaving it open.
  Without coterminous boundaries, we will create complete confusion as well as additional bureaucracy for political parties, the structure of elections and electoral rolls. That will cause mayhem and the measure has not been thought out as it might have been.
  Mr. Frank Roy: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent 15 wards at the moment, but that that will rise to 19, whereas the MSP for the same area will still represent 15? In effect, two constituencies with the same name will represent two different places, which is an absurdity.
  Mr. Donohoe: That further example reinforces my argument. Difficulties will be created for the party
  1252
  structures, as well as for returning officers. Most importantly, it will create havoc for our electors. That is more important than anything else and needs to be addressed. There is no doubt that that is the major complication of the existing system.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that all this havoc and chaos was predicted in 1998 during the passage of the Act, as can be seen from the debates on Second Reading, Third Reading and Committee? Everyone knew that this would happen if we strayed away from coterminous boundaries. It is the Government who have done the U-turn, in an embarrassed fashion, to create the second pillar to which the Under-Secretary referred in her speech.
  Mr. Donohoe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but I return to the most important plank in my argument—namely, the creation of problems in the minds of the voters whom he, I and other hon. Members represent.
  I have seen the confusion in the minds of the public. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that he had gone to a polling station and met an old woman who asked how she should vote. We are moving towards four different forms of election, which is wrong and ludicrous. This measure must be thought about carefully by the Under-Secretary and those responsible.
  It is patently obvious that the existing system is not working, and we need to know the commission's timetable. I am not indicating in the amendments what form of voting there should be, and I leave the options open for further discussion. I have said that I do not want to construct a form of election.
  The report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), contains much that I feel should be adopted as the way forward. The report is worthy of more consideration by the Government and I look forward to a positive response from the Under-Secretary.
  6.15 pm
  Not everything about the Bill's Second Reading was bad. The best part was when I heard the Secretary of State bring forward the commission to this side of a general election. By doing that, he gives me confidence that sensible changes will be made. We heard about the commission and that it would be implemented shortly, but I have not heard a single thing since that statement. How many people will be on it and whom will they represent? Who will chair the commission? I certainly hope that it will not be the chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. What discussions have taken place with other parties? I have had no indication that there have been such discussions, and that is a fundamental point.
  Mr. Roy: Does my hon. Friend think that there is a danger that the commission could be filled with professional people such as lawyers, rather than working people?
  Mr. Donohoe: I will not rise to the bait, although it would be better if there were no lawyers on the commission; it seems that it will be full of lawyers.
  Mr. Salmond: These are legitimate questions that the Under-Secretary will be answering shortly. The hon.

  1253
  Gentleman says that he is not prescribing any electoral system, but as I understand the amendments, he wants 118 people elected at constituency level and 11 elected at list level. We can argue the pros and cons of that, but how can he maintain, with this unaccustomed modesty, that he is not prescribing an electoral system in his amendments?
  Mr. Donohoe: There are different forms of election within constituencies, as well as potentially different boundaries. I have had discussions with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—perhaps these were off the record but should now be put on the record—that suggested that some things might be attractive even to the nationalists.
  Mr. Hood: On the question of the make-up of the commission, some have said facetiously that lawyers, people from Edinburgh or others of that ilk might be on it. It would be unusual if that were the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes easier to get the verdict one wants when one picks the jury? It is important that the commission is seen to be independent of Government and of those who appoint it.
  Mr. Donohoe: I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard my hon. Friend making the very point to which I am seeking an answer. I would rather that the great and the good appointed to the commission are of a mind to take on board the point that he made.
  Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Donohoe: This will be the final time.
  Mr. Davidson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in those circumstances.
  On the question of the commission, in which decade does my hon. Friend expect a decision or recommendation from it to be implemented? Does he expect a decision to be implemented in this decade in time for the 2007 election, or in some future decade?
  Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend has been reading my script. Before I come to that point, however, I should like to finish my point on the commission.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said in the debate of 9 February:
  "Surely there can be unanimity in the parties in Scotland: whatever the perceptions of marginal short-term political advantage or disadvantage, we do not want to legislate to establish an electoral system that we all know will work to the practical, and in some cases serious disadvantage, of our constituents."—[Official Report, 9 February 2004: Vol. 417, c. 1182.]
  Of all the statements made during that debate, that is one that hon. Members should bear in mind.
  My final point on the commission, which has already been alluded to in part, is that we need to establish the time scales. The next Scottish Parliament elections will be in 19—or, rather, in 2007; let us not go back, although some of us would perhaps like to go back to 1998. Can the Minister give us some idea today of the
  1254
  time scale for the commission? I should like specific answers to specific questions, and perhaps the Minister will address them when she winds up. The most important question to be answered is whether a decision has been made on whether the relevant Act will be in place—because primary legislation will be required—in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections.
  If we require primary legislation from the commission's eventual conclusions, I am a little concerned about the need for the commission. After all, this place has the responsibility—and should have the responsibility—to take such decisions for itself. Although I am posing questions about the commission, my major question is whether we need to have a commission at all. We could take decisions here that would bring the whole matter to a conclusion, and we could have done that today. If I may be partisan for a minute, my party has a massive majority, and could have chosen, on the basis of the facts before us, to drive through proposals that would lead to a common-sense position: that taken by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and by every single institution in which I have been involved. That is where the nub of today's debate should lie.
  On Second Reading on 9 February, the Secretary of State, on announcing that he would be setting up a commission, said that it would be possible to propose a particular solution but that we would need a consensus. I argue against that. Why do we need a consensus when we have such a majority? After all, we are the elected Members who can take the decision, and we have a majority Government here. We do not need to go colluding with anyone else in Westminster; we could take the decision here today if we could table and accept the right amendment. We could vote on that; that is what democracy is all about, so far as I am concerned.
  John Barrett: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the Committee on what percentage of the vote that majority was delivered?
  Mr. Donohoe: That is the system in operation here, and we should take cognisance of that in this place.
  David Hamilton: As someone elected with 53 per cent. of the vote, I have such a majority.
  There are alternative systems, and surely the most important issue being raised today is accountability. That is what is missing from the current proposals. When I go to the electorate, they will know all the problems that I have had and will determine whether or not I am accepted. That is the same for my MSP colleague, who is elected on a first-past-the-post basis. That is the big issue, and it is the same whether the system is alternative vote or first past the post. There are alternative systems available.
  Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I support him 100 per cent. in what he says.
  As a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I noticed over the years that we seemed to take everything that it said on board as being set in tablets of stone. I do not accept that any longer, because of my working knowledge of the system in operation. I

  1255
  warned about that before, but I was willing to go along with it. Now, however, my clear opinion is that there is absolutely no doubt, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) just said, that there must be an attachment to a particular constituency. There must be a clear indication to those who elect us that we are their property. We move away from that when we talk about the situation created by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There are those here who think that that convention is a sacred cow. I have to say, however, that much that it proposed caused damage, not good, in terms of governance north of the border. We should all be aware of that.
  To sum up, when I constructed my speech I was of the opinion that it was possible that we would get some sort of flexibility from the Front Bench, and I am looking for that tonight. On the basis of what I hear and learn about the commission, I am concerned that when its proposals come before this House, they will require primary legislation. It will be difficult for such primary legislation to be included in a Queen's Speech and debated in this House before the 2007 elections, so I wonder about the time scales. We also need to know whether and when the commission will be reporting. Will that be before the end of this year, or at the beginning of next year?
  In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I commend the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for introducing this group of amendments. They are a valiant attempt to improve the Bill but, in his heart of hearts, he might well think—and perhaps he will not be reticent about saying so—that this Bill is, arguably, incapable of amendment. It is a bad and unnecessary Bill. It is not necessary to introduce this measure at this time. The Scotland Act was passed in 1998 and there is absolutely no requirement to do anything to resolve the problem of coterminous boundaries.
  Mr. George Foulkes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a humble seeker after truth. He has made the self-denying ordinance not to vote on any English legislation. Can he tell me, then, why all his English colleagues trooped through the Lobby a few minutes ago to vote on purely Scottish legislation?
  Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be best advised not to respond to such a tantalizing—[Interruption.] I am protecting the Committee.
  Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Cook. Perhaps we can engage in that subject later.
  The fact is that the Bill that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is attempting to amend is unnecessary. Like me, he will recall the comments of Henry McLeish, who said:
  "we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223.]
  1256
  Lord Sewel went further when he said:
  "In the White Paper, we explained that we believed that the integrity of the Union would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]
  Mr. Lazarowicz: If we trawl through history, we can find a number of changes of position over the years, but how can the hon. Gentleman claim consistency for his party? If he looks at the report of proceedings in the House on 11 November 1998, he will see that, throughout the debate on the Lords amendments, his Front-Bench colleagues took the position that coterminosity was not that important and that it was right to stick at 129 Members.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Duncan: Of course, in the long and involved passage of the Scotland Act 1998, we can find quotations in all directions. I am pointing out the magnitude of the Government's U-turn. It is beyond question that they have gone back on their commitment to implement the Act unamended.
  Mr. Salmond: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the late Lord Mackay was a valiant defender of the Scottish Parliament's right to set its own number of constituencies?
  Mr. Duncan: I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party made that argument in both Houses, and we take no lessons in consistency from the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has waved the white flag on 129. Like me, he opposed the political fix in principle, yet the amendment would allow a stitch-up to let things proceed with some kind of amicability on the Labour Back Benches. Scottish Labour Members have capitulated. The amendment does nothing about the fact that there is a widespread view that there are simply too many politicians in Scotland.
  Mr. Connarty: I do not agree with that last comment, as surely it is a question of the quality of representation, not the numbers. The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the fact that the amendments deal with a fundamental point with which his party agrees: that there should be a better arrangement for the electorate. As it is clear that the Government want to press ahead with 129, following a consultation, it is best to have something that makes sense to the electorate, and not simply to oppose everything on principle, just to wreck the Government's Bill.
  Mr. Duncan: I am coming to some constructive points about the amendment.
  I share some of the concerns that were expressed about the commission and its open-ended nature. The Scottish Conservative party has declined the invitation to nominate someone to the commission, on the basis that it is unnecessary at present. The problem that the commission is being set up to solve is that of non-coterminous boundaries, but the fact is that the Bill will create those boundaries. As the right hon. Member for

  1257
  Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said on Second Reading, the commission is being set up to solve a problem that is yet to be created.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly said that I should be more positive about some of the general themes in the amendment, and I propose to do just that. The amendment goes some way towards offering an electoral framework that we would support, but perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has shied away at the last minute from some of the more direct first-past-the-post elements that we both instinctively favour.
  First past the post creates better elections and engenders better results. We in the Conservative party believe that some of the stagnation in recent Scottish Parliament elections is due in no small part to the proportional system creating a disenchantment with elections and we strongly favour returning to a system that is more focused on first past the post. We would encourage the Government to consider any such possibility carefully in the months and years ahead.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have just realised what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. The Conservative party has declined to nominate someone to the commission, and now he is arguing for first past the post. Surely, he should nominate someone to argue that case within the commission. He is guilty of a total abdication of responsibility—typically Tory.
  Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. Perhaps he did not fully understand me the first time. We take the view that the commission will have its place in time, when the Bill has been enacted, but we have not given up on successfully opposing its passage. If the Bill is not enacted, there is no need for a commission, because we will not have non-coterminous boundaries.
  John Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how his party in the Scottish Parliament feels about first past the post, or PR for that matter.
  Mr. Duncan: We are on record as supporting first past the post. We argued for it in proceedings on the Scotland Act 1998 and will continue to do so.
  Mr. Foulkes: I really am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I note from the amendment paper that his party has tabled no amendments whatever. He has made no constructive suggestions and has said that he is not nominating someone to the commission, in the vain hope that the Bill will be defeated. The Government have a huge majority, so that is absolutely stupid. Surely he can now say that the Conservatives will nominate someone to the commission. To do otherwise is outrageous.
  Mr. Duncan: I do not agree that there is only a vain hope of defeating the Bill. To my recollection, only one Labour Member spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. Every single other Labour Back Bencher was directly critical of it. What will be different is if on Third Reading we can tempt them to follow that through and join us in the Lobby.
  1258
  We believe that the decline in turnout in Scottish Parliament elections has a direct correlation with people's concerns about proportional systems. We believe that the amendment could have been more precise in offering first past the post, although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has some imaginative ideas for first-past-the-post constituencies.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to all my inquiries, he has the absolute, full and complete support of all the Conservatives on the Back Benches behind him? Is he further aware that it would be absolute nonsense to table amendments to a Bill that is absolutely unnecessary? Does he agree that the best sense of all is to give the people of Scotland a chance once again to decide whether they want to keep this assembly—or whether they would rather not?
  Mr. Duncan: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's company in the Committee tonight. He holds up the esteem of Conservative Back Benchers with aplomb, as usual.
  The imaginative proposal for two small constituencies per Westminster constituency offers interesting possibilities. It would allow for a more local voice in the Scottish Parliament, could create a greater link with councils and councillors and could well resolve some of the difficulties with constituencies overlapping council boundaries. It could help with local public service issues, as small constituencies could reflect distinct interests. In my constituency, Wigtownshire and Stewartry face very different issues, and perhaps the two-constituency idea could form the basis of some agreement.
  Under the amendment, there would be a reduction in the number of list MSPs from 56 to 11. One of the ironies of Scottish Parliament elections is that the Scottish Conservatives, who were among the greatest opponents of the list system, were among its greatest beneficiaries.
  David Cairns: A tragedy.
  Mr. Duncan: Perhaps the Scottish Conservatives winning the first by-election of that Parliament made that tragedy somewhat more legitimate.
  There is considerable resentment among Labour Back Benchers about the role of regional and list MSPs. They were sceptical during the passage of the 1998 Act and I suppose that nothing that has happened in the past five or six years has convinced them that it is other than a bad system, badly implemented, and they feel compromised by it. As I said in an intervention, this issue says more about the power struggle within the Scottish Labour party than about how we govern Scotland. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South suggests a reduction in the number of list MSPs, but that will not eliminate the problems caused by arbitrating in disputes between list MSPs and constituency MSPs; simply having 11, rather than 56, does not eliminate the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman proposes that the number of Scottish Parliament regions should be reduced from eight to two. That has a simplistic attraction in that it is

  1259
  simple to administer, but it would reduce the commonality of interest across those regions. He has not been specific about how the two regions would be created but, for argument's sake, Glasgow in the west of Scotland could be one region, and Edinburgh in the east could be the other. If so, I look forward to hearing whether Edinburgh or Glasgow should get the additional Member and the repercussions in the press that will result from that argument.
  Alternatively, the division could consist of one region comprising the urban central belt and the south of Scotland and another comprising everything north of Stirling. In such a case, regional and local interests could be marginalised. For example, no one from the south of Scotland might be elected, with all the Members coming from the urban central belt.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although many of his arguments against having two top-up constituencies are valid, the rules of the House—given the Bill that was introduced—meant that it was not in order to table an amendment proposing only a single list for the top-up? Indeed, the Bill made it impossible for hon. Members to suggest that there should be no top-up Members whatsoever. The amendments are making by far the best of an extremely bad job.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said during my comments on the first group of amendments, this Bill is a clever drafting job. A lot of effort went into its drafting to preclude debate any wider than the Government wanted. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have not been able to discuss some of the issues that he and I want to discuss, even if the Government do not.
  The amendments are designed to engage voters with a system that might be more local to their needs and that provides the opportunity of overlaying a first-past-the-post election system. However, it misses the main point by cementing into the Bill the fact that there will be 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is not what the Scotland Act 1998, or the deal that was done with the Scottish public, is all about. The reality is that the Government have gone back on their commitment and I regret that nothing in the amendments gets us close enough to addressing that fundamental problem. The Scottish public believe that there are simply too many politicians and that fact outweighs some of the superficial advantages of the amendments. On that basis, unfortunately, I cannot support them.
  Mrs. Liddell: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) because I know that they are driven by his desire for coterminous constituencies. Coterminous constituencies are vital to the way in which we go about our business. The electoral system should be devised not for our comfort and convenience, but for that of our electors.
  A fundamental change took place in May last year in the discussions on the coalition agreement, in that it was decided that there should be proportional representation for local government. I shall not go into the ins and outs of whether I find that attractive, but it does mean that four different systems of election will be available to our electors.
  1260
  6.45 pm
  On polling day last year, a friend—he was not a lawyer but a consultant physician—phoned me as he was about to vote. He asked, "How do I vote Labour twice?" I said, "There isn't an awful lot of point in voting Labour twice because this system is so skewed that it doesn't work properly." The problem that we face is the fundamental flaw in the electoral system that was chosen for the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe for a minute that the Scottish Constitutional Convention envisaged the system operating as it is currently being operated. It did not see it as a life-support system for rejects and retreads who could not get elected first past the post. That is not what proportional representation is supposed to be about.
  Although I said that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South and other supporters of the amendment, I regret that I cannot support them in the Lobby tonight. They have failed to take into account the important announcement by the Secretary of State about the establishment of a commission. Given the four different systems of election available in Scotland, even a commission that consisted 100 per cent. of Edinburgh lawyers—God forbid—would conclude that change to the nature of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has to come about. It goes against reason that we should not try to achieve some rationality in the system of election.
  I am disappointed in the Scottish Conservatives for not seeking to be part of that commission. They appear to want to have their cake and eat it. They say that they want first past the post, yet they—along with parties even more minor than them—are among the biggest beneficiaries of the present system. They are not prepared to consider a more rational view of electoral systems in Scotland because it does not fulfil their own self-interest.
  Mr. Roy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories' refusal to join the commission is the politics of the petted lip? It is a question of, "It's my ball, and nobody else is playing if you don't agree with the rules."
  Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend can always think of a good Lanarkshire expression. Certainly, if I were running a ménage, I would not invite the Scottish Conservatives to join it.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I may be one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who knows what the right hon. Lady is talking about. I accept her point about not wanting to miss the bus, but this commission is being set up to solve the problem of non-coterminous boundaries. Until the Bill becomes an Act, we do not have a problem with non-coterminous boundaries. As and when the Bill becomes legislation, we will talk about the commission.
  Mrs. Liddell: One of the key issues that emerged from the vast majority of replies to the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament was the broad consensus on the figure of 129. That consensus sprang in some instances from self-interest, but in others from the fact that we have achieved a constitutional change in Scotland, reversed a system that existed for 300 years

  1261
  and introduced a new one, the most remarkable aspect of which is its stability. Well may the only Scottish Tory in this House mock that: the Scottish Conservatives were root and branch against devolution because they saw, during 18 years of Tory rule, the extent to which their lot in Scotland could be imposed on the rest of us, who did not want it.
  Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Lady talks about introducing stability, but the problems that the Government face stem from the fact that they are already changing the system. Their own Labour Members were with them, so there was a "consensus", as they like to call it, on their side. Now, however, they are moving the goalposts and that is what is causing the problem.
  Mrs. Liddell: The consensus was expressed by the people of Scotland through Civic Scotland and our own political parties—I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that what we are talking about tonight is Labour party policy—and there was clear evidence of support for having 129 MSPs. Some of my hon. Friends who oppose that may now regret not taking the consultation process more seriously. I repeat that it is significant that we are here tonight debating something that, despite its difficulties, is a comparatively minor part of the overall constitutional settlement. Since 1999, a stable Parliament has been in place.
  Constitutional change has been brought about in a stable way, but there is an inherent anomaly at the root of our electoral systems in Scotland. The problem is that we have taken all the different electoral systems in isolation, failing to take into account their impact on our electors. We now have an opportunity through the proposals before us tonight—particularly the proposals recommended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish a commission—to let common sense reign. Let us sort out the mess that is proportional representation and get a system that is fair, transparent and comprehensible.
  John Thurso: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is a serious man and he has proposed a serious amendment, which merits sound argument. It is certainly worthy of debate. I should congratulate him in passing because the last time that I saw him outside this place he was awarded the "Keeper of the Quaich" medal for his outstanding service to the whisky industry—a well merited award, if ever there was one.
  The effects of the amendment are principally twofold. The primary effect would be to create coterminous boundaries, which is a good thing. No one can argue against them; they clearly make for a much easier life. However, we should not become over-concerned about what they do. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) made much of the fact that this is a problem of the Government's own making. The original Bill had the problem in it from day one, because it was structured with regard to the differing boundary commission reviews of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. That meant that, approximately every eight years and for a period of at
  1262
  least two years between the decision of the two boundary commissions, there would be non-coterminous boundaries. That was always in the Bill, so the problem of non-coterminosity is nothing new.
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but were not the building blocks of the Bill based around coterminous constituencies? What does he say about the fact that we are dismantling those building blocks and going off at a tangent somewhere else?
  John Thurso: I do not believe that we are dismantling the building blocks. Rather, the Bill addresses a provisional position to get from where we are to where we want to be. My point is that if the current Bill were left untouched and the status quo accepted exactly as envisaged under the 1998 Act, because of the different boundary reviews between the two Parliaments, there would be repeated periods of non-coterminosity from time to time.
  I want to leave aside the question of coterminosity and move on to the second effect of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, which is far more important and deserves to be considered seriously. That is the suggestion that each of the current Westminster seats in Scotland should be divided into two, with the remaining requirement for 11 Members being made up from two regions. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that drives a coach and horses through proportionality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Labour Members who want a first-past-the-post system and face considerable difficulties in introducing it through this shot t Bill. Returning to first past the post is obviously what they seek. As I said, I respect that; they have been quite open about it. My objective—I shall expand on it when we debate the commission—is a fair proportional system. My hon. Friends and I have always believed that the single transferable vote system provides the answer.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman and certainly Lord Steel and other Liberals agree with us that the current system for electing the Scottish Parliament is crazy. Was not one of the principal architects of that system Canon Kenyan Wright? Is it not interesting that he has now come out in his true political colours as a liberal, so are the Liberals not to blame for this mess and dog's breakfast?
  John Thurso: Much as I respect the right hon. Gentleman, he is quite wrong. The convention produced a number of principles and a practical way of delivering them. Key among those principles was that of proportionality. The House and the Government—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member at the time—quite properly enacted those principles and the result was the Scotland Act 1998.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right that proportionality was one of the

  1263
  key principles of the convention, but one of its other key principles was to have a gender-balanced Parliament. Why did the Liberals not keep their word on that?
  John Thurso: I believe that proportionality in the Scottish Parliament is considerably better than it is here, so we are advancing in the right direction.
  Mr. Salmond: Can we clear up the point about who devised the detail of the electoral system? Was it Canon Kenyan Wright or someone else Was it the Labour party or another party? Who was it in the convention who came up with the magnificent idea of having two votes, even in a list system?
  John Thurso: I am afraid that I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. We all accepted what the convention put forward when we debated the issues in 1998. The Bill was before the two Houses, but I must confess that I was in the other place at the time and I am not sure what happened at this end of the Corridor. What was accepted then, however, was broadly what the convention had proposed. That was right and proper. A critical element of what was proposed was that proportionality should be a key part of any electoral system. As I have said, my hon. Friends and I happily argue for STV, but at that time we accepted the system that had been recommended by the convention.
  Much has been made of the fact that there are four electoral systems in Scotland. In fact, there are three. These are: the first-past-the-post system for this place; the closed list system for European elections; and the current system for the Scottish Parliament. There may be a fourth system for Scottish local government, and it may be—I hope that it will—STV. However, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We have devolved that power and it is up to that Parliament to take the decision. We have debated devolution many times, but the House must get used to the fact that we have devolved power to the Scottish Parliament. It not for us to argue about STV for local government elections, because the power has been devolved.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about STV for local government elections. Will he be honest with the Committee and say whether he genuinely believes that STV will also be used for Scottish Parliament elections in future? That would reduce the number of different ways of electing people in Scotland.
  7 pm
  John Thurso: I would hope that the input that I and my hon. Friends make to the commission—and the input from MSPs and all other interested parties in Scotland—might result in a decision to recommend to this House that STV is the best system. If this House brought forward legislation based on such a recommendation, we would support it. We must deal with the potential consequence of a possible future decision by the Scottish Parliament.
  In an earlier debate, the Minister said that there are two pillars to the argument about maintaining 129 MSPs. As the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, many people want 129 MSPs to be
  1264
  retained in the Scottish Parliament. A variety of reasons can be adduced for that, and self-interest might be one. I believe that the committee system has been one of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, as it has helped to deliver better government for Scotland, and to encourage people to participate in government.
  The maths is as follows: if one subtracts the number of Ministers from the total of 129 MSPs—and it can be argued that there are too many Ministers—and divides the remainder into the number of committees, one discovers that each MSP is already involved in 2.9 committees. Therefore, reducing the number of MSPs will clearly create a fairly impossible work load. There is considerable support—if not overwhelming support—for maintaining 129 MSPs.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Thurso: In a moment. The other pillar to the argument is that it clearly must be right to reduce the number of hon. Members in this House who represent Scottish constituencies. Given that we now have a Scottish Parliament, we do not need a level of representation that predates devolution.
  Those are the two principles involved. If we want to enact them reasonably quickly, a holding Bill such as this one is the only way forward. It is obvious that the right way to proceed is to have a commission to deal with the likely consequences of having four voting systems, to replicate the work of the convention, to achieve a consensus and then to make a recommendation to this House in respect both of a future electoral system for the Scottish Parliament and of coterminous constituency boundaries.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): I call Mark Lazarowicz.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: When the hon. Gentleman—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I may have mistaken the intentions of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). Has he finished his speech, or is he giving way?
  John Thurso: I am giving way.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: To whom?
  John Thurso: I thought that I was giving way to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am very grateful, Sir Michael. After all that time, I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman would come back to me. He mentioned that each MSP was involved in 2.9 committees. Does he not accept that the simple solution would be to have fewer

  1265
  committees? Is not it the quality of legislation and of government in Scotland that is important, and not the quantity of the legislation that is created?
  John Thurso: I do not accept that proposition at all. I certainly do not believe that legislation is the only thing that makes a Parliament good. The effective scrutiny of an Executive's actions are of paramount importance. One of the successes of the Scottish Parliament is that—in some ways, although not all—it is able to hold the Scottish Executive to account far more effectively than this House does for any Government.
  However, I must say that I find the Conservative party's position on these matters almost incomprehensible. Other hon. Members have mentioned the comments made by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I mentioned them on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them today. However, it is clear that, when the Scotland Bill was being enacted, the Conservative party wanted fewer than 129 MSPs. When it was obvious that 129 would be the number, the Conservatives made absolutely clear their belief that the number chosen at the beginning should not be changed.
  The Conservative party has done a complete volte-face, U-turn or whatever one wants to call it. I can have sympathy for the views of hon. Members of other parties who, even though they disagree with me, have held their views for a long time. I hope that they would accord the same respect—if I may put it like that—to me. However, I find the Conservative party's shenanigans completely inexplicable.
  The amendments would not solve the problem. The Secretary of State has set up a commission, which must gather evidence from all parties. It is ridiculous that the Conservatives are not prepared to take part in it.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Yet.
  John Thurso: Once again, they have elected to let down their few supporters in Scotland by standing on the sidelines instead of engaging in the game. They really are letting down the electorate, and they should rethink their approach on this matter.
  Mr. Salmond: I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with interest. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) used the word "yet" when it was stated that the Conservatives did not want to serve on the commission. Are nominations for the commission about to be announced? Is the appointment of the commission being held up until that group decides to catch the bus?
  John Thurso: I could not possibly answer for a Tory, but the hon. Gentleman makes the interesting suggestion that the Conservatives, having engaged in fun and games tonight and found a way to oppose the Bill, will do a prompt U-turn yet again and take part in the commission. That is perfectly possible.
  I shall conclude by saying that it is right to have a commission to look at electoral systems. I hope that the Conservatives do perform a U-turn, as everyone should
  1266
  be represented on the commission. The appropriate time to discuss electoral matters will be when the commission makes its recommendations to this House. I hope that that will be sooner, rather than later. It is because of that that Liberal Democrat Members, if pressed, will vote against the amendments.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mark Lazarowicz.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Thank you, Sir Michael, and I am sorry that I mistook the courtesy of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the conclusion of his remarks.
  When the hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would effectively end the system of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament, he was greeted by a chorus of some Labour Members saying, "Hear, hear!" There is no doubt that one of the amendment's consequences would be to move away from the proportional basis for election to the Scottish Parliament, and that some hon. Members would welcome that. No amendment that would replace the present system with 118 MSPs chosen by the first-past-the-post method could lead to a system that was anything other than grossly disproportionate. However, one of the amendments being discussed would do just that.
  I remind the Committee why we have proportionality in the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, the change in the electoral system for local government means that there is a case for looking at the system of proportional representation used for the Scottish Parliament. However, it is worth remembering why the principle of PR was adopted by all the various parties and interest groups involved in bringing forward the proposals that eventually resulted in the Scotland Act 1998.
  The PR system was not adopted because of the immense power that I wielded in Labour party committee back rooms over a few months some 15 years ago. To say that it was would be to flatter my role in the political process at that time. The Labour party supported the electoral system eventually presented in the Scotland Act because, at party conferences over more than a decade, it had supported the idea of moving towards a proportional system. That was supported, and still is, by the vast majority of trade unions, including Unison, the biggest union in Scotland. It was also supported by a wide range of organisations outside the political process, and it was supported for a number of reasons.
  Some people felt that some proportional system would be fairer than first past the post, which is an argument with which I have some sympathy. One of the arguments put against a Scottish Assembly in the 1970s was that first past the post would lead to domination, based on a small plurality of the vote. If that option had been put forward in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, it might not have gone through. Others recognised that moving to a PR system would make it harder for the Labour party to win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, but would also have the effect of stopping any other party, such as the Scottish nationalists, ending up with an absolute majority on a relatively small percentage of the vote.

  1267
  There were many reasons why a number of organisations came together to support PR for the Scottish Parliament. Certainly, the idea that we should now reject the principle of PR, which would be the effect of the amendment, should not be adopted in the absence of broad consensus among the political parties and other organisations in Scotland. Clearly, there is no consensus for moving away from a PR system.
  David Hamilton: Not everyone agrees with the firstpast-the-post system, but there is not only one proportional representation system I believe strongly in an alternative vote system, which connects the Member with the electorate. It takes 50 per cent. plus to be elected through that system, which is an extremely good one. I wish my hon. Friend would stop justifying his position on the decision that he took some rime ago, which has landed us with the problem that we now face. He can rewrite history as much as he likes, but at the end of the day, that is not what this is about.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: As we are going into history, which I do not want to overdo for fear of straying from the subject, my hon. Friend will remember that one of the strongest advocates of PR for local government was the National Union of Mineworkers, of which he was an active and leading member for many years. History can take us down a number of paths if we wish to follow them.
  It is worth looking at the history because it reminds us that the experience of the Scottish Parliament has not led to a majority of the public moving away from support for some form of proportionality in it. The support among the public for that is as strong as it was at the referendum in 1997. I must tell some of my hon. Friends that it is not me, others who share my view or the Government who are out of step with Scottish public opinion on this matter, but some of those among my colleagues who argue against the principle of proportionality.
  Mr. Tynan: Unless I am wrong, my hon. Friend seems to be speaking about political expediency in the introduction of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament. We have to consider the electorate's participation in PR systems. Does he agree that turning to PR for the European elections has been an absolute disaster for turnout, but that turnout for the last Scottish Parliament election certainly did not suggest that PR was the answer as far as the people of the country are concerned?
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am not for one minute suggesting that proportionality is any electoral panacea for Scotland or elsewhere. As with history, statistics can be interpreted in various ways. Tim drop in turnout between the 1997 and 2001 UK general elections, held under the first-past-the-post system, was even greater than the drop between the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 and 2003. Different things can be drawn out depending on the argument one wishes to make.
  The essential point, which cannot be contradicted, is that there is not a groundswell of opinion in Scotland for moving away from some form of proportionality. Given
  1268
  the introduction of PR for local government, which has gone through the Scottish Parliament and which will happen, no matter what, we have to consider how the different systems will mesh together. Although I was as happy 14 years ago to support the principle of proportionality as I am today, I actually spoke against the system of two ballot papers. Unfortunately and regrettably, as on other issues, my wise counsel was ignored by those who made the decisions. There we are; that, too, is history.
  There is no broad consensus among political parties and other groups in Scotland, or among the population, if opinion polls are to be believed, for moving away from proportionality. If we are to change the electoral system, one thing we certainly cannot do is impose that change on the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament from Westminster. For reasons that we might go into later, I do not accept the Scottish National party's position that the right to change the electoral system should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, the spirit of any change in the system should certainly go with any broad consensus not just in this Parliament but in the Scottish Parliament and among the Scottish people.
  Mr. Salmond: My old university friend might go the extra step by accepting the principle that a self-respecting Parliament should be in charge of its own electoral system. If he did that, he might gain a few friends in the House, which he seems sorely to need at present?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to help me to maintain my friendships on my own Benches. We could debate examples later of how Parliaments and regional assemblies elsewhere in Europe make decisions on changes to their rules. That would be of interest to at least three or four of us.
  The principle that we cannot impose change by edict on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish political settlement needs to be emphasised from the Labour Benches. Since the Scottish Parliament was established, a new political reality has developed. The Scottish Parliament and the political arena around it are well established and as greatly respected as any other political institution in the UK, including this Parliament. That is the nature of the devolutionary change brought about gradually throughout the UK. Politics are not centred here in Westminster, but are being devolved in a real and direct sense.
  Mr. Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend would not mind, I shall continue for a moment. We must recognise that the view, which he recommends, that we can do what we want because we have a majority and can force change through the Scottish Parliament is fundamentally undemocratic. Of course there are times when Governments have to make difficult decisions that may be against the broad body of public opinion. That should not be done regularly, especially by political parties that wish to have continued electoral support.
  Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend has argued that the Parliament is doing well and is settled. Has he had any problems with added list Members?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: No, I have not had any difficulties with additional Members and the activities that some of my hon. Friends have described. However, I accept that some additional Members have acted as he described, and that is one reason why we might seek to change the type of proportionality without abandoning it completely.
  John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the amendments the two new regions would have 56 constituencies, with five or six list Members in each? One of the main arguments for a decent proportional system is to avoid the risk of a minority extreme Government ever being elected again. After all, we speak on the anniversary of the day that Margaret Thatcher was elected to Government on 40 per cent. of the vote.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I have made a strong enough case for proportionality already without being tempted down that road.
  The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has had one of the consequences that those of us who supported it hoped it would. By establishing a Scottish Parliament, it was hoped that the case for devolution in the UK would be strengthened and the case for separatism would be weakened. That has indeed happened. As support for independence has declined, support for devolution has increased. It is no accident that the Scottish National party is now tearing itself apart over whether to embrace extreme independence or to make use of devolution. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has sidelined the SNP and its demands for independence.
  The irony is that the political victories that have been won by those of us who support devolution and the Union, and oppose independence, could be put at risk by those who would try to impose a political settlement on the Scottish Parliament—in terms of proportionality and number of Members—that would not be supported by our Labour colleagues or, indeed, by the vast majority of Scottish political organisations or Scottish society more generally. To follow the path suggested by some of my hon. Friends tonight would be to snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.
  Pete Wishart: It will not surprise the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) to learn that I do not find his amendments attractive, for many of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), in a fine contribution. The amendments would cause as many problems as they seek to solve. My impression was that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South intended that those in first and second places should be elected for
  1270
  the constituencies, but the amendments provide no clear indication as to how he would arrange the election of two Members front one Westminster constituency. I hope that he will tell us when he winds up. Electing those in first and second places might be a good idea compared to what we might actually get.
  On Second Reading, several problems were identified, especially by Labour Members, including those to do with coterminosity, a multiplicity of voting systems and the effectiveness—or—otherwise—of list Members. Do the amendments satisfy those three basic concerns? They certainly meet the test of coterminosity, because they would be based on the new Westminster constituencies. Do they meet the test of the multiplicity of voting systems? No, they fail dismally. If we were to accept the amendments, we would have first past the post for Westminster, first and second past the post for Holyrood, an additional Member list system for Holyrood, STV for local government and the closed list for European elections. That is five electoral systems, so the amendments would add to that problem.
  The third test whether the amendments would address the problems created by the list Members. They would not do so, because—as I pointed out in an intervention—the list Members would be crawling over half of Scotland, making the situation much worse. On the three critical tests identified on Second Reading by Labour Members, the amendments fail two. That is not good enough.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the hon. Gentleman himself been guilty of crawling over parts of Scotland?
  Pete Wishart: As I represent the fourth largest constituency in the UK, I crawl over a fair bit of Scotland. I spend quite a hit of time travelling between Kinloch Rannoch Ind Brechin, although I prefer to drive because it is a more convenient and suitable way to get around.
  I took seriously the concerns about coterminosity expressed on Second Reading. Labour Members may have a point, although they over-egg it. I have never had a constituent express concern about differing boundaries for Seottish Parliament elections and Westminster elections, but I agree that we are more effective when we work in conjunction with our Scottish parliamentary colleagues. Different boundaries might cause confusion in the electorate about whom to approach for assistance and advice. However, the problems would probably not be as bad as some Labour Members seem to believe—they appear to think that a lack of coterminous constituencies would mean the end of the western world as we know it.
  The more pertinent point is the multiplicity of voting systems, and it must be addressed. If the amendments were accepted, we would have five systems. It is unfortunate that we have not had a real chance to debate the merits of the single transferable vote. We tabled amendments to that effect for this debate, but unfortunately they were not selected—I accept that there were good reasons for that. Surely STV would be the most elegant and sensible solution—[Interruption.] Hon. Members shout, "First past the post", but what has happened in Scotland in the past few weeks? Labour Members' colleagues in Scotland are now enthusiastic

  1271
  champions of proportional representation for local authorities. They are prepared to go on record to champion that cause, and I am sure that Labour Members here would cheer them to the rafters for doing so. The STV system will be used for elections to local authorities in Scotland, and it would make sense to have all domestic Scottish elections settled in the same way.
  Mr. Hood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the voting record on the Scottish Executive is not the same as the voting record of Labour party branches and constituencies. In fact, if a vote were held among Scottish constituencies, as many as 90 per cent. would support first past the post, although that is not the case on the Scottish Executive.
  Pete Wishart: Well, there we have it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the Labour party's position. We have seen exposed not so much the divisions between London Labour and Lanarkshire Labour, but the divisions between Labour Members in Westminster. Apparently, there are also divisions between branches and constituencies and the Labour party nationally on this policy. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the differences between parts of Scottish new Labour, because it is very revealing.
  It would be unfortunate to pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the Secretary of State's commission. We support the commission because we believe that it is a good idea. There is a job for it to do and we shall be judicious workers on it. We have provided our nominee well ahead of the time scale set by the Secretary of State—the Conservatives, unfortunately, could not do that. We at least are fully signed up members of the commission and we want to make it work.
  7.30 pm
  It is fair and right that the case for STV is made at this stage, if only so that, after studying our debate today, the commission does not conclude that the only solution the Committee could come up with was the half-baked proposal made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South. As I said earlier, STV is an elegant and sensible solution, given the overwhelming conversion, which I have enjoyed watching, of Scottish new Labour to PR for local government.
  Anne Picking: There are some things that I cannot marry up. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has said that it would be wrong to impose an electoral system on a Parliament in a democracy, so why on earth would it be justified for us to impose—with the support of his party and mine in the Scottish Parliament—a PR electoral system for local government when people do not want it?
  Pete Wishart: What is behind that sentiment is very revealing and shows where the hon. Lady and her colleagues are coming from—they do not like this matter being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They would prefer that decision to be in their hands and that is the real intention behind her question.
  I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about list Members and about Members elected from the additional Members list. Labour Members have a point
  1272
  about list Members; they have not covered themselves in glory and there are issues in respect of their role. There is real disappointment that the list system has not worked, although as I reminded Labour Members earlier, the House itself decided on that system—perhaps that is a reason for giving the decision to the Scottish Parliament.
  Labour Members also have a point when they refer—as several of them did—to the fact that 70,000 Labour voters in Glasgow could not elect one Member in the list. That is a legitimate point, but I wish that Labour Members would show some democratic consistency in applying that principle. What about the 40,000 SNP voters in Glasgow who secured 4 per cent. of SNP councillors in the city? That is equally wrong. It takes about 12,523 SNP voters to elect one councillor in Glasgow, yet it takes only 1,230 Labour voters to do so.
  I accept that there are problems about all those wasted votes and that Labour Members have principled objections to that and to Labour votes being wasted, but they must concede that a first-past-the-post system for local authority elections will also give rise to problems of democratic deficit.
  Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially to a Welsh MP, but is he not missing the point? The worst thing about the current list system is that a candidate can lose in the constituency but still come in by the back door under the list system.
  Pete Wishart: The reason for that is because they do so overwhelmingly well under first past the post—that is why they are not selected. That is a key and legitimate point.
  Mr. Michael Weir: My hon. Friend might like to point out to Labour Members that Peter Peacock came third in Moray, yet he is a Minister in the Executive for their party.
  Pete Wishart: That is a very good point. We do not expect that kind of consistency from Labour Members; they seem to be concerned only with securing a first-past-the-post system.
  Only STV will ensure that every vote counts. It will ensure that tactical voting will not take place on the scale that we experienced during the last Scottish parliamentary elections. If we had STV, there would be no second-vote Green; the Greens and the Trots would have to compete for the first votes like the rest of us. Surely, that makes sense.
  Given that we could solve all the issues on voting systems for domestic Scottish elections, the only real opposition to STV would be if Labour Members were opposed to proportional representation per se. That is closer to the facts, because we have heard from their contributions that they do not want PR for the Scottish Parliament.
  The commission has a big job to do; it will have its work cut out if it is effectively to square all the concerns that we have heard today. However, it must not be used as a fig leaf to cover the real differences that exist in

  1273
  Scottish new Labour. It must not be used to try to heal the wounds that have developed between Lanarkshire Labour and London Labour.
  Mr. Davidson: Although many views are being expressed from the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman makes a mistake if he characterises everyone on them as new Labour.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he sums up the differences in the Scottish Labour party. Indeed, the differences that have emerged during this debate are truly overwhelming. I do not know where he fits into the spectrum, but he certainly has much to choose from.
  The fault lines between the two groups are clear. If there was a free vote on PR for local government, I think one Labour Member would be in favour—
  Chris Bryant: Two.
  Pete Wishart: There would be support from their Welsh colleague, but the rest would reject it overwhelmingly.
  Whisky strip stamps are another issue—[Interruption.] Labour Members are asking about Divisions, so I would give them one on whisky strip stamps. That is an interesting and indicative—[Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. May we have fewer interventions from a sedentary position? I can hardly hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. May I also ask him to address his remarks to the amendments before us?
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Sir Michael.
  My point was that if Labour Members had their way up the road they would oppose whisky strip stamps, but in this place not one of them was prepared to support the whisky industry in its hour of need. That was disgraceful.
  We shall support the Bill. We believe that it is right and that we must have 129 Members for the Scottish Parliament. The amendments are not the solution to the problems that we heard about at such length on Second Reading and again today, and if they go to a vote, I urge the Committee to throw them out. We should support the Bill, but throw out the amendments.
  Mr. Davidson: I want to consider whether the proposals can be improved. They start from the assumption that the system in the Scottish Parliament is the best of all possible worlds and that the current construction—with 129—is not capable of change or enhancement. There are two main reasons why that is not the case.
  First, the existing system is unfair. The situation in Orkney offers an example. The Member for Orkney, who is the Deputy First Minister, was elected with—I believe—3,659 votes. With that figure, he would have won second place in no constituency and would have
  1274
  come only third or fourth in many others. In fact, with 3,659 votes in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, where there were five candidates, he would have come sixth. The absurdity that someone can be elected in one constituency with a vote that would not even have enabled them to come last in another needs to be addressed, so it is reasonable to consider a system that would give us mere equally sized constituencies—[Interruption.] I hear a Welsh comrade, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), say that that is the consequence of first past the post, but it is not simply that. The system is being used in constituencies of grossly unequal size and we must address that.
  Mr. Weir: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how that would change under the proposals we are discussing? I understand that there would be two Members for Orkney and Shetland—a joint constituency, which is not being changed under the current boundary commission proposals for Westminster.
  Mr. Davidson: Let me come to the answers in a moment, but my understanding of the amendment is that there would be two Members for each Westminster constituency, as proposed under the new system. Orkney and Shetland would each remain a constituency in the Scottish Parliament, with one Member each, but every other constituency would be split in half and their sizes would then be less disproportionate to the size of Orkney and Shetland than at the moment. Orkney would no longer have the gross, disproportionate advantage of being able to elect someone with a vote that would give him or her sixth place, behind the five others, in at least one other constituency. Clearly, that unfairness needs to be addressed, but it was not foreseen when the Scottish convention drew up the current system.
  Mr. Weir: Would the hon. Gentleman like to address what the situation would be if the Western Isles constituency were split in two, as it also has a very small electorate, while returning two Members?
  Mr. Davidson: That is a fascinating point, about which I invite the hon. Gentleman to submit an amendment. I have identified a difficulty, and I am happy to support the amendment, which would address it. If the hon. Gentleman has subsequently identified another difficulty, let him submit an amendment to try to deal with it.
  I certainly want to associate myself with the earlier comments about the difficulties caused by list Members who pretend to represent individual constituencies. In the Pollok constituency, which I represent in the House, Johann Lamont was elected by a clear majority at the first Scottish parliamentary elections. She defeated Kenny Gibson of the SNP and Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist party, both of whom went on to pretend to be the constituency Member for the Pollok area. They advertised, presented themselves and went round to organisations, making it clear that they were the representatives for the Pollok constituency and deliberately trying to mislead the electorate. The SNP's internal election results have removed Kenny Gibson from the scene since then, but Tommy Sheridan still

  1275
  pretends to be a Member representing the Pollok constituency. That causes considerable confusion in the minds of many of the electorate.
  I want to echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). Indeed, Australia's gain is our loss in the circumstances. She graphically pointed out the difficulties of the second vote system, which involves substantial numbers of wasted votes because of the way in which it operates.
  Mr. Alan Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, under the amendment, there would be far more wasted votes in the second ballot because the number of list MSPs would be reduced? So why does he support the amendment?
  Mr. Davidson: Let me first outline what the difficulty is before returning to my solution.
  In the second ballot in Glasgow, 77,000 people cast a vote for the Labour party, but they got no one elected. Those 77,000 votes were wasted. However, the SNP and the SSP together polled only 66,000, but they got four people elected. Why can 66,000 votes get four people elected, but 77,000 votes get no one elected? That seems to be patently unfair. Similarly, if the figures for the Liberals, the Greens and the Tories are put together, they polled only 45,000 votes, but got three people elected. So it seems that, with the second vote system, someone can fail to get elected even though he or she get lots of votes, while other people with fewer votes can get elected. Indeed, that applies not only in Glasgow, but in the west of Scotland, Lanarkshire, central Scotland, the Lothians and a number of other areas.
  Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is fair that it takes 87,313 votes—48 per cent.—for Labour to get 71 seats on Glasgow city council or 90 per cent. of the seats there, when the SNP gets three seats with 37,570 votes or 21 per cent. of the vote? Explain how that it is fair.
  Mr. Davidson: Well, we now have someone in the national party of Scotland, as it sees itself, calling for Westminster to take powers away from Edinburgh and to determine how local government elections should be conducted in Scotland. I am prepared to support that suggestion if the hon. Gentleman is willing to table proposals that say that such things should cease to be devolved matters and should be dealt with here. The vast majority of councillors in Scotland, not only from my party but from other parties, would enthusiastically support stripping that power away from the Scottish Parliament.
  7.45 pm
  John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that the reason for the second vote was that the first vote was for a non-proportional, first-past-the-post seat? The second vote was intended to make the entire result more proportional. It was a case not of holding a completely separate election, but of making the entire election more proportional.
  Mr. Davidson: That was not why the system was set up; it was set up to keep the Liberals on board. It was a
  1276
  sweetie given to the Liberals to keep them happy and to stop them walking out of the convention and threatening to sabotage the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. That is why it was done.
  John Robertson: Is it not also a fact that, when those people were standing outside the polling stations, they told the people who were going in, "Yes, you can vote Labour. We don't want your first vote. It's okay to vote Labour, but vote for us in the second vote. Don't worry about that; Labour won't mind because their second vote doesn't count"? Is that what we call democracy?
  Mr. Davidson: Indeed, that is exactly what was said. Not only were the Liberals saying it, but the Trots, the nationalists and, indeed, the Tories were saying it in Pollok. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tories in Pollok?"] Yes, there are a few Tories in Pollok, and we know where they live. Yes, we have got their names. Everyone was clearly saying that the Labour party's votes in the second ballot would be wasted, so people should vote for the other parties. Of course, many people took that advice, which artificially depressed the Labour party's vote in the second ballot—otherwise it would have been much higher. The 77,000 votes that were cast is a lower figure than the number of Labour votes in the first ballot. It cannot be sensible to have a system with two ballots, when people know that their votes will be wasted if they support Labour in at least five out of Scotland's eight divisions. That is not tenable.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to a fellow Labour and Co-operative Member for giving way. As I understand it, he is saying that it is wrong for parties to suggest that voters in the second ballot should vote in a way that does not reflect their preferred electoral wishes but that makes the most of the electoral system. My hon. Friend has been calling for some time for the Co-operative party to do that very thing in the list system for the Scottish Parliament. Has he now withdrawn that proposal, which, of course, has regrettably found no support at any official level in the Co-operative party?
  Mr. Davidson: May I say how glad I am to get that introduction from my colleague? I was identifying the difficulties before moving to the solution, and it seems entirely sensible that we examine it in the light of the two problems that I have identified—the unfair sizes of individual constituencies and the preponderance of wasted votes in the second ballot—whether or not the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) addresses those issues.
  Of course, the amendment clearly addresses both the issues that I have identified. By splitting in half the proposed Westminster constituencies and creating two seats in each, we would bring the seats more in line with Orkney and Shetland, although not sufficiently so in my view. Of course we would also allow a system of gender balance in respect of my own party. That would not involve legislation, but I support that because it would be in line with our view of how any revised system for the Scottish parliamentary elections should be conducted.
  However, let us consider the second system that I suggest. If there is no change in the electoral system along the proposed lines, we must all, especially Labour

  1277
  Members, consider how to react. We have two experiences of every Labour vote in the second ballot being wasted. In those circumstances, the rational response is to consider casting one's vote elsewhere. I know that the Tories, the Liberals, the nationalists, the Greens and the Trots have appealed for those votes at some time. However, I believe that it is far better to cast that vote for a party with which we already have an alliance; it is far better to give it to a nice, kind body such as the Co-operative party, which can be trusted to work more closely with the Labour party than with the Liberals.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), I stand for this place as a joint Labour and Co-operative candidate because, on a first-past-the-post system, it makes no sense for a Labour candidate and a Co-operative candidate to stand against each other. However, under the system that we are considering and that I want to amend, it is irrational for Labour to put up candidates in both categories for the Scottish Parliament elections. In such circumstances, I hope that our arrangement with the Co-operative party would be recast to allow the latter to stand and Labour to stand down in order to create a Cooperative and Labour party alliance.
  I appreciate that I have outlined a new idea, which is therefore considered dangerous. I also know that it was not invented at head office and must be even more suspect. None the less, I hope that Labour Members will consider it on its merits. We cannot continue to ask our people to waste their votes in election after election and subsequently find ourselves forced into an alliance with people with whom we would not choose to share an enclosed space for any length of time, simply because the other alternatives are worse.
  Chris Bryant: Would my hon. Friend want to preclude people from standing for constituencies and the list? That would obviate the problem that we in Wales call the Clwyd, West system, whereby one person wins the constituency seat for Labour and all three losers win list seats and end up in the Assembly.
  Mr. Davidson: I acknowledge that that is a difficulty but I would not legislate against it because I believe that the way in which to address it is to try to reduce the numbers of list members and to make it clear that they have a national rather than a local responsibility. Although I would be prepared to amend the figure of 129 to bring it slightly more into line with the balance of first past the post and proportional representation, we are told that it is a sacred number from which we cannot depart. If that is so, and we have identified 118 first-past-the-post seats, I would choose to elect the remaining 11 representatives on a proportional representation system for the whole of Scotland and ask them to take on a national responsibility and perhaps focus on Committee chairmanships or positions so that they are distinct from the constituency Members, who tend to pick up on local issues and present them in the Parliament.
  It is an unwarranted intrusion into the flexibility and freedom of political parties to tell them that individuals cannot stand for both lists. I appreciate that especially the lesser known parties would want their leaders both
  1278
  to head a list and stand for a specific constituency, knowing that he or she was unlikely to prove successful. I acknowledge the problem but the suggested solution is not appropriate.
  It has been suggested that everyone always accepted the two principles of 59 Members of Parliament and 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the consensus in the Labour party has always been for the third principle of coterminosity. The majority of Labour Members accept that. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South tabled would fulfil the three criteria better than the Government's proposals.
  I hope that, when the Under-Secretary responds, she will tell us more about the commission. I remain anxious about the decade in which the commission will report and in which its reports will be implemented. If we allow ourselves to move beyond 2007, new facts will apply. I presume that that is the intention of those who support delay. After 2007, local authorities would be elected by proportional representation and there would be enormous vested interest in adopting a specific solution wholesale.
  It is more sensible to make decisions quickly, acknowledge our difficulties, judge the success of proportional representation by the turnout for the European elections and conclude that the universal application of first past the post is by far the fairest means of conducting elections in this country.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) tempted me into contributing to the debate. I emphasise to him that I have never argued that voting Labour in the second ballot was a wasted vote. I have argued that voting Labour in the first ballot was a wasted vote and I shall continue to maintain that position.
  The hon. Gentleman said that his proposal about the Co-operative party was a new idea. I congratulate him on re-presenting an idea that I have heard him present many times in the past few years. However, he has a quality that is not given to everyone participating in the debate: consistency. He was the only Labour Member of Parliament who spoke against the current electoral system for the Scottish Parliament when it was debated in Committee on 28 January 1998. When we consider the system and its faults, we should show a little humility and admit that the hon. Gentleman, who opposed it for different reasons—he said that first past the post was best system—was the only Labour Member to identify difficulties in the initial debate. He therefore has the benefit of consistency.
  That does not apply to the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). When only one Tory Back Bencher was present in the debate, it was a little like old times. The only difference was that that used to happen in debates on Scottish legislation when the Conservatives were in government, and the people who were not present carried the vote. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale should have a word with Conservative Members who claim to take such an interest in Scottish affairs and want to vote. The party could at least provide some token representation to show some interest. The hon. Gentleman is more interested in Merseyside than his colleagues are in Scottish affairs.

  1279
  I do not mind the hon. Gentleman's teasing the Labour party about U-turns, but no one has performed more U-turns on the matter that we are considering than the Conservative party. In 1997, the Conservative party in the Lords played a key part in arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to maintain its numbers. It said that it would be impossible for Parliament to impose different systems on the Scottish Parliament. Conservative Member; have done a U-turn on that.
  Conservative Members are about to perform a U-turn on the commission. I should like an explanation. On several occasions when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale his been asked about Conservative participation, he has used the word "yet". We are therefore being told from a sedentary position that Conservative Members are about to change their mind. My only concern, as someone who posted my letter, first-class post, to the Secretary of State, is that it is a bit much to have to wait to hear who is on the commission until the Conservative party eventually decides that it will nominate—whenever the hon. Gentleman is told that he can by his party leader. Will the Minister confirm that she is not waiting for the Conservative party, or will she deal with that point later? The Minister indicates that she will deal with the point later. I am glad to hear it. It would be extraordinary if we were waiting for the commission to be established because the Conservative party was playing some game about when it would nominate.
  8 pm
  I have two points on the subject of debate. I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, for obvious reasons.
  Jim Sheridan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I have no reason to question his integrity or his knowledge of what happened in 1998 in terms of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) being the only Labour Member speaking in the debate. However, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1998, there has been a significant change in personnel on the Labour Benches?
  Mr. Salmond: I did not say that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was the only Labour Member who spoke in the debate. I said that he was the only Labour Member who spoke against the electoral system. Five Labour Members spoke in the debate, including the Father of the House, the then hon. Member for Midlothian, whose successor seems to have a different opinion, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who I suspect still has the same opinion, and the then hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who of course is no longer the Labour party. Only the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was against the system.
  I accept the point that we have learned from experience. I was merely saying that very few people had the foresight at the time to identify the problems in the system. Where did they arise from? I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, but I suspect that the
  1280
  story runs something like this. The Liberal party on the convention wanted a single transferable vote. Although, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) pointed out, the Labour party had accepted proportional representation, it did not accept the single transferable vote and said that there could be a list system. The Liberals then said that they wanted 145 Members in the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party wanted about 100. The figure of 129 was settled on, as the least possible number to ensure some form of proportionality. So there was a process of horse trading, and perhaps it is hardly surprising that the system that arose from that was by no means perfect.
  I have no idea which evil genius decided to have two ballots, which is unnecessary in an additional Member system. It is perfectly possible to operate an additional Member system with one ballot. Incidentally, it could be done—I would say this to the hon. Member for Midlothian if he were here—with ATV in the first ballot. Some people do it that way. I do not know exactly where the two ballot proposal arose from. We have heard Canon Kenyon Wright blamed. I thought that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but he has specifically denied it in this debate and we have to accept his word.
  The key problem with the current system in the Scottish Parliament arises from the second ballot. With great respect to the Labour Members who are concerned about list MSPs crawling all over their constituencies, I was an MSP and had list MSPs crawling over my constituency, but it never did me any harm. I do not reckon that it did the electorate much good, but it was not the most enormous issue. With respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), I do not think that the problem with the two votes is the one that she identified, namely that of people saying that a vote for Labour is a wasted vote. It is perfectly clear from an examination of the statistics on the second vote that a substantial minority, probably the majority of people voting, think that the second vote is a second preference. That applies to every party on the first vote. The fact that some parties reinforce that belief in their campaigning may add to the problem, but it is not the heart of the problem. If someone is given two ballot papers and told that they have two votes, it is a reasonable assumption, even for someone who is quite interested in the political system, that the second vote is not quite the same as the first and might be for a second preference. In my experience, most people think that the second vote is for a second preference. That is the heart of the problem, because it is a real corruption of the political system and must be dealt with, whatever else happens in the commission.
  I am not an expert on the workings of the constitutional convention. To be able to plead not guilty to that is something of an asset, but I know a bit about the way in which the referendum campaign was conducted in Scotland. I have mentioned before that the Scottish news archive shows that the late Donald Dewar had 183 mentions during the election campaign. I had 120. The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts had four. The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had one. The Minister, who was a Back Bencher at the time, had five, and the current Secretary of State for Scotland had seven. Most of them may say that they were Ministers in other Departments,

  1281
  but the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was a Minister in the Scottish Office, and he had 15 speeches and contributions recorded in the referendum campaign. Eleven were references to his previous hostility to devolution; only one was about involvement in the campaign itself. It was launching referendum ice cream, sold by Ricardo Varani, the owner of the Forum café in Kilmarnock. "Very refreshing" was the then hon. Gentleman's comment. He was obviously crawling all over that constituency and sampling the ice cream.
  I do know something about the referendum campaign, and the point was that it was not the specifics of the electoral system—and not even the 129 MSPs—but the idea of proportionality that was very much part of the campaign. Wanting to change the system is perfectly legitimate, given the problems that arise in that respect, but those who want a return to first past the post should remember that, although it was not a dominant or overwhelming part of the campaign, a significant argument in the campaign was that the Scottish Parliament would represent all of Scotland and be elected by a form of proportional representation. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the other Cunninghame Member, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), there is a strong suspicion—without going into the detail of the electoral system that he would like to arrive at—that whatever else may be said about it, it is not a proportional system. Therefore, I suspect that he is cutting across one of the key arguments that were made when we jointly sought the consent of the people back in 1997.
  Anne Picking: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to finish his speech, so I was waiting for an opportunity to ask the same question as I asked a colleague of his. The hon. Gentleman maintained earlier that we should have no right to inflict or impose a voting system on an established democracy. The same established democracy wants to do that by introducing PR in local government. How does he marry the two arguments?
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady is correct. It is not a question of inflicting a system. A legislative Parliament should have the right to determine its own electoral system. Electoral systems can be determined only by legislation and therefore only where there is legislation. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was arguing this, but conceivably under her argument there could be a different electoral system for each local authority in Scotland, which would not be a great idea. If we are concerned about four or five electoral systems, being concerned about 25 might seem a bit much.
  The principle of consent comes through the political forces in the Scottish Parliament. I have been shocked to discover in this debate that it is estimated that only 10 per cent. of Scottish Labour party members support the electoral system for local government that the First Minister announced only a few weeks ago as a breath of fresh air and a revolution in Scottish democracy to which his party was fully signed up. I suspect that he has as much influence on these matters as he did with his call
  1282
  to vote against whisky strip stamps, if I can mention that issue again. The fact that the First Minister of Scotland does not represent what some hon. Members understand to be Labour party opinion is, with great respect, a matter for the Labour party and the First Minister, not for the rest of us. What I can say is that there are enthusiastic supporters in local government—certainly in my party and, I think, in others—of a form of proportionality, but Parliament takes the decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady's colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will take a decision for the best of motives on what they believe in, not for any other base objective.
  The mechanics of the voting system in Scotland have certain flaws, and nobody who has seen that system in operation, or who has experienced standing for election under it, could deny it. The system is capable of change; it should be changed by the Scottish Parliament, and at the very least I hope the Minister can go a bit further than her disappointing allusion. Previous Ministers in her position, while reserving within their opinion the right to legislate, have always conceded that such legislation primarily affects the Scottish Parliament and its view in the matter certainly should be taken into account. As Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish said in 1997, it would be inconceivable for someone else to impose on the Scottish Parliament an electoral system that it did not want.
  Jim Sheridan rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I shall give way one last time, for old times' sake.
  Jim Sheridan: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about two votes and one being wasted, I work on the assumption that at the next general election he will inform his constituents in Banff and Buchan that if they vote for him to come to Westminster that will also be a second vote for him to go to the Scottish Parliament as well. One way or another, one vote will be wasted.
  Mr. Salmond: I am fortunate in that, as yet, my constituents in Banff and Buchan have reckoned it reasonably worth while to elect me to whichever Parliament I have stood for. With great respect, I have more confidence in the judgment of my electorate than I would if they were composed only of the hon. Gentleman. Let us leave that matter in the hands of the people of Banff and Buchan, and I will be delighted to accept their verdict.
  On contribution rates—I shall not talk about my own, of course, as modesty forbids—those of my hon. Friends seem to be higher than those of virtually every Labour Member in the Chamber. That is the case not only for contributions made from the Floor—
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the amendment.
  Mr. Salmond: I accept your strictures, Mrs. Heal. I think that Labour Members know what I was about to say, so let us leave it there and get back to the heart of the issue.
  I believe that the Scottish Parliament—any self-respecting Parliament—should determine its own voting system. The events when this Parliament

  1283
  determined the voting system and legislated on it on 28 January 1978 provide no basis of confidence for believing that it should have another try. It botched up the first go and the Scottish Parliament should be the place where these things are done. I hope that the Minister is at least able to say more about how she shall consider the views of that Parliament on the electoral system. I hope also that she will confirm that she is not prepared to wait until the Conservative party is ready to nominate at some point in the future before getting the commission up and running.
  My last point to the Minister is a serious one, and I hope it is shared widely. Given the problems that have been identified in the voting system for the Scots Parliament from a variety of points of view—for problems there are, without question—can she say whether a new and better proportional voting system will be up and running in time for the next Scottish elections?
  John Robertson: I look at the time and see that I have plenty of it, but I do not intend to lake up too much.
  In relation to his comments about 1997 and 1998, I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wonder how many of my colleagues would now not intervene to try to prevent what was proposed at the time. I agree, as he did with me on Second Reading, with his analysis on ballot papers. One ballot paper is sufficient for anybody. The voting system we might not agree on, but never mind.
  This has been an excellent debate and, as usual, we have had a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the people we are here to talk about and represent probably do not care a jot about what we are discussing and what will happen at the end of it. They might eventually care, but at this moment they do not. Something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said of the commission fully fits practically everything that we are saying today. He said:
  "To me, the commission sounds like a classic Sir Humphrey mechanism. One can imagine the discussion that took place: 'We are creating a shambles—what are we going to do? We'll set up a commission. When will the commission report? After the shambles has been created."—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1182.]
  That sums up exactly what we are talking about in relation to the system that we have in Scotland.
  8.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) asked why we need to open up the Act. I have great sympathy with that question and we have been known to agree in the matter. This comes down to whether we are getting value for money. I am happy to accept 129 MSPs, and I am sure that the people of Scotland would be happy to accept that number if they felt that they were getting value for money. Sadly, I do not think that they are.
  That came out in particular in the Scottish Affairs Committee when we took evidence on the subject, as neither the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nor representatives of the Scottish Executive—I know that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will agree—
  1284
  had anything good to say about the list system. The jokes and the laughter about people crawling over constituencies are only too true.
  Other than the annoyance caused to MPs and MSPs elected under first past the post, there is the cost to the nation. The cost, in Scotland in particular, is vast. Questions are asked in duplicate, triplicate and goodness knows what "iplicate" when we get to about 16 questions, which is a waste of time and money. It has to be addressed.
  Jim Sheridan: On wasting money, my hon. Friend will be aware that that happens not only in the Scottish Parliament, but at Westminster, where we have MPs asking duplicate questions when the answers are available from the ministerial website. Those MPs refuse to get the information in that way, so they waste Parliament's time by asking the questions and using them in a league table.
  John Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to try to get value for money for any Parliament, not just the Scottish Parliament, we must look seriously at the asking of such questions. Nationalist Members may get involved with league tables, but I have to say that certain Conservatives have to take a really good look at themselves and the number of questions they ask. On opening up Hansard, we can find 20 pages filled by questions from one Member. That is not value for money for the constituents he represents, and it is not value for money for the House. It certainly is not value for money for the taxpayer.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would introduce two Members per constituency, but at no time did anyone in whose name those amendments stand talk about the electoral system as such. Two per constituency would keep coterminosity, which, in most cases, has been agreed to be desirable. If not desirable, it is a necessity. Election might be by first past the post, STV or AV—I lean towards first past the post, but then again I would—but that is not to say that there could not be election by another system.
  The fact of the matter is that that is not what the amendment is about. It is about keeping coterminosity and keeping a relationship between Westminster and the Parliament in Scotland. Of course, it would be politically advantageous for the nationalist party to get rid of that. The last thing that it wants is Westminster and Holyrood working together in partnership and doing what is right for the people. I do not think that the Scottish nationalists care two hoots about the people, unless they happen to vote for them. Thank goodness for the rest of us, who do not vote for them in great numbers.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will have played a key part in the referendum campaign in Glasgow in 1997. Can he conceive of the reaction if the Labour party had proposed to the Scottish public a system whereby different constituencies would have been in place for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament only six years on?
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Sadly, at that time it would not have made any

  1285
  difference, because the debate was about not what was going to happen in relation to the Parliament, but for the hearts and minds of the people and voting for a Scottish Parliament. We all worked hard for that.
  I was fortunate enough to be Donald Dewar's election agent, as well as his campaign manager in the constituency because he was out and about in the country. We worked very hard and got a very good turnout in my constituency. We also got a good vote for the Parliament. Lots of parties were involved and that was one of the few times that I have ever congratulated the SNP in my constituency, where it came out, helped and worked hard for a yes, yes vote. The unfortunate thing was that it could not do anything as a party in the Glasgow area to get a yes-yes vote. It was left to the Labour party to do all the work. That was sad, but the good news was that it came out and helped and we got the vote.
  What would my position have been if I had known then how it would turn out? I must speak for myself in relation to that. Not too many people come to talk to me about this subject. They might say that the Scottish Parliament is too expensive, or that there are too many MSPs, but it is not generally talked about. People are more concerned about the delivery of services by the Parliament. The question is: is that good? While there are good points, there are also negatives, and the people will decide, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the amendments.
  Many hon. Friends mentioned local government, which is fair. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that there was no legislation on local government in that respect. Well, there is, but it does not come from the Scottish Parliament. Out of 28 councils in Scotland, 24 would like it to stay that way. They are not happy at being told that they are moving to an STV system. They are not happy about a wee cosy get-together in Edinburgh where deals are done long before anything comes out and appear as a fait accompli to the membership. Because of the numbers game at Holyrood, whereby my party has no overall majority, the tip of the tail must be listened to, because they are doing the wagging.
  Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition is too high a price in giving PR to local government?
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Again, I can speak only for myself—I would not dream of speaking for anyone in my party or anyone else on this matter—but I must agree. I would never have gone into any kind of coalition with any party under any circumstances. I would much prefer to have been a minority Government, and I believe that we would have got better government in Scotland if we had stuck to that. Hindsight is a great thing.
  Mr. Salmond: For clarification—I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman is saying—will he confirm that his problems with this matter are related entirely to decision making in his party? It is no one else's responsibility. If the Labour party want to govern as a minority in Scotland, it has the ability to do it. That was
  1286
  even done in Wales for a time. Those are choices made by his party colleagues and there is no point in criticising the rest of us for something inherent in his party.
  John Robertson: I agree to a certain extent, but the fact is that once we enter a coalition, it is difficult to get out of it. We solidify opposition against us and, in this case, we have the SNP, the Greens, the Scottish Socialist party and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all managing to vote together—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the scope of the amendment under discussion.
  John Robertson: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman goaded me into it, and it is not my fault. A big boy did it and ran away. I think that I have made my point.
  Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 do away with the connection to eight European constituencies, which would seem sensible, as we are doing away with the eight European constituencies. As of June this year, we will have a list-type system under which the top people will be voted in. They will not have constituencies to represent. Why would we want to set up a system in the Scottish Parliament that mirrors a system that no longer exists? Nobody wants to answer that question, which seems fair enough.
  If we do not want eight European regional lists—let us say for the sake of argument that we want to get rid of them—with what will we replace them? Were we to change to the system that my hon. Friend proposes, we could still have a list system of five or six to top up, depending on whether we want to make one seat of the Western Isles. I identified that kind of problem in my submission. Be that as it may, five or six MSPs crawling over the whole of Scotland has a certain appeal to me, as it will keep them busy and well away from me and let me get on with the work that I think that I do very well for my constituents—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I thank hon. Members. I do not know to whom Hansard will attribute that intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Everyone."] That will do for me.
  Amendment No. 7 asks for recommendations on which Parliament can decide. The House must make the laws and decisions. We cannot allow a commission or someone else to make the decisions for us. This is our job. In effect, it is what we get paid the big bucks for. Those of us who want to shirk the responsibility should go somewhere else. We must take on the responsibility and, to that extent, we should make the decision. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that in relation to the commission. I would like the commission to make recommendations—in the plural—not one recommendation that suits everybody. I want recommendations so that we can come to the House and have a serious debate, and nothing less.
  Jim Sheridan: On recommendations, my hon. Friend will be aware that hundreds of our colleagues are in their offices watching this debate and millions throughout the rest of the UK are listening to it. In the event that this proposal is withdrawn or voted down, what system would be recommend to those in the rest of the UK, particularly in England, when devolved government is rolled out?
  John Robertson: I know what my hon. Friend is trying to say, but I will leave that to the English regions. It is not

  1287
  for me to tell them that the system that we have got is crazy. That will be for them, and I hope that they will find that out before they try it and that at least they will listen to us.
  I have spoken for a little longer than I anticipated. The point is that this is the House of government—not just the Front Bench but the Back Benches—and we have the right to our say. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that a mistake was made in the laws back in 1997 and 1998. He is right; I think that there were a great many mistakes. The reason for the House, I thought, was to make laws and amend Bills. Why do we do that? We do it to make those laws better. Is that not what we are here to do? We are here to make the law better for the people of this country. How do we do that without people telling their representatives what they think? I make representations to my party and I Stand on the Floor of the House and say what I think is right. The Opposition say what they think is right and we end up with a Bill that is fit for the people of the country. I see nothing wrong with that: it is democracy. What I do know is that whatever we have today, at some stage we shall have to revisit it. That is what government is all about.
  Mrs. McGuire: I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which the debate has been conducted. As one of my colleagues said—I cannot remember who it was—it has been goodnatured and wide ranging. Amendment No. 1 has prompted discussion of many issues, but I want to deal with all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donahoe) before giving him—I hope—enough time to consider a little proposal that I shall make after that.
  8.30 pm
  I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that his amendments involve technical difficulties. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), however, technical difficulties can be ironed out, and even if they did not exist in this case we would not be minded to accept the amendments. Let me deal first with some of the questions he raised in relation to the commission, the timetabled remit and the membership. I hope that he will take some comfort from what the Secretary of State has proposed, and that what I say will address questions raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), about the way in which the commission will operate.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made clear that the commission would be independent, transparent and consultative. Let me respond to concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) by reminding him that, according to the Secretary of State, the chair of the commission should be a senior politician—not serving—an academic, a business leader or another prominent individual in Scotland. The key qualifications will be transparent independence and a manifest competence in dealing with a complex set of issues. It is clear from this
  1288
  evening's debate that the issues are complex. The chair should be capable of leading an inquiry that will require substantial public consultation.
  Mr. Hood: How will it be possible to select an independent chair who is political but not party political, and who will do the selecting?
  Mrs. McGuire: It has been made clear that the senior politician—if a politician is selected—will not be a serving politician. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the process of appointing the chair and members will involve consultation with the commissioner for public appointments.
  I cannot emphasise too much—various Labour Members in particular have raised this issue—that the commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State and the First Minister, after which the Secretary of State will decide on the Government's response. He will of course take account of the Executive's view, but, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, ultimately it will be for the House to decide. An independent commission will not be making decisions for the House. We have the legislative responsibility, and we will continue to exercise it. As for the time scale, the inquiry will start as soon as possible and will be expected to finish within 18 months to two years. The process has already begun.
  Mr. Davidson: It is not clear to me whether the recommendations will consist of alternatives, or of a series pointing in the same direction.
  Mrs. McGuire: What I am not prepared to do, and what we were not prepared to do on Second Reading, is anticipate exactly what the commission will come up with. If we establish an independent commission with a remit that, in my view, is quite broad but at the same time very focused—if that does not sound like a contradiction in terms—we must allow it to make the recommendations that it sees fit to make. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assured the House on Second Reading, however, they will be recommendations, not proposals made on a "take it or leave it" basis. Ultimately, it will be for the House of Commons and Parliament in general to decide whether to enact whatever emerges from the recommendations.
  Pete Wishart rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: There is another amendment that the Liberal Democrats would like to be dealt with, but I will give way.
  Pete Wishart: I shall be very brief. The Secretary of State said that the commission would report to him and to the First Minister. The Minister has just said that its recommendations will then come to the House of Commons. Will they also go to the Scottish Parliament, which is the subject of these changes, for its approval and consent?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is again trying to put words into my mouth. What I said was that the commission will report to the Secretary of State and to the First Minister, and that the Secretary of State will

  1289
  then consider the recommendations—I have now said that three times. The Secretary of State will then decide on the Government's response, taking into account the Executive's view. If there is a need for any legislation, it will be the responsibility of this House, but that brings me—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: Not at the moment because I want to deal with the issue of the commission and its membership.
  We were extremely disappointed at the actions of the Leader of the Opposition—I cannot quite remember his constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Folkestone and Hythe.?] Right. In his letter, he states that he would not wish to participate in the establishment of the commission and that its establishment was "premature". That was reiterated by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). I would have some, not sympathy but understanding for that position, were it not for the fact that, within 96 hours of the boundary commission report in respect of the new Dumfries and Galloway seat, the hon. Gentleman was acclaimed as a prospective parliamentary candidate for a seat that, according to parliamentary procedure, did not exist—we had not yet laid the order for the new boundaries for the Westminster Parliament. If the Conservatives are going to start to stand on principle, as they see it, they need to think through the logic of their argument. I suggest that logic and principle do not sit easily with the Conservatives.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: As I have challenged the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to give way.
  Mr. Duncan: The Minister, without getting too hot under the collar, has to answer the simple question: if the commission is being set up to address primarily the issue of non-coterminous boundaries, why is it necessary to set it up now, prior to the Bill being passed by both Houses of Parliament?
  Mrs. McGuire: We can find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I will come to the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and deal with the commission's remit, which has exercised hon. Members over the past couple of hours.
  Mr. Roy: Is it not a contradiction for a Member representing a constituency to call themselves a prospective parliamentary candidate before the legislation is passed here, yet speak differently in this Chamber?
  Mrs. McGuire: That is the Conservatives for you.
  The Government have to oppose the amendments. Our commitment since the announcement to the House on 18 December 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), then
  1290
  Secretary of State, on the future size of the Scottish Parliament has solely been to retain the current number of MSPs and the boundary structure of the Scottish Parliament.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I would like to make a little progress because we are running up against a timetable for Third Reading.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: All right.
  Mr. Salmond: I make two very quick points. First, a few seconds ago, the hon. Lady said the report would come back to the Secretary of State, who would take into account the opinion of the First Minister and the Executive. Did she mean the Scottish Parliament, or the Executive? Secondly, on something that is of interest across the Committee, is it the Government's intention that, if changes to the Scottish Parliament system are recommended, they will be in place in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections?
  Mrs. McGuire: I said what I said and I will say it again; we have made no secret of this. The commission will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the First Minister. The Secretary of State will then decide the Government's response, taking into account the Executive's view. That is the constitutional settlement, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman, before he gets in a twist, that the reality is that, of course, the commission will look to engage with Scottish politics and civic society. I would be astonished if MSPs—either individually or in groups—did not present evidence to the commission, which will take evidence from various people. This is becoming a bit tedious, but I repeat that the commission is expected to complete its work within 18 months to two years.
  Mr. Hood: In response to the Scottish Affairs Committee report, the Government said that they wanted the commission to report back in time for 2007, but my hon. Friend has said that the commission may take 18 months to two years. It seems that there may be some flexibility and the commission may run over. Will she reassure the Committee that the commission's timetable will allow it to do its work and report back in time for the 2007 election?
  Mrs. McGuire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted the commission to start its work as quickly as possible and indicated that the anticipated time scale would be between 18 months and two years. I do not want to elaborate further on that.
  I assure hon. Members that the fact that the Conservatives have refused to participate in the establishment of the commission will not mean that the commission's work and deliberations will be delayed. If we had to wait for the Conservative party to make up its mind on what it wants to do on devolution, we would be here until kingdom come.

  1291
  The amendments, even if redrafted to achieve the desired outcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, would create a radically different electoral system and would significantly reduce the proportionality in elections to the Scottish Parliament. I am not aware of any consensus or general support for the model that he and other hon. Friends propose.
  Even if such a new electoral system for the Scottish Parliament were a valid and ultimately popular option, it is entirely premature for this proposed solution to perceived problems to be accepted. It was quite clear on Second Reading, and from the broader debate outside this House, that there is at present no consensus either between hon. Members or within civic Scotland on whether changing the electoral system to the Scottish Parliament is appropriate and, if so, what alternative arrangements should be introduced. We have heard a variety of options this evening.
  We are of course not blind to the concerns raised by a variety of hon. Members, from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, through to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). We made it clear on Second Reading that we were aware of the difficulties that might follow from the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies as a result of the passage of the Bill and from a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. Indeed, that was why we welcomed the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Committee on the possible impact of non-coterminous boundaries on voters, party organisations, electoral administrators and others.
  In response to the Select Committee report, the Scotland Office said:
  "This will be an issue for the independent commission on boundary differences and voting systems to consider. The commission will examine inter alia the consequences of having different boundaries between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament constituencies for voter participation and representation of constituents by different tiers of elected members."
  It is clear that that is part of the remit.
  The Scottish Affairs Committee also commented on difficulties in relations between elected Members, the electorate and other bodies following the overlapping responsibilities of constituency and list Members of the Scottish Parliament. There is also the imminent prospect of four different voting systems operating in future Scottish elections—an issue alluded to by many hon. Members. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consulting the First Minister, announced that the commission would look at the consequences of different constituencies for Westminster and Holyrood elections, and that the Commission should be set up now and not left until after the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007 as previously planned.
  I am pleased to report that work on achieving that is well advanced, in spite of the reluctance of the Conservative and Unionist party to participate. We have now received suggestions from political parties for members of the commission, and we are actively involved in the process of selecting the chairman, in consultation with the First Minister. We hope to announce the name of the chairman shortly.
  1292
  8.45 pm
  As I have already said, the commission will be independent, and will consider the case for change and make recommendations. It will be the commission's task to look at all the matters that might give rise to the difficulties that hon. Members have identified. As we announced on Second Reading, the commission will examine the consequences of four different voting systems in Scotland and of different boundaries at Westminster and Holyrood. It will consider the implications for voter participation, the relationship between public bodies and authorities in Scotland and MPs and MSPs, and the representation of constituents by different tiers of elected members.
  The commission will also be asked to make representations on whether the consequences of such matters require action to be taken on arrangements among elected representatives to ensure that constituents and organisations receive the best possible service. That links with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who said that he wanted the freedom and liberty to do what he does best: to represent a constituency in his own area. The pattern of electoral boundaries in Scotland will also be part of the commission's remit, as will the relationship with other public bodies and authorities in Scotland and the method of voting in the Scottish parliamentary elections.
  With all respect to hon. Members who have tabled amendments, I suggest that it is not now this House to which we should be directing our proposals and comments in the first instance, but the new commission on boundary differences and voting systems when it is established. It is precisely the issues that hon. Members have raised today that the commission will want to consider and weigh against alternative representations and options.
  Devolution was achieved because of a remarkable degree of consensus across Scotland. As we have previously argued, there must be a degree of consensus throughout Scotland before any further changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament are introduced. May I say, with great respect to colleagues, that the way in which the Scottish Parliament is constituted is not just a matter of concern for hon. Members, or even for political parties in Scotland. The electorate and civic society in Scotland, too, are entitled to have their say. The commission will be expected to carry out its remit through a wide-ranging consultation designed to achieve general support for any change. Having thus considered the various views and options, including those of hon. Members, it should reach its conclusions and make recommendations. Then, and only then, can we consider how best to proceed.
  For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments. I hope, however, that my response has given my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South enough confidence that the independent commission, in terms of both its remit and its timetable, will meet some of the concerns that he and other colleagues have raised. Having said that, I congratulate hon. Members on their contributions and on the thought that they have put into their proposals. I know that some concerns are deeply felt, and cut across party lines. Hon. Members have clearly set out an alternative view for elections to the

  1293
  Scottish Parliament, which has taken the debate forward and will be of immediate assistance to the commission when it begins its deliberations.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that the consequential amendments will not be pressed to a Division. We recognise the concerns that hon. Members have raised today. The independent commission, as some hon. Members have clearly identified, will give us the opportunity to discuss those concerns, maximise the consensus in Scotland and ensure that the Scottish Parliament, which has been built on consensus, will go forward on the basis of consensus. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Donohoe: It has become obvious that there is a widely held view that we should maintain the 129. All parties have agreed that that is still in the best interests of the best performance of the Scottish Parliament. The only exception to that consensus is the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
  I would like to go into detail on the interesting contributions that we have heard, but that would be inappropriate in view of the time.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale surprised me when he said that his party had turned down the chance to make a contribution to deciding who was on the commission. That will not help us to make progress at the rate that I believe is required to allow us to solve some of the problems that have emerged not just tonight but over the whole period of discussion on the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) powerfully emphasised my point that we tend to forget that the most important people in all this are our constituents. We clearly have not taken full account of how important it is to have them on our side. She also mentioned the four different systems, which have engendered a debate that is fundamental to the need for change and for the commission to work in a timely way towards a single system.
  Mr. Davidson: As having four systems has been identified as a difficulty, and as we currently have only three systems, would it not be sensible for the Scottish Parliament to refrain from changing the system of election for Scottish local government until after the commission has reported?
  Mr. Donohoe: There is a point there, but we have no control over what the Scottish Parliament does.
  I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for his fulsome praise at my being appointed a keeper of the quaich. As a master of the quaich, with the long service that he has, he understands what an honour that is. A great deal of work is undertaken not only by myself but by others in the all-party group on Scotch whisky, and I am glad that that has been recognised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) suggested that the list system was flawed, and even he wanted it changed.
  1294
  Coming from the architect of proportional representation on these Benches, that is quite something, and it was very well received.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that he, too, supported 129. He asked specifically how I would have the two Members elected. I said at the outset that I did not intend to close my mind to the different options available. I said that my first preference was for one male, one female—perhaps with a blue paper and a pink paper—which reflects the fact that the Labour party is among the few with anything close to a gender balance in the current Scottish Parliament, and there is a lot to be said for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) mentioned constituencies being divided into two. The possibility of the person who comes second being elected was also suggested, but that is a matter for others to determine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining clearly the absurdity of the current system.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave us his usual history lesson. Sometimes, history does teach us something, but the essence of his contribution was to point out his belief that additional list Members crawling all over his constituency will not do much good for his constituents. I accept that view; indeed, it is one of the main reasons why I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) rightly said that, at the moment, people do not care a jot about this issue. However, when it begins to affect them, they will care a lot. My biggest worry is that they will not vote. In such circumstances, democracy is the victim.
  The Minister has answered some of my questions, such as who will chair the commission. I am grateful to her for making that issue clear, and I am also happy with what she said about time scales. A time scale of 18 months, rather than 24 months, will be satisfactory—at least to me.
  I tabled the original amendments before 9 February, when this issue was previously debated. In the light of the work done by the commission since then, and having considered the various issues, I shall not press the amendments to a vote tonight—not least because of the contributions made by Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] I apologise—I sat down too early. The Whip is sat in front of me. I do not know what he is doing there—perhaps he is doing the wrong thing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Alan Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 10, at end insert—
  'Rule 5
  Wherever the boundary of a constituency for the Scottish Parliament is not coterminous with the boundary of a constituency for Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the Boundary Committee (as the case may be) shall ensure that the names for the different types of constituencies shall be different.'.
  I shall be brief. Although I support the Bill, as drafted it will result in unnecessary confusion. In 23 cases, constituencies for the Scottish Parliament will have different boundaries from constituencies for Westminster, but the same names. For example, there

  1295
  will be two constituencies of Aberdeen, North, and two of Aberdeen, South. That is not the fault of the boundary commission, which thought that it was producing a report that would work for both Parliaments. Legislation should be put in place to ensure that we do not end up with constituencies with different boundaries but the same name.
  In view of the lack of time, I do not intend to force a vote tonight, but I look forward to the Minister's response.
  Mrs. McGuire: The intention behind the hon. Gentleman's amendment is to avoid any confusion that might arise from the decoupling of Westminster and Holyrood constituencies where such constituencies will have the same name. It will place the relevant requirement on the boundary committee of the Electoral Commission after the changeover has taken place, but as we have discovered, many electors prefer to stick with a well-established and accepted name for both their Westminster and Holyrood constituency—for example, Banff and Buchan, Gordon and East Lothian—notwithstanding the fact that the boundaries are not identical. We believe that they should retain that right, and I have every confidence that before the same name is adopted for a Westminster and Holyrood constituency, future reviews will take full account of the possibility of confusion and other difficulties that might arise.
  As drafted, the amendment would apply only to the new rule for future boundaries, and would make no difference to the current situation. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
  Mr. Alan Reid: In view of the Minister's assurances that the boundary commission will take the considerations I have outlined into account, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001, 6 November 2003 and 9 February].
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.1 pm
  Mrs. McGuire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Over the two days of consideration—on Second Reading and in Committee today—we have had useful and interesting debates on the issues in the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to our debates, as well as parliamentary counsel and civil service colleagues who have been involved in the drafting of the legislation. This is a short Bill, focused on a relatively straightforward objective—to remove the existing statutory link in the Scotland Act 1998 between the number of constituencies at Westminster and those at Holyrood. That position was supported by a wide-ranging public consultation, which showed overwhelming support for retention of the current number of MSPs.
  1296
  However, as was made clear on Second Reading, we are aware of concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies in the future. That is why we are setting up an independent commission to look at boundary differences and voting systems.
  The debate and varied proposed amendments today have shown that there is a range of views on the extent of the potential problems and what the best solutions might be. Further consideration of the issues is clearly necessary, and I entreat all colleagues in the House to ensure that they participate fully in the commission's deliberations. I appeal once again for the Conservative and Unionist party to reconsider its decision not to nominate candidates for the commission. The party has stood outside some of the major constitutional developments that have taken place in Scotland. If it is serious about participating in Scotland's development, the party should reflect again on its decision.
  We announced on Second Reading that we would set up the commission as soon as possible. As I said in earlier debates, work is now well advanced towards achieving its establishment. We now have the political parties' suggestions for members of the commission and we are in the process, in consultation with the First Minister, of selecting the chairman. We hope to announce the chairman's name very shortly.
  If tonight's deliberations are anything to go by, the commission will have an important and potentially far-reaching task. However, we should be confident that it will be able to carry out its task, consulting openly and fully with the people of Scotland and their representatives, Once again, I hope that hon. Members will participate fully in the debate over forthcoming months.
  The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill marks a small but important step in the machinery of devolution, and I commend it to the House. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give it a fair wind on its way to the other place.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I have said consistently today, and on Second Reading too, that this Bill is unnecessary. It has no purpose. It is merely a political fix that the Government are determined to force on their Back Benchers. The evidence from the debates today and on Second Reading is that those Back Benchers are, at best, unwilling and, at worst, complicit in that fix.
  The Government have performed a spectacular U-turn. They made a deal with the Scottish public at the time of the referendum, but they have gone back on that commitment. The depth of their despair was made clear by the appointment of a commission. It is often said that when a Government have second thoughts they will undertake a review; that when they feel that a further reassessment is required they will have a structural review; and that when they are contemplating an embarrassing U-turn and want to do a deal with their Back Benchers, they will have a commission.
  The Government have set up a commission to solve problems that do not yet exist. Those problems will not be created until this Bill completes its passage through the House.

  1297
  In passing, I note that, in the Committee debate that has just ended, the Minister quoted from a letter written by my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. In that letter, the Conservative party's decision not to make a nomination to the commission at this stage was made clear. The hon. Lady omitted to quote from the final paragraph of the letter, which states:
  "If and when the Bill is passed, I would be happy to put forward a recommendation of someone to serve on the Commission."
  That is our position, and it is worth putting it on the record.
  The commission is being set up to solve a problem of non-coterminous boundaries that will be created by the Bill. The Government are creating the problem that the commission is being set up to fix.
  Pete Wishart: If the Bill receives its Third Reading this evening, will the Conservative party submit a nomination to the commission, or will that happen only after the Bill has been through the House of Lords? For how long does the Conservative party intend to hold the process up?
  Mr. Duncan: I do not want to speak for the Minister, but I think she made it clear that we are not holding up the process. My right hon. and learned Friend's letter is clear: the phrase
  "If and when the Bill is passed"
  implies approval by both Houses. At that time, we will submit a name for consideration by the Secretary of State.
  The devolution referendum was a dialogue with the Scottish people, based on the proposals in the White Paper that was the originating document for the Scotland Act 1998. It is worth noting the importance of that White Paper, which in effect set out the terms of the contract governing the relationship between the constituencies of Members of Parliament and of MSPs. Lord Sewel recognised the importance of that deal; the whole thing was a package, not something from which one could simply pick and choose. That package was put to the Scottish people in its totality, if I dare use that word. Lord Sewel said:
  "That was in the White Paper. That is what we campaigned on. Having looked at the arguments again, on balance we think that that is the right proposition."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]
  We campaigned on that deal, but the Government are seeking to cast it aside.
  The Government know that things have not changed. They knew then, and they know now, that coterminosity is vital to good working relationships between MPs and MSPs. Donald Dewar said as much during the debate, and the Minister and the Government know it now. However, that does not fit with the deal that they are trying to hatch to get them through this political conundrum.
  The Government knew then, and they know now, that a reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament is possible and achievable. It is possible to deliver a Scottish Parliament that is lean and fit, and which
  1298
  delivers for Scotland without necessarily having 129 MSPs. That number was a consequence of taking the number of Westminster constituencies, and then applying a proportional element: 129 was not set in stone, and it is not a necessary requirement for the delivery of good and effective governance in Scotland.
  Finally, the Government knew then, and in their heart of hearts they know now, that a big Parliament does not make for better government. Better legislation does not depend on having bigger Parliaments, more Committees and more MSPs. We in this House should focus on what is best for the Scottish people. We should be after quality legislation, not necessarily more legislation.
  An amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 could be made only at huge political risk. The Government knew that before, and they know it now. Having been through a difficult afternoon at the hands of her Back Benchers, the Minister knows the large political risk taken in the Bill, and the fact that she has introduced it illustrates the power struggle between Holyrood and Westminster within the Labour party in Scotland.
  The Bill is a kick in the teeth for Labour Members in Scottish constituencies. They have been asked to swallow their pride on the boundary review at Westminster. They have been asked to accept a cull in their numbers, which has created significant problems for some of them. They have trooped through the Lobbies when they have been requested to support a failing and struggling Government. On issues that are not applicable in Scotland because the equivalent powers have been devolved, their support has been critical to the Government's success in forcing through unpopular legislation, on top-up fees in particular and on foundation hospitals. They have been shown to be more loyal on those issues than Labour Members representing English constituencies. They have done everything expected of them, and arguably a good deal more.
  Then came the Bill They were lumbered with it as the other side of the deal. Having done all that was expected of them, they saw a part of the deal that they understood was in place withdrawn from them. Members of the Scottish Parliament, whom some Labour Members here deeply mistrust—that mistrust is misplaced—are to be excused the cull in their numbers. They have been let off the hook, and Back-Bench Labour Members know that their Front-Bench team has done a deal it should be ashamed of. Scots are sick of having too many politicians in Scotland. They have again been let down by Labour on the scale of government north of the border. Labour Members have had a kick in the teeth from their own Front Bench on an issue on which they thought a deal had been done in the Scotland Act.
  Much of our debate has focused on alternative electoral systems. We had a useful debate on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), which raised the possibility of the first-past-the-post system for some of the constituency alterations that he envisaged. To put things straight and on the record, let me say that there is no doubt that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party believes in first past the post. It creates good elections, good representatives, and good and decisive government. We shall continue to make that case in both Parliaments.

  1299
  There is another side to the deal hatched in the Scotland Act, which promised a reduction in the number of MSPs, that the Government have reversed. That other side was a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Members from Scotland face a reduction in number from 72 to 59 By introducing the Bill, the Government have shown their contempt for the Scotland Act's provision on the number of MSPs. We shall hold them to account on their supposed determination to bring forward the boundary review on constituencies before the next election. I received some reassurance in that regard when I received a copy—it is always a delight to get them—of the Secretary of State's Edinburgh, Central constituency newsletter. It begins:
  "Parliamentary constituency boundary changes mean that the Edinburgh Central Constituency will disappear at the next General election."
  To my knowledge, that is the first time the Secretary of State has been so specific. I am delighted that he has been, and the Minister can rest assured that we shall spare no effort in the coming weeks and months to ensure that the Government are unable to worm their way off that hook. The reduction in the number of MPs from Scotland is a critical part of the Scotland Act, and we want to see it implemented.
  Mr. Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman has said that he intends to oppose the Bill. However, if the Bill were lost, the boundary commission report would be delayed, because it would have to draw up regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament before it could report. That would make it less likely that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament would be cut at the next election.
  Mr. Duncan: I do not see any need for that process to take very long, and there would also be other ways to achieve that end—for example, by secondary legislation.
  There are too many politicians in Scotland, the cost of the Parliament is burgeoning and the cost of the Executive is exploding. Administration costs have risen by £95 million in the past seven years. Ministerial cars have increased from eight to 14 in the same period. Staff numbers in the press office have increased from 60 to 90 and by more than 1,000 in the Executive office in the same period. The Government north of the border is exploding in size and quantity. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist party believes in small Parliaments and in small government.
  The political landscape in Scotland is clear, with one party—the Scottish Tories—committed to delivering smaller government for Scotland. All the others have become addicted to the bureaucracy and softened by the waste, so that they are unable to contemplate a devolved Scotland being governed by any fewer than 129 MSPs. Would that have been any different had the original number been 200 or 250? We have no way of knowing. The simple truth is that political parties have become consumed by their own importance. They have forgotten the interests of the man in the street, who is tired of Scotland's over-governing and is demonstrating that in declining turnouts in elections. Who would have thought that fewer than one in two would vote in the second elections to the new Scottish Parliament, which—the Government were keen to point out—had
  1300
  been anticipated for 300 years? Four years on, and less than half the population wished to participate in the second election. That was due in part to the issues addressed in the Bill: Scotland has too many politicians and the public know it.
  We will oppose the Bill tonight. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation, and the Scotland Act 1998 should be implemented in full. I was pleased to receive the support of some Labour Members in an earlier Division on amendments that would have delayed the implementation of the Bill. I hope that more will have the confidence to back with their support in the Lobby their significant support for our view in the Chamber.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) asked for support in the Lobby tonight, but that would be to vote for a cut in the number of MSPs from 129 to a much lower figure. No Back Bench Labour Member would do that. We have criticisms of the electoral system, but we do not want to destroy it. We want to be more constructive and to improve and enhance the Scottish Parliament.
  I regret the fact that we have had such a narrow debate about the Scottish Parliament today and recognise that that was because the Bill was deliberately drawn so narrowly by the Government as to preclude wider discussion. That was a major mistake. We should not be so defensive about the work of the Scottish Parliament that we are afraid to have a debate about its activities. Its work has been overwhelmingly positive. The media in Scotland have focused on some negative aspects, but the Parliament has achieved far more for Scotland in its relatively brief life than we could have reasonably expected, and it will continue to do so. It will build on the success that it has achieved so far in a way that justifies the faith that I and so many of my hon. Friends had in devolution, even when it was a minority position.
  I turn again to the commission, as it seems to be an integral part of the Government's position. The more I listen to the Minister, the more I cannot help feeling that we have been sold a pig in a poke, because there is no chance that anything resulting from the commission will be implemented in time for the 2007 elections.
  We are in May 2004. It is suggested that the commission will take a minimum of 18 months for its work, so that takes us, at the earliest, to November 2005, which is less than 18 months before the next elections to the Scottish Parliament. We are led to believe that during those 18 months it will be possible to consider the commission's report, set up a dialogue with the Scottish Parliament and other interested parties before we come to a decision and then put that decision into legislation. Even after the legislation is passed, boundary changes will have to be considered and implemented.
  All that leads me to believe that it is inconceivable that anything from the commission will be in place in time for elections in 2007. I am willing to wager a modest amount with anyone in the Chamber who thinks otherwise. I look forward to discussing the matter with anyone who assiduously supports the Government in all things to see whether anyone is daft enough to put their money where their vote will go. It is clear that there is no chance that any changes can be in place by 2007, so in

  1301
  those circumstances it would be much better to be honest with the people of Scotland and say, "This is something for 2011, so we shall take our time and do it thoroughly."
  We have also been told that the commission will look at relationships with other public bodies, which will take us into something altogether different. I am not entirely clear about what it means but I am sure that in due course it will be an alibi for delay. If anyone wants to wager a fiver or an amount in any other currency, I shall be happy to take them on, but the fact that no one is leaping forward to take my wager is an indication that my money would be safe if I were to make it.
  Finally, I want to think out loud on behalf of people in my constituency Labour party and in the Labour party in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, about what we should do now in preparation for the next set of Scottish elections under the existing system, particularly in relation to the second ballot. It is clear that voting Labour in the second ballot in Glasgow and in several other areas will be an utter waste of time. We cannot justifiably ask people to waste their vote when there is no prospect of gaining any seats as a result of that vote, unless we lose five of the 10 first-past-the-post seats. If, as we get closer to the election, it looks as though we might lose five of those 10 seats, I might revise my opinion. However, it is likely that we shall win at least eight or nine seats; I expect us to win 10, but even if we slip a little, the second vote will still be wasted. We cannot in good conscience ask people deliberately to waste their vote in the second ballot. We need to have something more constructive to say.
  I shall support the Government tonight, even though I regret this missed opportunity both to defend the work of the Scottish Parliament and to seek constructive improvements to the electoral system. Nevertheless, we are where we are, so, with considerable reluctance, I shall support the Government.
  9.24 pm
  John Thurso: This small Bill is simple and straightforward. None the less, it has given rise to serious points and it is right that we had the opportunity to debate them.
  As an interim measure, the Bill will do the job that it sets out to do. It was introduced because a simple mistake was made in 1998, about which both the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Democrats warned the Government. The mistake was thinking that, as the Parliament was set up with a set number of MSPs, no one could possibly seek to change that number less than six years after it was set up. We are here today because that mistake has been recognised and needs to be rectified.
  What I find extraordinary—bearing in mind the late Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish's cogent arguments, which have been mentioned already today—is the complete reversal that has gone on among those on the Tory Front Benches. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) now says that coterminosity is everything and that the numbers can fluctuate, when his predecessors said in 1998 that, once people had picked a number, they had to stick with it.
  1302
  At that time, we decided that coterminosity was of less importance. It is extraordinary that the views of those on the Conservative Front Bench should oscillate in that way.
  I find that even more extraordinary when we are offered a commission with a serious opportunity to consider all the issues. That is the place where we can look at the various election methods. The AV system has been mentioned and it is a perfectly valid system. The first-past-the-post system is valid, but it is not one that I happen to agree with. All those systems need to be considered in such a forum, so that the views of all Scots, not just those who happen to be present in the Chamber, can be taken into account. It will then be our job to consider those recommendations and debate them, and we need the time to do so.
  It shows a stunning lack of political judgment that the Conservative party should fail to take part in that process, unless this were all some curious device to be able to vote one way today and another way at a later stage. The lack of judgment displayed by the Conservative party in that regard is equalled only by its leader's lack of judgment over the Butler inquiry.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Perhaps I have not made myself clear—if so, I accept the hon. Gentleman's admonishment—but the commission is being set up to resolve the problem of non-coterminous boundaries. Despite the lack of support from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), we still think that we might muster the numbers to oppose the Bill. We have not given up hope. Until the Bill completes its way through the House and becomes legislation, we do not have a problem with non-coterminous boundaries.
  John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman might have persuaded himself in the shaving mirror about that argument, but he has not persuaded anyone else.
  It has become clear that a substantial majority of people in Scotland clearly understand that we need to maintain the number of Members at 129, or there or thereabouts—if it were 128 or 130, I would not quibble—to be able to preserve the workings of a new, young Parliament. That is the consensus view. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) pointed out, the Scottish Parliament is successful and has done a good job and we do not need to start rocking the boat at this juncture. It should be allowed to continue to do its work.
  There are two simple reasons for hanging on to 129 Members. First, the Scottish Parliament is working well and, secondly, because it is just settling down. I have always thought that it would take two or three Parliaments for the Scottish Parliament to settle down properly. However, there are clearly consequences, two of which have been debated at length tonight. One of them is the lack of coterminosity that will follow the next general election.
  As I mentioned earlier, the lack of coterminosity is built into the Scotland Act 1998. Approximately every eight years, when there is a boundary commission review, which takes place at different times for the two Parliaments, there is a period between general elections in each Parliament of approximately two years when the boundaries would be different. The consequence was there—we all knew that it would be—and it is not quite the great bugaboo that everyone has made out.

  1303
  The second consequence, which is only a partial consequence, is that the Scottish Parliament may choose another electoral system and vote for single transferable vote for local government. It is perfectly sensible that a commission should consider both voting and coterminosity and make recommendations. As I said on Second Reading, I hope that that will happen reasonably quickly. The Under-Secretary has given us some assurances about that.
  Given the need to act with reasonable dispatch to preserve the status quo on the one hand, and the consequences of that—coterminosily or its lack and the voting mechanism—on the other, it is clear that we need a mechanism. The commission is a sensible way forward and my hon. Friends and I will be happy to make representations to it. I hope that hon. Members who believe in AV and first past the post will present their arguments, as we will make ours for STV.
  Let us hear from the commission and base our decisions in the House on what it says. However, for the moment, let us pass a small, straightforward Bill that corrects an obvious mistake and preserve the future of the Scottish Parliament from the sword of Damocles of change.
  9.31 pm
  Pete Wishart: As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, the Bill is small, but it has produced a big and useful debate. Although the measure was designed exclusively to decouple the link between the reduction of the number of Members of this House and the desire to retain 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, we have had the opportunity to examine many other important issues to do with Scottish Parliament. It has therefore been a valuable use of time.
  It is fair to acknowledge that it is our first opportunity to debate the Scotland Act on the Floor of the House since it was passed in 1998. I hope that it is the first of many such revisits to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that several other hon. Members share that ambition.
  The debate has given us an opportunity to examine the problems of coterminosity, consider voting systems and assess the workings of additional member systems of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament. However, the genuine difficulties and challenges in the Labour party were much more revealing. The Westminster group and the Edinburgh group take different approaches arid the differences emerged in our debates. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends remind me that there are differences within the Westminster group. A problem has been identified and I hope that we shall now work towards a sensible solution.
  The only outstanding issue for me and my hon. Friends is the role of the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State made it clear when he announced the commission that it would report jointly to the First Minister and the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary has subsequently told us that it will report to those fine upstanding gentlemen and then be considered by the Scottish Executive before reverting to this place for further consideration and approval. The system appears to work until we get to the last bit. I am worried
  1304
  about the matter reverting to this place, given the hostility that has begun to emerge from Labour Members towards the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we can get a commitment that the consent of the Scottish Parliament will be required before any significant changes are made here. This Parliament will be subject to change and it is right that the parliamentarians who are elected by the Scottish people and who are accountable to them for their decisions have a say in the matter and that their consent is given to any changes made here.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced his intention to set up a commission to examine such issues. The Scottish National party looks forward to participating in the commission, of which we shall be judicious members. I share the disappointment at the Conservatives' decision not to join the commission at this stage. I agree that it represents monumental folly on the part of Conservative Front Benchers.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said in reply to my earlier intervention that he intends to join the commission after it has met for several months. That is some contribution from the Conservative party. We will all be part of the commission, trying to find a solution to some of the major problems that we have identified. Then along will come the Tories, once the Bill has finally gone through. That is an unsatisfactory solution for the Tories and I urge them to think again about serving on the commission.
  My colleagues and I will support the Bill on Third Reading because, along with the majority of people whose views have been canvassed, we believe that 129 Members are absolutely necessary for the Parliament to do its work effectively, not only because of the Committee system, but because that figure has been identified as the minimum to make the Parliament work. Again, only the Conservatives are against the measure.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman said that 129 is the minimum figure. Does that mean that the Scottish National party would like a bigger Scottish Parliament?
  Pete Wishart: Yes, is the short answer. We would like to think of the Scottish Parliament as an independent normal Parliament, contributing to the rest of the nation. To perform that function, we would need more MSPs, or Members of Parliament, as they would be in an independent Scotland. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would join us in that ambition. I am disappointed in the attitude of Conservative Members, who will vote against the Bill tonight. They will oppose it just as they opposed the Scotland Act 1998 in the first place.
  A number of Labour Members are itching to join the Conservatives. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is not paying attention, but his "stick with the Act" campaign is probably doomed to ignominious failure this evening. I sense that he would quite like to join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight to oppose the Bill, so that he could stick with the Act.

  1305
  The figure of 129 is right, and we are committed to it. We look forward to the work of the commission. We hope that it can deal with some of the issues that have been identified in the two debates and we will certainly work with the commission to ensure that some solutions are delivered so that we can start to go forward.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 104.

  Division No. 158]

  [9:36 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Colman, Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corston, Jean

  Austin, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Baird, Vera

  Cranston, Ross

  Baker, Norman

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barrett, John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Breed, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Edwards, Huw

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Efford, Clive

  Bryant, Chris

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burgon, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cairns, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  1306

  George, rh Bruce (Walsail S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  MacDougall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, rh Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harvey, Nick

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Heath, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Holmes, Paul

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Miliband, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moore, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, rh John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Perham, Linda

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Picking, Anne

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prescott, rh John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lamb, Norman

  Purnell, James

  Lammy, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Leslie, Christopher

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

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Love, Andrew

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McCabe, Stephen

  1307

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Teather, Sarah

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Thurso, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salmond, Alex

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Salter, Martin

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Truswell, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Weir, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

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

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wishart, Pete

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woodward Shaun

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Younger Ross, Richard

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Gillian Merron

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Goodman, Paul

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Grayling Chris

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gummer, rh John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hammond Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg rh Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cameron, David

  Laing Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Mitchell Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Flock, Adrian

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  1308

  Norman, Archie

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Spring, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paice, James

  Syms, Robert

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Randall, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Redwood, rh John

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Widdecombe rh Miss Ann

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  wiggin, Bill

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ruffley, David

  Young, rh Sir George

  Selous, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simmonds, Mark

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  and

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  DEFENCE
  That the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 66), dated 14th January 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[Vernon Cooker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  BANKS AND BANKING
  That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  That the Customs and Excise Duties (Travellers' Allowances and Personal Reliefs) (New Member States) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1002), dated 1st April, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Vernon Couker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Enlargement of the European Economic Area) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DISPOSAL OF BATTERIES AND ACCUMULATORS
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15494/03, draft Directive on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators; supports the Government's intention to welcome the draft Directive and supports the Government's aim of securing legislation that achieves a high level of environmental protection and harmonisation of the single market, at lowest cost, taking a risk-based and proportional approach, and of ensuring that final collection and recycling targets for spent portable batteries and accumulators are challenging, but achievable.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Education (Pupil Exclusions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 402), dated 23rd February 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Vernon Cooker.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr Peter Robinson be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Gregory Campbell be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TRANSPORT
  Ordered,
  That Mr Gregory Campbell be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Data Protection Legislation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  9.55 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: May I start with the happy task of congratulating the Minister most sincerely on his recent engagement to be married, and wish him and his fiancée every happiness for the future?
  Before I come to the specific issue relating to data protection and the Information Commissioner Mr. Richard Thomas's advice on how that affects all hon. Members, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind and sympathetic advice about how these issues, and what led up to them, could best be presented to the House. In particular, I thank very many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for their friendship, help and support. I will not, however, take any interventions, as I have quite a lot of ground to cover.
  I have perhaps made some errors of judgment—to which I shall return—as we all do being human, but I have not made any mistakes about my parliamentary friends. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—I have worked directly for all of them on the Front Bench in recent years—for all their strong support. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), our Chief Whip, and other Whips, some of whom are here tonight, and most particularly, of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am proud to serve as a shadow Minister, both for keeping me in that position and for helping me to rebut some of the outrageous slurs, smears and character assassination that some of my local opponents have seen fit to put in the national and local press.
  I have been accused, among other things, of racism, despite all the many speeches I have made and the work that I have done in the House over the past 12 and a bit years, and for many years before that with many groups representing ethnic minorities as varied as the Ahmadiyya Muslims—one of whose UK leaders is one of my lifelong friends—as well as with Greek Cypriots, and Taiwanese and Caribbean groups. I am glad to say that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear to me that they never accepted for one moment that allegation. I have also been accused of not being a team player That is almost just as hurtful to someone such as me who has been so passionate about team sports all my life.
  The very good news for my party and its leadership is that, in future, a lot of matters will change and the huge surge in support and in fund raising that has come about, particularly recent times since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe became leader of my party, will mean that there will be no need for any reliance to be placed on some of the disreputable matters and dubious people whom I

  1311
  will mention later. I should also stress that I firmly believe that, if only my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden had been able to remain chairman of my party for just a little while longer, he would have continued the remedial work that he had already begun, and what has recently happened to me could not then have occurred.
  Throughout the recent process in my constituency party, I was advised—I am sure correctly—by some of the leading media experts in my party to concentrate entirely on the positive aspects of what I have sought to do in my 12 and a bit years so far in the House: my work for constituents and for my party. That of course includes dealing with such issues as data protection, the subject of the debate. I did that and I replied as little as possible to the smears and allegations that were peddled against me.
  In a Parliament of more than 650 Members, there are perhaps only 10 or so on each side of the House who will ever become household names among the general public, and known outside their own area or outside the circle of political aficionados. Of the other 630 or so, even if, like me, they have been shadow Ministers for a number of years, all the rest are in the category of those memorably described—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker].
  Mr. Hawkins: All the rest are in the category of those memorably described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—our Chief Whip—as doing the unglamorous, unpublicised but vitally necessary hard grind of taking important Bills through Committees, debating and scrutinising important legislation word by word, line by line and clause by clause, as well as doing the work that Members on both sides of the House seek to do for constituents. It is not the kind of work that will often get one in the news headlines or top billing on the political programmes, but it is the lifeblood of Parliament's central and crucial role in this United Kingdom, and something in which I have always passionately believed.
  The kind of shadow Front-Bench jobs that I have done, such as shadow Solicitor-General, do not get one into the news very often, but they are important. They do not enable one to become a celebrity MP, but they are vital. Many Members, including senior ones from both sides of the House—cross-party friends, as well as other parliamentary colleagues—have kindly come to me in the last two or three weeks to say things such as, "There but for the grace of God go any of us" and, "Decisions must be taken by all parties to ensure that things like this cannot happen in future to those known to be diligent and hard working." Also, I feel that I owe it to the many constituents who regarded me as having been a good MP for them in the constituency, who have contacted me by phone, letter, fax or e-mail, or who have been in touch with local newspapers and radio to say, "What is the real story here? We don't understand", to put some of the real facts on the record.
  As I have never been a Member who has sought to become a celebrity, this may only be a footnote to history, but in contrast to all the negative rubbish that
  1312
  some of my local opponents have peddled to the press, I should like to see it in Hansard as an accurate footnote. I also want to be quite clear that none of this is after-the-event sour grapes. As my hon. Friends who are present—and many others who could not be here tonight—know, I have been trying to deal with some of these issues for years.
  Journalists, as we know, are busy people, and many, wanting a brief report on a controversy involving a non-celebrity MP, simply looked up their cuttings file, found that they had a story about my divorce and remarriage from several years ago and recycled that, as if it were the reason for recent events. I was disappointed by that, since it was obviously upsetting for my wife, my former wife, my children and stepchildren. Fortunately, four of the five children are now grown up. The facts are that recent events were not related to that at all. It was not even mentioned at the meeting where a majority—led by the local cronies to whom I will come later—voted to deselect me.
  The lack of relevance of that matter to recent events is confirmed by the fact that, since my separation, divorce and remarriage, I have been both reselected and re-elected. I have been remarried nearly three years, so that was not the real issue. The real issues, as so often, revolve around power and money and the ambitions, jealousy and greed of a tiny handful of people who set out to persuade many others whom they kept in the dark about the real history. Some of it, but only some, began to be reported in one of the national newspapers last weekend. I believe that there will be further investigations.
  I was first elected to this House—contrary to media and pollster predictions—to represent the old Blackpool, South constituency at the 1992 election, against the swing and with a small majority in a seat that was very marginal on its old boundaries. Hon. Members will remember that boundary alterations in the middle of the 1992 to 1997 Parliament produced many major changes—not least that the revised version of my constituency became, on all the figures and predictions, a safe Labour seat, even before the landslide swing to Labour in 1997. I, like many other MPs—not only Conservatives, contrary to some mythology—had to seek to move if I wished to remain in the House. I adopted a self-denying ordinance in that I decided to apply only to seats where there was an open selection: where no sitting Conservative Member had a prior claim because the new seat had been part of his or her constituency. In practice, I was considering applying only for those seats where colleagues were retiring.
  My current constituency was a new creation. There had never been a constituency called Surrey Heath before; it was carved out of parts of three pre-existing seats, and all three sitting Conservative Members were retiring. Two of those had been highly respected Ministers and both—my noble Friend Lord Howell of Guildford, now in another place, and the late and much lamented Cranley Onslow, who was latterly and for tragically too short a time Lord Onslow of Woking—were active and diligent constituency MPs.
  The third retiring Member, also now deceased, was Sir Michael Grylls. I have discovered subsequently that pretty well all the problems that I have had were caused by the fact that all the administration and almost all the

  1313
  leading figures in the constituency association, who were running everything, were inherited from his old North-West Surrey constituency. While we were colleagues for just a short time before I became his successor in part of his old seat, I never had any reason to fall out personally with Mickey Grylls, as he was known. However, he has been described, even by some of his closest friends and protégés in this place, in less than flattering terms. Of course, that matter, too, was covered in the national press at the weekend. I would not want to speak ill of the dead, but anyone who is interested in the history might want to revisit the three volumes published by the Committee of this House that looked into the Downey report produced by Sir Gordon Downey and published just after the 1997 election.
  The concern that I soon came to have was that, throughout the time that Sir Michael was pursuing his parliamentary and his linked business activities, which Sir Gordon Downey and others investigated and reported on so thoroughly, he had left the administration of the constituency in the hands of the people who have more recently caused me a great deal of trouble. Since that time—since reports such as that to which I have just referred—parliamentary rules have tightened up considerably, but the views, beliefs, activities and attitudes of the party agent Mr. Alan Cleverly and his closest crony Barry Price, who boasts of having been a senior officer of the association continuously since 1986, have not changed at all.
  The very fact that in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country, which has no shortage of active members, someone can be elected and re-elected continuously for a period of some 18 years as a senior officer of the association must in itself cause a question mark, I would suggest. So far as Mr. Cleverly is concerned, he will have been thinking until the reports in last weekend's press that he has lived up to his name and is now even more powerful because he has managed to get rid of an MP without his name ever appearing—until now.
  Of course, that is not the end of the story. I stress that there are some among those who run the association with whom I get on well and who have behaved perfectly properly, so I am not making blanket accusations about everyone involved, but there are some individuals who have been in power, in my view, all too long. Their view is that they should control both the activities and the financial arrangements of a Member of Parliament in their entirety. My refusal to bow to their demands is what they really mean by saying that I am not a team player. If I am not a team player, as those people allege, I ask rhetorically how it has come about that I have been chosen for the teams of all of the past four Conservative leaders? In both government and opposition, I have been chosen to join the team. All the past three Opposition leaders have both appointed and promoted me in their teams.
  I express my grateful thanks, also, to Officers of the House, including in particular Archie Cameron, the director of operations at the Fees Office, who has regularly produced helpful letters to the officers of my association, seeking to explain in great detail the rules as they apply to Members of Parliament. They have simply refused to believe his and others' letters.
  1314
  For the whole of my eight years representing this constituency, I have faced constant pressure to hand over money from either my own taxed earnings or, more seriously, Commons allowances—and this to a constituency party that constantly boasts of being the wealthiest in the country and raising the most money. As I have been conscious at all times of how tight the rules for hon. Members are, I have refused to provide any more than I have felt can be properly justified by my limited use of the party's facilities locally.
  Recently, the local party said to me that because it provides me with an office it will measure the floorspace of the whole association building and charge me for the proportion that my office occupies, whereas one should really consider the cost on the open market of my use of the room, which has been restricted to regular surgeries. I stick to my judgment of what is an appropriate claim on the taxpayer, as I should, and I know that I have been supported in that stand not only by the director of the Fees Office but by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and senior members of my party.
  An extraordinary document emanating from the multi-faceted business empire built up by Mr. Cleverly—it has been referred to in the national press—is the invoice that I received during the last Parliament, headed "Cleverly Consultants". One would not expect a Member of Parliament to receive such a document from an employee of the party who is supposed to be its agent for the area.
  Furthermore, let us consider how the agent has perhaps not worked in the best interests of my party. He has been involved in producing two newspapers issued from the constituency offices that bear pictures promoting Labour Ministers. I am not asking the Minister to comment on that, as he is probably very pleased about it, but imagine whether, if the roles were reversed, a Labour party agent would remain long in post if he published something from his constituency office that had Conservative spokesmen on the front page.
  To stress that I have no difficulty with the vast bulk of my party's supporters and volunteers, let me say that I joined the party as a Young Conservative, aged 16, in Bideford, I was an active student Conservative at Oxford and I was subsequently heavily involved in the voluntary side of my party. I have held pretty well all the offices in the various constituencies that I have lived in, up to and including deputy constituency chairman for the former Rochford Member, my great friend Dr. Michael Clark. I also chaired one of our main think tanks, the Bow Group. I know how valuable the work of ordinary volunteers normally is. There are many dedicated volunteers whom I have worked hard with over the past eight or nine years in Surrey Heath, and many of them voted for me to stay on.
  When I was a volunteer and a constituency officer, I was always loyal to the MP I was working for, but there is another category of people who hold office in parties: those who want to use their position to do others down or replace them or to benefit financially or politically. They are the inner circle of cronies in the cosy cartel built up over the years by Mr. Cleverly.
  In the run-up to my selection as the Conservative candidate for Surrey Heath in 1996, the document that featured in the national press at the weekend was

  1315
  published: the so-called guidelines saying that anybody who wished to be considered for selection had to fax it back and say that, if chosen, they would be prepared to provide £10,000 or thereabouts. Even since, despite all the rule changes and letters from the director of the Fees Office, those involved have sought to treat that as a binding contract. In my view, that was probably contrary to the rules even in 1996— it has certainly not happened in any other constituency that I am aware of.
  Also, I discovered shortly after my selection that I was not supposed to win. The agent, a professional employee who would have to work with whomever was chosen, was not only allowed to vote—a most extraordinary thing in itself—but had in effect been organising the campaign for a local lady whom he wanted to succeed Mickey Grylls. I narrowly defeated her in the final, and was taken that same evening to a function that seemed to have a very odd atmosphere. It was not all that surprising that the atmosphere was odd: I discovered subsequently that it was supposed to be the victory party for the local lady. However, the agent felt that, because I had narrowly won, he had to take rue to it anyway. It does not help matters that Mr. Cleverly is from the Europhile wing of the party, whereas I have always been known as a Eurosceptic.
  Immediately after the 1997 election, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who was Parliamentary Private Secretary to our then party leader, having become MP for that constituency, approached me in the Lobby and said that at a meeting held here in the Palace of Westminster to which his attention had been drawn, the party agent—an employee of the party—had attacked the new leader, saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) should have been chosen instead.
  Ever since then, Mr. Cleverly has sought to undermine me and if possible to get rid of me—to the fury and despair of other senior party agents who live in my constituency—because he saw me as a threat to the money-making activities that he has built up on the back of his position as a party agent, all of which are run from the constituency headquarters. He has built a little empire, to which I was a threat. It is perhaps no coincidence that in the few days before the vote was taken by the constituency executive to deselect me, a decision was taken by some of my hon. Friends to remove a substantial part of the business income that Mr. Cleverly had previously earned from some of his activities.
  As I have said, it has been a matter of great concern that "Small Business News" and many of the other publications do not seem to be working in the interests of my party. I believe that the agent has been fixing things for 20 years to boost his business income, but one has to look at what he has done in terms of the job that he is supposed to do, which is to help our party. When Surrey Heath borough council was first created, every single elected member of it was a Conservative. While the agent has been in office, the situation has changed. Now, we hold the council by only one seat, and a couple of seats were held by only one vote. So in his time, he seems to have concentrated on money-making activities rather than politics, which is the wrong way round. Most of my party's members have no idea about this business empire or what has been going on.
  1316
  What about the other cronies who have managed to get on to the list of candidates for my party? In the past, two of them—Mr. Robinson, who is now the president, and Mr. Harper, who is now the chairman—have sought my help. Indeed, I have in my hand a couple of files that illustrate how they sought my help. Mr. Robinson asked for my help in 2002 in order to join our party's list of candidates. I have mentioned errors of judgment; perhaps it was an error of judgment on my part to support his candidacy. I have a letter that he wrote to me in the summer of 2002, thanking me for my support in his application to join the candidates list. I also have letters thanking me for supporting his efforts to get one of his employees—a young lady called Gurana Granov—into the UK. I do not know why he was so interested in getting her into the country, but I helped him and got a thank you letter for doing so.
  Mr. Harper is on our candidates list, and it has been reported that he wishes to succeed me. Shakespeare once said that those who wield the dagger rarely wear the crown. Even if these people have failed to succeed in stabbing me in the back, they have sought to stab me in the front. I am sure that it will be remembered by other constituency associations when I say that when colleagues have been in the process of retiring, I have spent a lot of time recommending Mr. Harper—when I thought that he was a good man—for consideration as a candidate. I have even invited him to dinner here with retiring colleagues, spending my own money entertaining him, so that he could find out about other constituencies. I have no doubt that the way in which he has repaid that support will be noted by the other constituencies to which either of the two gentlemen in question might apply.
  All those people believe and openly say that the Surrey Heath constituency raises so much money that, and I quote,
  "we are entitled to have a Cabinet Minister or shadow Cabinet Minister as our MP".
  The most extraordinary aspect of the whole saga is that they now believe, having deselected me, that they can return to having normal meetings as if nothing has happened.
  Finally, I turn to the effect—
  Mr. Speaker: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman mention the word "finally", because I must give the Minister an opportunity to reply.
  Andrew Mackinlay: It is not the Minister's fault—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member says, it is not the Minister's fault. I should also say that I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude and he may wish to know that the Minister can reply only on certain matters that he has raised.
  Mr. Hawkins: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I turn finally to the data protection issues, which I have discussed with the Minister outside the House, so I can be brief.
  The Information Commissioner has helpfully stated how Members of all political parties can avoid the problem in the future. He said, and the Minister has seen the letter:

  1317
  "How the Data Protection Act applies to political parties is dependent on how the parties are organised. If … local constituency parties are considered at law to be separate unincorporated associations … this means that, for data protection purposes, each local constituency party will need to address its own data protection responsibilities. It is … important to be clear about the nature of the relationship between individual local constituency parties and the party's 'central office' … It is important to be clear whether members sign up to join a 'national' party and do so by applying direct to the central office and/or by applying to their local party, or whether members, by whichever route they apply for membership, are in fact members of the local constituency party in which they live. Whatever the position, this should be made clear to members when they join. Further it should be made clear to members who will have access to their membership details. For example … Will details be made available to any member of their local constituency party? Will they be available to the constituency MP? Will they only be made available to the local branch officials to use for party administration?"
  That is crucial, Mr. Speaker, because you and the Minister will appreciate that if, in future, any MP of whatever party is able, with the protection of that advice, to gain access to the full list of members, the local party apparatchiks would not be able to spread rumour and innuendo. The MP would be able to talk to directly to members and perhaps the 50 per cent. of my local party members who did not vote in the reselection ballot might then have voted. I am concerned to ensure that what happened to me does not happen to other hon. Members in future. The Information Commissioner has provided the way out of the problem.
  Those who know me well know that I am a film buff. Some will have heard me say that I was inspired both to read for the Bar and subsequently to go into politics by the performance of the great actor, Robert Donat, in the film of the Terence Rattigan play, "The Winslow Boy". The crucial phrase said by the actor is, "Let right be done". To add a more contemporary political reference, the present Governor of California's most famous character says, "I'll be back". I have not gone yet, Mr. Speaker, but let right be done and I'll be back.
  10.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The fact that it is not the Government's fault is one of the first things that needs to be put on the record—[Interruption.]
  I start by thanking the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his kind comments at the outset. Clearly, the House will note with great interest and considerable concern many of the illuminating comments that he made this evening. There are wider issues, in respect not only of the rules governing the dissemination of political party membership lists, but of the circumstances that he encountered in the course of the selection and reselection process by the local Conservative association.
  Before I address some of those wider issues, I should like to put on the record my own observations about the hon. Gentleman. He has been my opposite number during the past year while I have been Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I have always held him in high regard and with great respect.
  1318
  Although we disagree fundamentally on policy and party positions, he has always been very courteous, thorough and assiduous in his duties. I find that the hon. Gentleman is effective in making his party's case, raising pertinent questions and holding the Government to account. I know that he feels, deeply, that that is part of his duty. I am sorry that he is now less likely to continue in that role in the next Parliament.
  I shall deal only in the briefest sense with some of the issues that have been raised in connection with the guidance from the Information Commissioner on the application of data protection legislation. The Commissioner operates independently of Government. Except for the courts, only he can give an authoritative interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act sets the rules with which all organisations using personal data must comply, and also creates rights for individuals in respect of their personal data.
  The 1998 Act sets out a general framework of eight good handling rules known as the data protection principles, which regulate the processing of personal information. The rules are not prescriptive: they are not "dos and don'ts", and organisations must use their judgment when applying the principles.
  The first data protection principle is of particular importance in the context of membership details of political parties or other organisations, whether at a national or a local level. Among other things, the first principle requires personal data to be processed fairly. That means being open with the people from whom one collects information about how one intends to use that information.
  Specifically, the first principle requires organisations—known in the legislation as "data controllers"—to make clear to people, when their data are collected, the identity of the data controller or his nominated representative, the purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and any further information that is necessary in the specific circumstances to enable the processing to be fair.
  However, as the Information Commissioner pointed out in his letter to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the 1998 Act does not dictate who, within any membership organisation, should have access to membership details. Instead, the position is that the organisation should clearly establish who will have access to the membership details concerned and then ensure that that is made clear to members when they join.
  Finally, it should be noted that the 1998 Act does not require the disclosure of personal information if an organisation does not wish to disclose it. That is not part of the Act's remit.
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made a variety of comments about allegations about payments to local associations being required as a condition of selection, and so on. I do not want to go into those too much, although the stories are worrying. They suggest that candidates were sometimes viewed as valuable commodities in more ways than one.
  As we all know, if hon. Members wish to donate sums of money from their private salaries to their local parties, that is their business. The report in the Mail on Sunday raised the spectre that some hon. Members might have their freedom fettered by demands for

  1319
  payment as a condition for selection or reselection. However, there is also a separate issue about the use of public funds.
  If hon. Members use their personal allowances to purchase services from political parties or others, there are basic obligations that must be observed. Mr. Cameron, head of operations in the Department of Finance and Administration, wrote to all hon. Members a year or two ago to say that in such cases hon. Members must lodge with the Fees Office copies of their service agreements and/or rental agreements, and that they must also satisfy themselves that any sums paid to party organisations in this way are for services actually provided, and that they must represent value for money for the taxpayer. Those are pretty fundamental matters.
  1320
  As I said, at this stage it is probably best that I do not comment on any individual cases, although the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath are now on the record. Any specific questions about the use of parliamentary allowances would not be for me or the Government to answer, but for the relevant House authorities.
  In the meantime, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has clearly exercised his right to put his case on the record, and that is now available for his constituents to read and to hear.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. KEVIN HUGHES in the Chair]

Occupied Territories
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
David Winnick: The debate is undoubtedly topical. The rejection by Likud members this weekend of the plans drawn up by Prime Minister Sharon should not lead us to believe that those plans were in any way right; it merely shows the deeply held views of a very right-wing party that wants to hang on to all the occupied territories, and the lobbying by the settlers, who obviously have much influence in the Likud party.
I requested this debate because of deep concern about Israel's intentions for the occupied post-1967 territories. The plan, as we know, was to evacuate the Gaza strip but to remain in occupation in nearly all the rest of the Palestinian land. That concern was deepened by President Bush's endorsement of the plan. The very fact that the most powerful nation—the one country that has such influence with Israel—was willing, through its leadership, to endorse the plan causes great concern. I am not at all surprised that 50 diplomats from the United States have made known their dismay at what has occurred. In my view, they speak more for the United States than President Bush does on this matter.
As for the west bank, just four settlements, with a population of 517, were to be evacuated. That would have left 134 settlements with a population numbering some 200,000—and that is apart, of course, from Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the Golan. Moreover, many of the settlements were begun or much expanded in recent years. Let us not forget for one moment that they are all illegal under international law.
It is difficult to see it, but what was intended for Gaza was a first step towards the road map, leading to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Of course, various Prime Ministers viewed the plan as a step to be welcomed, because it would have led to the viable and sovereign Palestinian state that was intended. However, let us be clear that it has never been the intention of Prime Minister Sharon, and certainly not of the Likud party, to allow any such state.
During his campaign to be elected Prime Minister in February 2001, Sharon made it perfectly clear that he did not intend to pursue a final peace deal with Palestinians that would give them their own state. He is not the leader of Likud for nothing. His aim, as commentators have said, was to pursue a series of deals to contain the bloodshed, as far as Israel was concerned, and to establish calm. As for calm, it can hardly be forgotten that, in his election campaign, Sharon took the most provocative action possible in going to the Temple Mount. We know what followed. That action was no accident; it was deliberate, and he knew what he was doing.
374WH
We should not forget—I have no intention of doing so, and when Sharon was elected, I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time—that when Sharon was Minister of Defence he bore indirect responsibility for the massacre of Palestinian refugees in September 1982. Had he not given permission to the Lebanese Christian sect—the massacre was carried out by Christians—it is very unlikely that any such massacre could have occurred. Moreover, let us not forget that, when that massacre occurred, more than 400,000 Israelis demonstrated. If ever there were a demonstration along the lines of "not in our name", that was it. Nor must we forget that the commission that looked into Sharon's conduct as Minister of Defence concluded that he was not fit to hold that office.
The road map lays out various phases. Phase 1 was meant to freeze all settlements and to dismantle settlement outposts constructed since 2001. That was to lead in 2004–05 towards a permanent status settlement, including agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians on borders, Jerusalem and the vexed, difficult and sensitive matters of refugees and other related issues. I emphasise that that would mean direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, with countries in the international community that are involved directly having an overview and doing their best to bring about a final agreement.
As the Minister will tell us, the Quartet is meeting today in New York. I hope that it will reach the same conclusions as the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It is a coincidence that the last debate that occurred here on Thursday was on the same subject that we are discussing today. It concerned the report of the International Development Committee. At least one hon. Member who is present today took part in that discussion and I heard at least half the debate myself.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our debate on Thursday, in which I took part. Does he share my great disappointment that on an issue of such magnitude—of importance not only to Israelis and Palestinians, but to the peace of the world—we are confined to short debates in Westminster Hall and not allowed a full debate in the main Chamber in Government time?
David Winnick: I agree with the hon. Lady about that, even if I do not agree with her about every aspect of the issue. I hope that we will have a debate in the Chamber as soon as possible, as that would be appropriate.
James Purnell: I agree. We should have such a debate. I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. He does not disagree with the substance of what is being proposed, but thinks that it does not go far enough in respect of withdrawal from the west bank and other matters. Given Likud's rejection of the plan over the weekend, does he agree that there is now an opportunity for Israel to develop proposals that go further—perhaps on a cross-party basis—so that the road map can be put back on track?
David Winnick: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, if I were optimistic that General Sharon and

375WH
the Likud party would go along with such a proposal, I would have a different view than I have at the moment. I do not believe that what was put forward by the Israeli Government and endorsed by President Bush was meant to lead to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, which I hope is the policy of the British Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I said that Sharon and the Likud party do not want to go along that route; Sharon would argue that he was not elected to create a viable—I emphasise "viable"—and sovereign Palestinian state. What was intended was not a first step, no matter what gloss was put on it by President Bush. It was to a large extent a step towards evacuating the Gaza strip and leaving it at that. The fact that the Likud party rejected that policy again illustrates the sort of the political party involved and the intense lobbying of the settlers.
The plight and poverty of Palestinians in the occupied territories was the subject of a previous debate here. Among other things, the International Development Committee report stated that the rate of malnutrition in Gaza and in parts of the west bank was as bad as anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. The unemployment rate among the Palestinians is around 60 to 70 per cent. Just imagine what it must be like to have such mass unemployment, and the devastating effect that that is bound to have on families. We should not forget that, day in and day out, the Palestinians are subject to 24-hour curfews and denied freedom of movement, and that their lives are controlled in every conceivable way, even when they try to take close relatives to hospital, which, as the report points out, presents tremendous difficulties.
It does not take a great deal of imagination to imagine ourselves subject to such occupation and the restrictions and controls that I have mentioned. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that there is such a feeling of despair and dismay among Palestinians, including among those who reject violence, as we all do, and who put their faith in a political solution and who try to persuade other Palestinians that violence is not the way? What are they likely to say after President Bush's endorsement of Sharon's plans? Then there is the security fence, which Israel says is for its own security. However, 90 per cent. of it is being built on Palestinian land—not Israeli land, but Palestinian land.
Sometimes there is misunderstanding in debates such as these. Let me say where I stand on Israel. I came to the conclusion at a rather tender age in 1948—this shows my age, I suppose—that a Jewish state was justified, given what had happened to the Jews for some 2,000 years, and not just during the last war. They had been demonised, persecuted, tortured and mass murdered. Undoubtedly, that led in many respects to the basis on which the Nazis were able to carry out their terrifying crimes against humanity. Jewish people—men, women, children, even babes in arms—were exterminated in the camps on the Russian front and in other places. As a non-Zionist, I came to the conclusion that a Jewish state was justified in those circumstances.
Linda Perham: I am glad that my hon. Friend has taken time to talk about the suffering of the Jewish people and his support for the
376WH
foundation of the state of Israel. Does he not agree that it is the very need for security that leads the Israeli Government to take the actions that they have and to resort to building a fence? Jewish people in Israel also have fears about suicide bombers.
David Winnick: I am coming to suicide bombers. My hon. Friend should not forget that the one issue, above all else, that Sharon campaigned on three years ago was that he would bring security to the people of Israel. More people have died in Israel as a result of his being Prime Minister. I would go further and say that the policies that he advocates and pursues have caused the deaths of many Palestinians—men, women and children, fellow human beings—who have as much right to live as anyone else, whether we are Jews or not. It could be argued that a number of Jews have died in Israel as a result of Sharon's very provocative policies.
If it is right for the Jews to have a state of their own, surely it is equally right and justified for the Palestinians to have a sovereign, viable state, because they have paid the price for the creation of Israel. They could argue that it was Europe's crimes, not those of Palestinians or Arabs, that were involved, but they have paid the price. Those of us who take the view that Israel has a right to exist in its pre-1967 borders and a right to defend itself nevertheless have even more responsibility to see to it that justice comes to the Palestinians. They should not be denied a proper, viable, state of their own; it should not be made up of bits and pieces, which would be rather meaningless. If Israel is a viable and sovereign state, the same should apply to Palestine; it should be no less sovereign than Israel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) mentioned suicide bombing, which I deplore and consider a particularly abhorrent form of violence. I deplore other forms of terrorist violence and I am not going to stand here and be a party to, or argue in favour of, any form of terrorist violence. I think that I am on record as opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the rest speaks for itself. If I were to say, "but", that would not lead to any justification of such violence. However, we must bear in mind our colonial history.
For example, 118 years ago last month, the first Irish home rule Bill was defeated in the House of Commons despite all Gladstone's eloquence. That was the signal for some people in Ireland to come to the conclusion that violence was the only way to achieve their aims and for all that followed up until the first world war. If one closes the door to constitutional settlements and gives the feeling that there is no hope in the political process—as occurred with Britain in its colonial history in Ireland and in other places, and as is happening in Israel now—that encourages the people of violence. It encourages, as it must do, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who reject any negotiated agreement with Israel—or at least they say they do. We do not know what would happen in other circumstances.
It is said that there are many volunteers to become suicide bombers. That might well be so, but I read a recent article about the first female suicide bomber and it did not show quite the picture that some would lead us to believe; she had been marginalised in Palestinian society and decided that that would be the way out. Nevertheless, the fact remains that suicide bombing is, obviously, to be deplored.

377WH
I started by saying that I had the greatest doubts and reservations about what Prime Minister Sharon, endorsed by President Bush, intended to do. We read in today's newspapers that, to win approval, he might even dilute those plans further. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, I hope that there will be a debate in the main Chamber. I hope that today's debate will lead to renewed demands from the democracies. certainly, from Britain, other European countries and also the United States—I referred to the letter from the former diplomats—for a total change of policy on Israel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North and others talk about security for Israel; the best and most effective security for that state is to bring about a viable and sovereign Palestinian state as soon as possible, not in the distant future. I am glad that the Minister is nodding. We need a change of policy, and I hope that we will put sufficient pressure on the United States, because it is one the country that can bring that about and that can ensure that what we all want, whatever differences we may have, will come about not in the distant future, but very shortly.
9.48 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate and on the passion with which he spoke. He referred to his commitment to the state of Israel and how he had come to the conclusion about the need for it. It seems that that commitment informs the passion with which he argued for a just solution in that part of the world.
What my hon. Friend said about Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan over the last few days provided a welcome perspective. There is going to be a tendency—perhaps, in some quarters, there already is—to portray those who campaigned against the Sharon plan as unreasonable and hard-line. I do not deny that they are, but that might lead to a tendency to portray the Sharon plan as reasonable. As Conal Urquhart perceptively said of Sharon in The Guardian yesterday:
"Following yesterday's defeat, he is likely to strike the pose of a statesman, claiming that he was elected to represent national interests not factional ones."
Nobody is going to argue that if Israel is offering to pull its settlers out of Gaza and to withdraw its forces from Gaza, it should not do so. If there is such an opportunity, it should be seized. We should insist that any withdrawal should be properly negotiated with the Palestinian Authority. The United Kingdom, the European Union and—I would argue—the United States too should assist the Palestinian Authority in the takeover. If Israel withdrew from Gaza, we should insist that the settlements and the infrastructure should not be trashed in the same way as has followed military withdrawals from parts of Gaza. such as the village of Beit Hanoun, in the past. We also need to insist that any withdrawal is real: the Palestinians should have a real ability to trade, they should have access to sea and to air, and they should be able to rebuild their airport in Gaza.
Gaza was not the only part of Sharon's plan: it came with strings attached. The strings are very clear in the west bank, which is equally as illegally occupied as Gaza. The strings said that the six settlement blocs on
378WH
the west bank would remain, not for negotiation, but in Ariel Sharon's words, "for eternity." Extra funding for settlements in the west bank has been announced by the Government of Israel and the wall continues to be built—not on Israeli land or down the border, but deep inside Palestinian territory. There is a real danger that, over the coming days and weeks, those concerns will be lost in the debate over Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan.
Sharon is now saying that the plan may be modified. Rather than becoming what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described as an opportunity from which we can move forward, we might see a scenario developing in which as far as the Israeli Government—and perhaps the United States as well—are concerned, the Sharon plan is seen as a maximum from which negotiations are made downwards. That is not only wrong under international law, but a road to nowhere. It means that the dream of a viable Palestinian state, which, as my hon. Friend said, is absolutely crucial to a just peace in the middle east, will be all but impossible.
The problem with the Sharon plan and with President Bush's endorsement of it is that the Palestinians were entirely left out of the process. It is almost as if all that is needed is for the different factions in Israel to negotiate peace with each other, or perhaps for Israel to negotiate peace with the United States. The Palestinians have only a walk-on part in the whole affair, and that is why there has been such anger at the one-sidedness of President Bush's response to the plan.
We merely need to look at President Bush's statement and at the number of times that different things are referred to in it. I have had a quick look through, so the figures may not be entirely accurate but I think that they are roughly correct. He refers to peace 10 times in the statement; he refers to the two-state solution seven times; he refers to democracy and the state building of Palestine five times. Those things are good. He refers to security for both Palestinians and Israelis four times; he refers to security simply for Israelis seven times. He refers to security for Palestinians twice, and on both occasions the security for Palestinians is the security that they have to impose to fight terrorism and to maintain order in their own territories. There is nothing about security from Israel. He refers to terror or terrorism 15 times, all of which are in references to the Palestinians. He refers once to an obligation to cease armed activity, but that is imposed only on the Palestinians. He refers four times to settlements, or, as he puts it, population centres, and talks about the need to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza. There is one reference to withdrawing from "certain" settlements in the west bank, and another reference to making "progress" towards a freeze on settlements, including removing "unauthorised" outposts. One must wonder what the United States considers an authorised outpost in the west bank. There is nothing about the poverty, the destruction of homes, the razing of agricultural land, the destruction of shops or the land confiscations that the Select Committee on International Development so graphically described. Nor is there anything about the problems of access to health care, to water or to education that the Palestinians experience daily. That is going on to this day.
Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend referred to the divisions among the Israelis and the fact that they could not agree. Does he accept that one reason why we have not made progress with the road map is that there is a substantial body on the Palestinian side, led by at least one organisation, that rejects Israel's right to exist, and that there will always be great difficulty so long as Hamas is as strong as it is in the Palestinian Authority, particularly in Gaza? Does he at least accept that the fault in this process is not all on one side?
Richard Burden: I have never argued that the fault is always on one side, but my hon. Friend should take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—namely, that if Sharon wants to encourage moderate and reasonable voices among the Palestinians, he is going about it in entirely the wrong way. He is actually strengthening voices on the other side.
I fully accept a two-state solution. Security for Israel is vital to a just settlement, but let us have some perspective. If we are saying that there are Palestinian forces that reject in principle the right of Israel to exist and to exist as a state, and that the peace process is blocked, which in many ways it is, why do not we say the same thing about forces in Israel that reject in principle the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Those forces in Israel are not fringe elements; they are in the Government. If we are to move on, we must move beyond excuses and ask how we can construct the right settlement for that part of the world. I do not dispute the suffering of the Israelis; it is real, and one feels it as one walks into any shopping centre in West Jerusalem or elsewhere. When Israeli children go to school on a bus or a teenage son or daughter goes to a disco, their parents wonder whether they will come back. That fear is real, and we must recognise it.
We saw another example of the suffering of Israelis the other day. Settlers should not be in the west bank, but no one could fail to be affected by seeing a mother gunned down with her children. Nothing justifies such actions, but we need to work out a solution if we are to end them rather than simply protesting about and condemning them. Avraham Burg, the former Speaker of the Knesset, put it very well last year when he said that Israel can choose democracy or it can choose occupation; it cannot have both.
We must face the fact that the west bank comes with 2.3 million people, and we should remember that Sharon's plan to deal with that problem of 2.3 million people is twofold. However, if Israel hangs on to that land with its 2.3 million people, and given that 20 per cent. of Israel's own population is non-Jewish, before too long there will be a non-Jewish majority in the historical land of Palestine, or, as extreme Zionists say, in the biblical land of Israel.
Sharon's response to that is part ethnic cleansing—ensuring that it is impossible for people to live in the area because of the impact of the wall and the use of such things as the planning laws in and around Jerusalem, which have, in effect, judaised large parts of the outskirts of Jerusalem—and part hustling Palestinians into what
380WH
can be described only as Bantustans in the west bank and Gaza. The borders of the west bank and Gaza and access to water are all controlled by Israel. That is unacceptable. It is a recipe for further bloodshed. The only other option is to ensure, as Burg says, a complete withdrawal from the west bank and Gaza, and a viable Palestinian state. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North suggested.
Time is running out. Before too long, the settlements and the Israeli presence in the west bank will be irreversible. As Jeff Halper, the respected Israeli academic and commentator, said, it will not be much longer before Palestinians will start saying, "The future is for us to demand equal rights with Jews in the whole area." As he says, that will be the end of two things: one is Palestinian nationalism, the other Zionism. If we wish to see security for Israel as a Jewish state, the only way of achieving that is to have a viable and independent Palestinian state.
James Purnell: I fully agree that the destination has to be a viable two-state solution on a negotiated basis. In the short term, given the distrust between the two countries, I should be interested to know what my hon. Friend would do if he were in charge. Would his ideal solution be to move towards a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza or does he think there should be the possibility of a negotiated solution? Given that there is now an opportunity to look at these plans—the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—how would he encourage the Israeli Government or the Israeli nation to move forward on this?
Richard Burden: I must not go on for too much longer because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. I was going to come on to what we should do. A negotiated settlement is there for the taking. Voices on the Palestinian side, such as the Palestinian Authority, have said that they want to negotiate. They recognised the state of Israel years ago. However, Israel must—the Quartet has a major role in facilitating this and I hope that it takes it on board today—get the road map back on track and insist that any viable settlement is based on international law and UN resolutions. That means that the Palestinians must end violence, and so must the Israelis. It means the withdrawal from settlements; it means the creation of a viable Palestinian state; and it means that Israel needs to reconsider the construction of a wall inside Palestinian territory.
There are voices in Israel who are talking about this too. We do them no service by muting their voices and going down the one-way cul de sac into which Sharon is leading the state of Israel, backed, unfortunately, by the United States. The road map is not the gift of the USA; it is the property of the international community. Britain has a real responsibility to ensure, with the Quartet, that the road map is put back on track.
Our Prime Minister has played a major role in trying to shift American policy on this issue. I applaud and welcome that. However, in response to Bush's statement, for example, it is not enough for us not to say the things that Bush said about endorsing Sharon. It is

381WH
not enough not to say things. We need to say what we mean far more clearly. We want to see a viable Palestinian state. full withdrawal and respect for UN resolutions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kevin Hughes (in the Chair): May I remind hon. Members that it is normal for the winding-up speeches to start at approximately 10.30 am? Three Members are indicating that they would like to speak. I leave it them to work out the maths.
10.3 am
Hywel Williams: I take note of your point, Mr. Hughes, and I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I regret that it has been given this slot early on a Tuesday morning. I echo the calls made for a proper debate to be held in the main Chamber in Government time.
I recognise that some hon. Members have a long-standing, detailed and diligent interest in this matter. Plaid Cymru's position is quite clear and it is worth restating briefly. We support the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state as a vital part of the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We also recognise the legitimate right of the Palestinians to self-determination and, importantly, Israel's right to live securely within borders that are recognised. As a Welsh nationalist, that is also my ambition for my country.
I fear that Israel's actions over many years and, particularly during the present intifada, are not defensive anti-terrorist measures, but rather a means to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian Authority. Israel's actions succeed only in bringing about a further escalation of violence and terrorism. That might appease the warmongers on both sides in the short term, but it is futile in the end. As the Bishop of Exeter says in his foreward to the excellent Christian Aid report, "Losing ground: Israel, poverty and the Palestinians":
"The Palestinian-Israeli situation today shows the futility of violence, where endless repression and resistance feed off each other. From this cycle of repression and violence, conflict and provocation. comes the bitter fruits of poverty."
That report documents in detail the stark poverty in which millions of Palestinians live, with 60 to 70 per cent. living on less than$2 a day The report also identifies clearly the key structures creating that poverty.
I hardly need rehearse the detail of those points with the hon. Members who are present. However, it is worth noting some key features, such as the loss of land. Gradual encroachment since the six day war has led to 82.8 per cent. of Palestinian land being under Israeli military control, while the growth of settlements has led to almost 42 per cent. of the west bank being controlled by Israeli settlements and regional and municipal councils. The number of settlers has doubled to 200,000 since the Oslo peace process, excluding those in East Jerusalem.
The report also details Israeli control of water, which limits Palestinian irrigation for agriculture and personal consumption. It contains a telling quote from a farmer from near Ramallah:
382WH
"Often our water is not running and we have little to drink. Over the road, we see the sprinklers on the lawns of the Israeli settlements."
That is inhuman and unacceptable. The report also details the effects of closure and curfew, with checkpoints and roadblocks, which make travel all but impossible and inflict psychological and economic damage. Lastly, and importantly, the report notes the lack of strong self-government and the failure of the Palestinian Authority to develop accountable institutions—a balanced report, I think.
No one imagines that progress from such a tragic situation will be simple. However, the steps that must be taken are clear, at least to us in Plaid Cymru and to many other hon. Members. Israeli forces should be withdrawn to positions held prior to the current intifada to allow humanitarian work to be carried out. There should be a full and negotiated withdrawal from the west bank and the Gaza strip, and a deployment of a UN peacekeeping force. There also needs to be a massive programme of reconstruction and rebuilding in the Palestinian territories. We in Plaid Cymru call on the European Union, as the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, to take the lead in this and to ensure that the new infrastructure meets the modern needs of the people in the Palestinian territories.
Israel must observe the UN resolutions to end illegal settlements in Palestine, not just withdraw from the Gaza strip on a unilateral basis. The west bank cannot be set aside as a separate and non-negotiable issue, and the Palestinians certainly cannot be excluded from the debate. Finally, Israel must halt the building over Palestinian territory of the separation wall, which does not respect the 1967 borders and only contributes to the climate of fear and distrust and to the further destruction of life for divided Palestinian communities.
My party opposed the war in Iraq, but the majority of hon. Members supported it, many on the basis of their expectations that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would receive the urgent attention of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments. I think that we are all bitterly disappointed, not only with the inattention of our Government, but with our apparent acquiescence with the Sharon Government's latest ploy and President Bush's endorsement of it. Let there be no mistake: strong and immediate action by the UK Government is the very least that we require to establish a proper settlement.
10.9 am
Mike Gapes: I would like to take the Chamber back 11 years to the occasion on which the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands in front of President Clinton. The Oslo process culminated in an agreement. In 1993, many of us had real hopes that, on the basis of that agreement, we would see a viable Palestinian state within three, four or five years and that Israel would be recognised by all its Arab neighbours and have secure borders. Those hopes have been cruelly dashed. I want to highlight some of the reasons why they have been dashed and how difficult the current situation is.
First, in 1995, extremist Israelis plotted to undermine the agreement and murdered Prime Minister Rabin. I was due to visit Israel that year with a joint Labour

383WH
Friends of Israel and Labour Middle East Council delegation led by the party's then foreign affairs spokesman, Derek Fatchett, and with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) representing the two Labour party pressure groups, which were working together in support of the Oslo process. The visit was postponed because of the assassination.
Finally, in December 1995, we met Mr Peres, the acting Prime Minister. At that time the country was in mourning, and Mr Peres did what he thought was the decent thing by postponing the general election until the middle of 1996. What happened then? Palestinian extremists carried out terrorist bombings in Tel Aviv, and Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud won the election.
The whole process had been put back. Great efforts were made by President Clinton, and Netanyahu eventually—and reluctantly—came forward with the Wye Plantation agreement, which involved some Israeli withdrawals from places such as Hebron and Jericho. However, the reality was that that was grudging rather than wholehearted.
Another breakthrough offered further hope. There was a change of Government in Israel; Mr. Barak was elected. He came forward with radical proposals for withdrawals and a two-state solution. In 2000, the Camp David negotiations took place, and the two sides were very close to an agreement, but the Palestinians could not endorse it. Then, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount and the second intifada broke out. Some people claim that that was planned in July, and others say that it was spontaneous. However, regardless of the arguments, it happened.
That intifada is ongoing. I was in East Jerusalem during the first intifada in 1991. All the shops were shut, and the situation was very tense. However, the second intifada has been far more serious in its economic consequences for the Palestinian people and in its raising of the tension between the two sides. This intifada has become very violent, and has led to the current impasse.
Barak lost the election in 2001, despite going further even than at Camp David with the Taba proposals. There was no agreement on them. We can debate the reasons why: some relate to the west bank, others to different matters.
It is sad that every time there has been a proposal and we have got close to an agreement during the past decade, we end up having a great setback after that proposal has been rejected. Subsequent proposals, such as those that Sharon has just announced, are therefore far less significant than what Barak put on the table, or what was proposed at Camp David or the original Oslo process.
Sharon's own party has just voted by 59.5 per cent. to 31 per cent. to reject the current proposals. Many qualifications can be made, such as that the turnout was only 35 per cent. However, the reality is that the leader of the most right-wing Government that Israel has ever had is prepared to take things forward, albeit in a limited, inadequate way, and his plan is rejected by his own party. That is an indication of how violence and conflict breed polarisation, rejectionism and extremism.
384WH
The same is happening on the Palestinian side. Hamas, which was a very small organisation, is now regarded as one of the dominant groups in Gaza and is much stronger than it was a decade ago.
I have always been a supporter of a two-state solution, but I see no immediate prospect of achieving one or, indeed, any solution in the current circumstances, unless there is some real, radical thinking about how we go forward.
David Winnick: My hon. Friend describes how the Likud membership has reacted, partly as a result of the violence and the rest of it. Would it not be right to say, however, that both sides use God without the slightest hesitation and that Likud members work on the basis that God gave the occupied territories of Judea and Samaria to Abraham and that, regardless of any violence by the other side, the land of greater Israel belongs to the Israelis and that none of it should, under any circumstances, be taken away from them? On the other side, the suicide bombers and the rest are the first to use God as an excuse. None of that gives any encouragement to non-believers such as me.
Mike Gapes: I am not Jewish and I cannot understand the history of the Jewish people in the way that my hon. Friend can. I simply say, however, that opinion polls show that the majority of Israelis—as opposed to the majority of Likud members—support the proposed withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the west bank and that, despite everything, they still believe in the concept of land for peace.
In that situation, the international community needs to find ways of moving the process back towards the road map, and I believe that that is what the Prime Minister was saying, although he has been misrepresented in publications such as The Independent, which one would expect to misrepresent a Labour Prime Minister—that is certainly what such publications always do on the middle east.
If there are obstacles in the road, one can either remove them or go round them. At present, progress on the road map is blocked because of a lack of trust on both sides, and we have already referred to the internal divisions on the Israeli and Palestinian sides. If one cannot secure a multinational agreement, one sometimes has to take independent or unilateral steps to move things forward and create new possibilities. The Prime Minister was right to take that position, but he has been completely and deliberately misunderstood by the 52 former diplomats.
In passing, I draw hon. Members' attention to the front page of today's edition of The Guardian, which has an interesting story about corruption in Saudi Arabia and about BAE Systems' expenditure in certain countries. I would be interested to know what Sir Andrew Green, as our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, did to highlight corruption or women's rights or to push for democracy in the region when he was there. It seems some people have another agenda and have not really understood the importance of what we are trying to do internationally to take things forward.
This country is in a position to influence, to a limited extent, the prospects for peace in the middle east, but no one should have any illusions about the fact that we do

385WH
not have the ability or the influence to impose a solution in the present situation. Even if it wished to, the United States, with all its economic, military and political power, could not impose a solution on the region. All we can do—Britain through its influence in the European Union and America through its influence with Israel—is try to shift the debate forward. Through the European Union, we must support the Palestinian institutions, especially their security authorities, to enable them to control the situation effectively and stop terrorist attacks from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other rejectionists. At the same time, we must continue our work towards transparency and the effective and efficient expenditure of resources to the Palestinian people.
Finally, we should do all that we can to work through the Quartet. Today's meeting in New York is important, but we must recognise that we should encourage Israelis not to be despondent after the Likud vote and to support those in Israel who understand the need to move forward and generate momentum, including those in the peace camp and the opposition labour party. We are faced with the prospect of despair and no movement. Forward steps must be taken. We need initial limited withdrawals followed by an all-encompassing comprehensive agreement that will ultimately lead to the establishment of the viable Palestinian state and the secure state of Israel—both recognised internationally—which the 1993 Oslo agreement was supposed to bring about.
10.21 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing this debate and echo the comments made by many hon. Members that we must have a full debate at the earliest opportunity in the main Chamber in Government time.
The question that anyone listening to this morning's debate will ask is, will the Palestinians ever be released from their misery? From my experiences of visiting the area, I will highlight a few of the causes of that misery. Some are easy to understand; they are said to be for security purposes only, but have an enormous effect on the lives of Palestinians. There are 662 checkpoints, controlling people's daily lives in an area that is not huge. We see horrific pictures of teenagers and young people being shot at for throwing stones. Water supplies are redirected, for all the right reasons I am assured. Olive groves and the associated economy are destroyed. There are extra-judicial assassinations. Many hon. Members and I have seen the demolition of homes. What kind of a world order allows such actions to continue?
In some respects, the problems represent a moral dilemma for many people. On the one side, we see state-of-the-art weapons supplied by the United States for security purposes. However, when people on the other side attempt to defend themselves with sticks and stones, they are deemed to be terrorists and shot. There are continuing and growing howls of protest from people all around the world. I agree that time is running out; for many years there has been nothing but escalation. However, I believe that the Quartet, which meets later today, has an opportunity to act. We do not need more
386WH
words or commitments that condemn and make all the right noises, but do not lead to any plan of action or feeling that action will be taken.
Every now and again, there are major atrocities, but even they are forgotten. The name of the town of Jenin has become synonymous with an act that was condemned by everyone. We had thought that that might be a watershed, but it has been forgotten into history and there have been more incursions, lives lost, and people maimed and injured. Our response to the situation has been to condemn it, to regret it and to say that it has horrified us, but what have we done? Since Oslo, there have been the Wye River memorandum and the Mitchell report; many discussions have taken place here and in the United States and many commitments have been made, but there has been no firm action.
In March 2002, the Arab League had its own peace initiative, which was greatly praised by us and by the US, and we thought that there would be some progress. Alas, nothing happened. Then came the road map, which promised to
"end the terror and violence, normalize Palestinian life and build Palestinian Institutions by 2003."
A second international conference was supposed to be convened by the Quartet by 2002. I do not think that there has been a first one yet. Inaction has been the hallmark of recent years. In February, the Palestinians took their case against the security fence—or wall or cage. whatever one calls it according to one's viewpoint—to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In a landmark hearing that, for the first time, brought Israeli crimes before an international tribunal, the chief of the Palestinian delegation said:
"This wall is not about security, it is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land".
Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that Israel has a problem with security? He has spoken at length about the suffering of the Palestinians, but he must accept that the people of Israel need the opportunity to live in peace. They are constantly terrorised by Palestinian suicide bombings and other terrorist activities, and have a right to defend themselves. If Opposition Members are concerned about the time available for debate, perhaps they would care to call a debate in their time.
Mr. Breed: Clearly, there are those who have called for debates, and I hope that we shall have such opportunities.
Finally, can the Minister answer a brief question about the tribunal decision? It seems that the British Government, who had long supported the tribunal and had been critics of the wall, have chosen to join hands with the US and Israel in a stance against the jurisdiction of the international court. Can he explain the Government's position on that decision? In recent times, Israel's security needs, the positioning of the wall, its effect on the Palestinian people and the likelihood that it will lead to a peaceful situation have been subject to much debate. I hope that he is able to explain the Government's stance.
10.29 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I am delighted to be able to participate in this short debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. In doing so, I highlight the fact that I am a member and co-treasurer of the Liberal Democrat middle east council.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Like other participants in the debate, he spoke with great passion, but steered clear of being emotive. The debate has been stronger for that.
The wretched violence in the middle east continues. The latest estimates since the most recent uprising began suggest that nearly 3,000 Palestinians and nearly 1,000 Israelis have died. Pictures of the car in which an Israeli mother and her four daughters died are the latest in an appalling gallery of images of atrocities on both sides, which sicken the outside world. From a casual glance, it seems that there is little prospect of the region escaping the apparently never-ending spiral of violence.
There is a broad consensus about the need for a two-state solution to the situation, involving the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state and the recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. There is no debate about that in this country these days. The Prime Minister has spoken passionately about the need for peace and an end to violence. It is just over a year since the Government fatefully linked the middle east peace process with the decision to go to war in Iraq. At about that time, the road map was finally published, but since then we appear to have entered an international political vacuum. Last week's riposte to the Government by former senior diplomats highlighted just how serious things have become.
In response to all that, Prime Minister Sharon of Israel stepped in to fill the breach by promoting the illegal wall and the disengagement plan, with its limited proposals to withdraw from Gaza. Instead of a negotiated settlement, Israel offers an unacceptable unilateralist position, which fails to deal with settlements in the west bank, denies Palestinians the prospect of returning to their homes, and ignores the need to return to pre-1967 borders. Perhaps we should be glad that Likud rejected the plan. but that would be to ignore the fact that even the limited positive progress on offer in Gaza was too much for the hard-liners in the Prime Minister's party.
The division in the Palestinian communities also contributes to the desperate situation. The Israelis are right to seek security for their citizens; it is appalling how many of them have died as a result of suicide bombings. They are right to highlight the inability of the Palestinian authorities to control the groups that promote violence from the west bank and the Gaza strip, but that cannot justify the extra-judicial assassination of two Hamas leaders in recent weeks or the threat to kill Mr. Arafat.
As long as the economic plight of the Palestinians continues, and is exacerbated by the restrictions and humiliations of everyday life, the Palestinian authorities will struggle to make progress. They need hope.
The impression has gained ground that everyone has been sitting around waiting for the United States to take the lead on the road map. The timetable now makes
388WH
rather surreal reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) just highlighted. we should have nearly finished by now. Phase 1, which sought the end of terror and violence, the normalising of Palestinian life and the building of Palestinian institutions, should have been completed last May. The transition phase was scheduled for completion by last December. Phase 3. the movement to permanent status agreement and a full-time end to conflict, was due to be under way now. Instead, we are left arguing whether the disengagement plan is consistent with the process at all.
A meeting of the Quartet is taking place today in New York—and then what? It is surely time for the Government to make good their pledge to the people of Israel and the Palestinians. With their partners in the European Union, the Government need to demonstrate to both sides that there is no other serious prospect for peace than the road map. With our allies in the United States, we need to be resolute and prepare all parties to be firm and even-handed with both sides in the dispute. At present, the Quartet does not give the impression that it takes itself seriously. Until it does, we can expect very little progress and the agony will continue.
10.35 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I also agree with those who have said that the issue is one of the most important with which the House of Commons will ever have to grapple. Perhaps it is time for a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House.
The contribution from the hon. Gentleman demonstrated his experience and knowledge of the subject, and the speeches and interventions in this high-quality debate have shown that arguments continue on all sides. The subject ignites the passions of us all.
As to party politics, there is nothing between us on this difficult subject. We all want the same thing: a peaceful, long-term resolution. Those of us who travel widely in the Gulf and who have had dealings with people from backgrounds of all kinds in and around the war on terror recognise that it is not just for the sake of the Palestinians or the Israelis, but for a lasting peace in the middle east, and perhaps a long-term resolution to the war on terror, that we need a resolution to the Israel-Palestine problem. It is a stain on the map of the world and a catalyst for all kinds of reaction and over-reaction. It is a focal point and we are right to focus on it.
As is often said, it is not as though the solution to the difficulty is unknown. We all, I think, agree that there should be a two-state solution with a secure and strong Israel side by side with a secure, strong and viable Palestinian state—with agreement over borders, starting from the 1967 boundaries and negotiating on them; with agreement on right of return; and with agreement on shared arrangements over Jerusalem, and so on. That is a clear framework for resolution, which is perhaps unusual in a dispute of this kind. We need the parties to sit down again and work their way towards it.
The road map that was launched with such fanfare and optimism 12 months ago seems, sadly, to have been completely destroyed by an increase in violence—suicide bombings and the swift and robust responses to

389WH
them. They have put paid to talks for the time being. I visited Israel in January and it was clear even then that the Israeli Government had lost patience with negotiations. They believed that there was no partner for peace, and a plan was emerging for some kind of unilateral disengagement, although at that stage the details were not known. They have become clearer since.
While I was there, I sensed on the Israeli side the fear of suicide bombings; there was real fear about going past a bus or sitting in a restaurant— and let us consider the plight of parents when their children go off to discos. On the other hand, there was real poverty, anguish and hopelessness in the Palestinian community. On visiting the country, I was aware of a sense of despair and thought that there must be more that we can do to resolve the issue.
Given what has been happening since January, we should remind ourselves that there is a broad base of political support in Israel for the kind of road map solutions that we have long supported. Will the Minister confirm today that—whether or not we now put another version of the disengagement plan on track—it can be only a start to a long-term resolution? We cannot impose a solution from the outside: an agreement on the final status issues must ultimately negotiated by all the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our part is to get them to the table again to discuss and agree on those issues.
As has been said on many occasions over the weekend, we now have complete confusion over the Sharon plan, and where there is confusion and a vacuum something will rush in to fill it. Our job is to ensure that what rushes in to fill the vacuum is the international community with some fresh initiative. Does the Minister have a view on what part the killing of the 34-year-old mother and her four daughters played in the vote by Likud members? Is it not the case that no small groups—whether Palestinians or right-wing Israelis—should have a veto on the settlement? Is it not a sobering thought that the unilateral disengagement plan, about which many of us have profound reservations, was defeated in the vote not because it was too tough on the Palestinians, but because it gave away too much?
I want to put a number of questions to the Minister for him to answer in his winding-up speech, but first I shall read an extract of an e-mail from a Jewish friend who has relatives in Israel. He says:
"I repeat—the army is the last place on earth my brother in law wants his kids to be. They have no choice—because the leadership of those around do not want to live side by side and in peace. If they did—my second nephew will not be joining the army in the Summer—he could and should be heading off to university."
Is it not the case that the vast majority of Israelis want peace and want a negotiated settlement? Does the Minister also agree with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Ala, who said that the result of the poll at the weekend
"should act as an incentive to resume negotiations about Palestinian statehood"?
I should like the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to deal with five issues. First, what is the role of the Quartet? We have heard about the meeting today in New York. Was the Quartet consulted before the US
390WH
endorsement of the Sharon peace plan? Was the UK consulted? Have we not learned the lesson of the Iraqi war—that we must take the international community with us? Is it not true that only pressure from the international community can bring both sides of this long-running dispute together? What is the Quartet's role in that process, and what message has the UK sent to the meeting today?
Secondly, on a viable Palestinian state, what do the UK Government understand by the word "viable"? We heard earlier that the Sharon plan did not include much withdrawal from the west bank. How small a state do the Government believe would not be viable? What do they say about the links between Gaza and the west bank? To what extent do the UK Government believe that we must take into account the new realities on the ground, as President Bush said, and with which the Prime Minister seemed to agree? What is our view of those new realities?
Thirdly, what does the Minister say is necessary to get back to the road map, and what is the UK Government's role in that? Given that, whether we like it or not, the US is the most powerful player in that process—although it is distracted by the November presidential elections—and given that the EU is not trusted in Israel, does not the UK have a significant role in trying to put this initiative back on track? What does the Minister understand that role to be?
Fourthly, we have heard from the Prime Minister in recent days that, if there were some kind of unilateral disengagement, the international community would pour in and help to build a viable state for the Palestinians. Is there a plan for that pouring in of international support? What role would the UK Government have in such a plan, and who will co-ordinate such support? What role will the Quartet have in that process?
Finally, do the UK Government see any real prospects that the Palestinian Authority, as currently led, can be a partner for peace? What is the Government's view of the emerging leadership within the Palestinian Authority? Do they believe that there has been a failure of leadership on the Palestinian side, even though the underlying injustice of the situation for Palestinians is clear? What is the Government view on giving support to the emerging leadership, and what are they doing to build capacity in the Palestinian Authority, which will be needed if there is to be a viable Palestinian state?
We all want the same thing—lasting peace in the middle east, if possible within our lifetimes. The debate is a further opportunity for the Government to tell us what role they can play in bringing that about.
10.45 am
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his powerful speech in opening this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke with great passion on an issue about which he cares deeply and on which he has spent a great deal of

391WH
time as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who has now left the Chamber, reminded us, in his role as chair of Labour Friends of Israel, that Israel also suffers from the lack of a peace settlement in the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) reminded us that Britain can influence the United States on the middle east peace process, but that we cannot control the superpower. We exercise our influence, but the US has its own policy and is the key player in encouraging a final peace settlement. It is therefore important that we bring our influence to bear, and we seek to do so.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) showed how myth and ignorance can sometimes inform some of the debate, and raised one particular issue that I shall address later.
In contrast to the view expressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I believe that there is little difference of opinion between the three main parties in the House on the desired result of a peace settlement—a two-state solution in which resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are implemented. We want an Israel that is at peace and secure, and a Palestine that is independent and viable. I therefore believe that there is broad cross-party consensus—we all accept that the road map is the way forward to a peace settlement.
We have all been disappointed by the lack of progress on the road map in recent months. Political stalemate, the horrific cycle of violence and the humanitarian crisis continue. Since the beginning of the intifada in 2000, more than 3,000 Palestinians and more than 900 Israelis have been killed as a result of the conflict. The Israeli people live in fear of the next suicide bombing; meanwhile, targeted assassinations, which often result in casualties among innocent civilians, continue. The barrier is still being constructed on occupied land, cutting off people from their property, basic services and sometimes their families. There is a logjam in the peace process, and things show no sign of changing.
It is in that context that Prime Minister Sharon announced his intention to take unilateral action. On 14 April, he made public his plans to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza and some in the west hank. His plan also includes a substantial reduction in the Israeli military presence in those areas. The UK Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Quartet welcomed the move. Kofi Annan said:
"I believe that any initiative that is taken to influence this relationship should not preclude the future status issues which have to be settled between the parties and if what is being done is done in the context of the Quartet's Roadmap and the attempt of the international community to establish two States that is fine. The withdrawal from Gaza should be seen as a first step."
The UK Government agree with that analysis.
The withdrawal of settlements is in line with Israel's road map commitments. It could bring visible benefits for the Palestinian people. If it is handled properly, it might provide the opportunity to breathe life back into the peace process. Those steps must not prejudge final-stage negotiations and must be integrated into the road map process. The Quartet is meeting today and we await the outcome. No one can seriously claim that resolving the issue will be easy or straightforward; there are many
392WH
complex issues to be addressed, but we all share the common goal of a just and peaceful settlement, and we must make maximum use of the opportunity as a step towards achieving it. We must build on the Sharon formula to withdraw from parts of the west bank and all Gaza and see whether we can make that withdrawal the first step that can lead in due course to proper negotiations.
The proposed withdrawal is less than we would want. Prime Minister Sharon's plan does not envisage withdrawal from all settlements on the west bank, nor does it include full withdrawal from Gaza to include Palestinian control of the borders, the port and the airport. Full access to the outside world would certainly make a big difference to the prospects for Gaza's development and it could lead, as a first step, to a viable and more sovereign Palestinian state. However, we must not overlook the significance of the Sharon initiative. We have long been pressing for the dismantling of some settlements; the plan is therefore a first step. For that reason, it should be welcomed.
The Government share the eagerness of those who want the plan to be extended. We hope that Israel will consider handing over control of the port, airport and border in Gaza and, at a later stage, will also consider further withdrawals of settlements on the west bank. However, the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community must first commit themselves to making the initial step work. For its part, Israel must engage with the Palestinian Authority on the details of the plan, but we do not yet have a plan that is likely to be implemented, because Likud appears to have rejected the proposals in a vote—with fewer than 1 per cent. of the Israeli people apparently voting as part of Likud. We await the result of the discussion within the Israeli Government. We want to see what result it will produce and how Sharon proposes to proceed.
In the meantime, there are steps that Israel and the Palestinians could take. The Palestinians could stop the suicide bombings, which cause every peace process to be frustrated, and Israel should stop demolishing houses, imposing collective punishments and launching targeted assassinations. Equally, the Palestinians must demonstrate the will and the ability to run themselves if they manage to control parts of their territory. As the Prime Minister said in Washington on 16 April, the international community will have a crucial role in helping the Palestinian Authority to build their capacity. Britain, bilaterally, through its donations and donations through the European Union, is one of the main funders of the Palestinian Authority. We therefore have a particular influence in seeking to move the process forward. We should use that in trying to create the capacity within the Palestinian Authority to deal with some of the enormous economic, political and security issues that they must confront. However, responsibility for a constructive Palestinian response to proposals from the Israelis lies with the Palestinians themselves: the PA must become a credible governing body, capable of winning the confidence of the Palestinian people.
We wait to see what the Quartet decides today, and whether the meeting in New York has new proposals to take matters forward. We have been closely engaged in private discussions On how that can be done, and I look

393WH
forward to the international community regaining political momentum. We should also provide the necessary support to enable the international community to work with us, with the Israelis and with the Palestinians to gain that momentum.
The United Kingdom continues to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to improve their effectiveness in dealing with security in some areas in which they operate. We will continue to provide the advice, assistance and equipment that they need to deliver their objectives. We have had some encouraging results, and we will continue to work with Palestinian leaders. When I spoke to Yasser Arafat, he was very grateful for the work that the UK was doing to help the Palestinians to create the capacity in their Government and system to enable them to deliver when they have proper control of their own territory.
The letter written by 52 retired ambassadors to the Prime Minister was in many ways a cry of frustration that things are not moving in the middle east as quickly as we would all like. We all share the frustration of the slowness of achieving peace. Whether a retired ambassador, British Minister or American politician, we all want progress. Oddly, the ex ambassadors claim that our policy has changed seems to be the basis of their letter. Let me make it clear that our policy continues to be based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We want two states: an Israel secure and at peace, and a Palestine viable and sovereign. Final-stage negotiations, including on the settlements and right of return, are just that. They cannot be prejudged at this stage.
Britain has a vested interest in the middle east, and let me make it clear that it is in securing peace. We see the Sharon proposals as a first step, not a final one. The retired ambassadors advocate a poky of creating two states in the middle east. We agree with that, and I was not sure what the difference between us was, having read their letter. As I said, it seems to be based on the false
394WH
premise that we have changed a policy that has not changed. Britain has that vested interest in the middle east, and it is a substantial one.
Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Given the time and the points that I want to make, I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not.
The running sore of the failure to achieve a Palestinian state fuels extremism throughout the middle east. Creating peace would not only remove a great sense of injustice, but show that Europe and the United States have helped to end the injustice. We have a vested interest in reducing international terrorism, and achieving peace in the middle east is one of a number of steps that will assist the fight against terrorism. In the end, peace will also benefit Israel. The best long-term guarantee of a peaceful Israel is the creation of a stable, viable Palestinian state. As most Israelis know, peace is the only long-term guarantee of the security of Israel.
Let us be clear about the fact that both the Palestinians and Israelis have suffered. During my visit to Israel, I went to a hotel where I had had a coffee a couple of years ago on holiday. Only weeks before, the main hall of that hotel had been subjected to a Palestinian suicide bombing while a wedding had been taking place and about 20 people were killed. Standing in that hall, where I had stood before in more pleasant times, brought home to me the devastation that the Israelis have suffered. Then visiting Yasser Arafat in the west bank also brought it home to me that children are unable to leave their gardens for fear of being shot. They fear that if they chase their ball into the street, they will end up with a bullet in their head. Those are the sorts of problem that both the Israelis and Palestinians face on a daily basis.
Our objectives must now be to get the peace process started again and to ensure that the Quartet plays a valuable role in encouraging a positive outcome from negotiations. In the end, the Israelis and Palestinians must decide the terms for the end of the dispute, but we believe that our policy of enabling them to reach that end, based on UN resolutions, is the best way forward.

Kosovo
11 am
Mr. John Randall: I am extremely grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this subject, which, I am afraid, has been rather sadly and mysteriously left off the list of Government priorities. I am delighted to see the Minister for Europe in his place, not only because it is always a pleasure to be in the company of such a charming and educated man, but because he has just returned from the region. I hope that he will be able to give us some news of what he found out there and assure us that Her Majesty's Government are trying to address the serious problems and the injustices that affect that poor, blighted, sad part of the Balkans. I know that the Minister is aware from his family background of the terrors that extremism, whether political or nationalistic, can inflict.
At the weekend we welcomed some new countries into our European family, including some that had been under the domination of the Soviet Union. We also welcomed Slovenia, which was a former republic of Yugoslavia. However, our delight at that must be tempered with the realisation that there is still an unresolved and serious problem in another area of the former Yugoslavia. That area, which was at one stage an autonomous region within the Yugoslav republic, is, of course, Kosovo.
Five years after the NATO intervention, the de facto UN or NATO protectorate is in a dire condition. Lawlessness and corruption appear to be the hallmarks of the area. I am afraid that that legacy was all too easy to foresee. It seems that some observers are beginning to examine what went on five years ago in a new light. After a weekend in which we have all begun to wonder whether we can really believe the evidence before our own eyes, such reflection is not before time. I read an article in the Canadian National Post from 6 April of this year, in which a Mr. Lewis Mackenzie posed the question whether we bombed the wrong side:
"Those of us who warned that the West was being sucked in on the side of an extremist, militant, Kosovo-Albanian independence movement were dismissed as appeasers."
He also pointed out that, at the time,
"the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was universally designated a terrorist organization and…receiving support from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda".
What makes Mr. Mackenzie's views particularly interesting is the fact that he was a major-general in the Canadian army and commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
I want to dwell not on what I perceive to be the mistakes of the past, but on the recent events in Kosovo and Metohija. Sadly, the media have turned their attention elsewhere, but there have been some voices. In September last year an article in Le Figaro Magazine described a victory for the Albanian extremists who dream of ethnic purification in the Serb enclaves, where the inhabitants live and die like condemned prisoners.
In March this year, horrific violence against the Serbs erupted, the pretext for which was the tragic drowning of some Albanian boys. Reports have now established that those unfortunates were not chased into the River
396WH
Ibar by Serbs, but died in a horrible accident. However, the incident was a light that set off much violence. That violence was almost too spontaneous—it was as if it was premeditated. I wonder whether the Minister has any evidence relating to that or any reports from which he can ascertain what happened.
According to UN statistics, 50,000 Albanian Kosovans, in the presence of 18,000 NATO peacekeepers, drove 4,500 Serbs and other non-Albanians from their homes, injuring 900, including 150 peacekeepers, and killing 19, in 33 flashpoints. Kosovo was engulfed in flames, and more than 300 homes, many of which had been recently rebuilt by the international community, were looted and torched.
Human life is obviously the most precious commodity, but the destruction of much else, including 35 additional churches, took place. I say "additional" because, as most people aware of the region know, since 1999 there has been incredible destruction of churches and monasteries in the area. It is fair to say that, as a result of the desecration of churches in Kosovo, there were retaliations against a couple of mosques, including a very old one in Belgrade. The Kosovan-Montenegran Government have condemned those retaliations. I mention that because, as in so much of the region, these are more than very important heritage sites; they are symbols. The fact that there is a desire on both sides to eradicate such symbols shows the incredible feelings that still exist.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of whether any single person has been arrested or held responsible for the burning and looting of the monasteries and churches in Kosovo?
Mr. Randall: The last time that a question on that matter was laid in Parliament, the answer was no. I would be interested to know whether, since then, and particularly since the recent attacks, any of the perpetrators have been caught.
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): More than 200 people have been arrested. Their cases are being examined and charges will be laid. There is no question about that; I reported it to Parliament before the recess.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister. If I have got the facts wrong, I will be the first to apologise to him.
Mrs. Mahon: The 200 have been arrested since the latest outbreak of violence. I was talking about the whole of the five-year period.
Mr. Randall: I am glad to see that we are getting somewhere. If 200 people have been arrested for the most recent outbreaks, I am delighted. That is a very positive move, which we should applaud. Without prejudging their guilt or innocence, we hope that at least some who are guilty will be found guilty and punished accordingly.
Last week, I and other members of the all-party group on Serbia and Montenegro, including the hon. Lady, met people who had just visited the area. Their witness statements were very telling. I hope that, in the near

397WH
future, the all-party group will be able to visit the region to see what is going on and report back. We could also talk to our counterparts at parliamentary level, to see what they are saying and doing about this situation. In due course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office might be able to assist us on that.
One of the people who came and gave us their views was Her Royal Highness Princess Linda of Yugoslavia, who visited the area from 14 April to 23 April. I would like to read out some excerpts from the speech that she made, because it is difficult for us in London to understand exactly what is going on. The Minister has been there and we will want to hear whether he was able to visit some of these areas outside Pristina. The Princess said:
"The Serb enclaves are not properly secure, even with the presence of KFOR. Albanians have freedom of movement in most of the enclaves, while Serbs cannot go anywhere without escort, which is how I personally travelled between all the enclaves. The enclaves are heavily dependent on humanitarian aid, land cannot be farmed safely. In many areas, Serbs complain that KFOR rarely responds to kidnappings, stonings and physical attacks, or destruction of property…The people driven out on March 17–19 were not allowed to take anything with them, even personal documents, by the Kosovo Police Force … Most Serbs were in a desperate psychological state even before the March 17–19 events. There is no possibility of jobs. They've gone through the NATO bombing in 1999, and have spent the time since as virtual prisoners, behind razor wire."
I shall not carry on with that quote, because it is one person's witness, and although I have no reason to doubt it, we have to try to resolve the problem, and to be as dispassionate as possible while understanding the real plight of people on both sides.
There has been some comment in our media but, strangely, the situation does not seem to have caught the imagination of the news desks. On 23 April, The Guardian reported that the International Crisis Group think-tank said:
"Kosovo is in danger of becoming Europe's West Bank, a destabilising source of unrest in the Balkans, because of five years of flawed and failed western policy-making and peacekeeping".
The Economist of 27 March quoted Mr. Javier Solana fulminating at the appalling and intolerable behaviour of people during recent events. The article went on to quote Harri Holkeri as saying that trust had been destroyed, and mentioned that one member of UN staff in Mitrovica said that she saw all her work go up in flames—literally. Also on 27 March, Christopher Caldwell wrote a piece entitled "NATO's Kosovo Dream is Dead".
The picture that I am painting is rather depressing, and that is not something in which I take any pleasure. One image presented to me has stuck in my mind; possibly it is not the most terrible, in terms of human suffering, but it could be regarded as the most upsetting. It is of the church in, I think, Pristina that has been turned into a public toilet. Elsewhere in the world, we are talking about winning over hearts and minds. Can we imagine what the world would say if a mosque were similarly desecrated? We would be rightly shocked if that happened.
The Minister has suggested that he came back from the area well educated—if that is possible for such an educated man. What is being done to repair homes and churches, and what input are the Government making towards the repair of churches and homes?
398WH
Despite all the misery, and despite seeing human behaviour at its worst, I have heard reports of some exemplary behaviour, and I should like to report the exemplary acts of some Irish soldiers. The UK forces are also well respected, I understand. Also, although I know that the matter does not come under the Minister's brief, I am sure that he has an understanding of current plans with regard to UK forces in Kosovo.
Tony Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to mention—unusually for our Chamber—the role of the French troops, who were, I understand, instrumental in preventing an attack on Mitrovica, or at least a Serb part of it, by mobs in mid-March. They put their lives at risk, and one French soldier died, so we should recognise their role, too.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I am sure that there were many such examples. I have also heard examples of behaviour on the part of troops that was not so good, but I do not wish to dwell on them, and I certainly think that it would be invidious to name nations. Whenever a multinational force is involved, there will always be some with more experience than others in certain situations, and some will perhaps always behave in a way that is more sympathetic in the circumstances.
The Prime Minister of Kosovo, Mr. Bajram Rexhepi, declared recently that
"if the final status for Kosovo is not resolved by next year, the Albanians are going to have a referendum and will declare independence."
That is obviously a dangerous prospect; it would increase tension not just in the province but throughout the region. I hope that there will be swift action in response to that declaration, and that a clear message will be sent to the Albanians that the status of Kosovo can be resolved only under the terms of UN resolution 1244, and only through negotiation.
I also understand that the head of the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo approved the establishment of a Kosovo office for foreign affairs and dialogue. I understand—although I would be grateful for information on this—that it is not proposed that any Serb will be employed in that office. On 29 April the Serbian Parliament unanimously adopted a plan of autonomy for Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. I should be grateful to hear the UK's view on those proposals.
I understand that a large amount of weaponry is still in Kosovo, and still coming in. The KLA has, of course, never disarmed, although it gave back a few weapons. Safety and security for all citizens of Kosovo might, obviously, be achieved if the area were to be disarmed. I wonder what progress is being made towards that.
The borders around Kosovo—particularly between Albania and Kosovo, and Kosovo and Macedonia—should be properly guarded. I understand that there are still holes along the borders. I knew the area pretty well and I know that it is easy to say that a border of that kind should be properly patrolled. Still, I think that even I could possibly have penetrated some of those borders, without SAS training. The matter is an important one, encompassing the need to give people confidence that the borders are secure.

399WH
I am sorry that I must bring these matters to the Chamber; I have often said, as in 1999 when I was against what NATO did, that I want to be proved wrong. I hoped that everything would be sorted out, and it is a great sadness that things have gone as wrong as they have. Many people, and certainly the Serb community in this country, are bewildered and astonished by what little response has been made in recent years to the destruction and desecration of hundreds of churches, graveyards and cultural monuments, some going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. They even survived Ottoman rule, which was not always regarded as the most enlightened, although that is probably a controversial statement for which I shall get into deep trouble.
There might be an answer to all this, probably in the long term, with an even more expanded EU. However, even an avid Euro-enthusiast like the Minister would have to recognise that the admission of the countries in question is some way off. In the meantime, we must all work extremely hard to try to rid Europe of this potentially explosive problem—not least because of the huge number of refugees and internally displaced persons who are living in misery.
I ask the Minister not only to take the issue seriously but to make it a high priority of British foreign policy. Another tragedy is taking place in the Balkans before our eyes. It is an area where tragedies have become almost commonplace. I plead with the Minister to give all the people in the region hope of fairness and equality for the whole area.
11.19 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate. I endorse what he said, particularly about last week's delegation to the all-party group on Serbia and Montenegro. Our visitors were three people from very different political, cultural and social backgrounds. One was a member of the Yugoslav Government in the 1980s and 1990s. Another was an American citizen who was born, brought up and educated in the United States but is a devout follower of the Orthodox faith. The third, as the hon. Gentleman said, was an English woman who married into the Serbian royal family, lives in Belgrade and does humanitarian work in Kosovo. All three had the same tale to tell: there has been widespread ethnic cleansing since NATO and the UN took over five years ago.
Some 180,000 refugees and displaced persons—Serbs, Roma, Gorani, and other ethnic minorities—are now living in Serbia and Montenegro. The hon. Gentleman and I visited some of them a year ago. They are living in camps in miserable conditions, often just a few miles from the border of Kosovo, and are desperate to return home. They are simple, by and large agricultural, people. Great events happened around them, but they did not understand why they could not go home. All this took place under the noses of UNMIK and KFOR. To many of us who followed these events closely, it seems that the UN and NATO have turned a blind eye to what has been happening. When I think of all the debates, statements and passionate speeches about the dreadful ethnic cleansing, albeit temporary, of the Albanians,
400WH
who fled to Montenegro and Macedonia, I wonder where the sympathy is now for these people who, it seems to me, are permanently ethnically cleansed.
In my intervention, I mentioned the destruction of the churches. I add to that the fact that crimes that have been committed against minorities. Where are the people who have been arrested? Who has been sent to The Hague for climes against humanity? When will there be justice for people still living in Kosovo but in dreadful conditions in heavily guarded enclaves without any freedom of movement? It is a mockery to say that the elections held there are in any way fair and legitimate when minorities cannot get about and do the usual things that we all do in elections, such as canvas and move about safely without fear of death or injury.
In March, I asked the Minister questions about the recent outbreak of violence in Kosovo. He was not very reassuring. He could not even go so far as NATO did and condemn what was happening. Since then, I have waited for the Government's condemnation of what happened. Frankly, it is not good enough to say, as was said then, that inter-ethnic violence is to be condemned while studiously ignoring the main source of the violence. Can the Government bring themselves to say that the KLA orchestrated and perpetrated the violence? Not to do so is an insult to the people who are suffering at the hands of the Albanian terrorists, and undermines our position. It also flies in the face of utterances about the war on terrorism to ignore a bunch of thugs, terrorists and Mafiosi who have just purged another 4,500 Serbs and other minorities. I know that the Minister visited Kosovo recently. I hope that he talked to the same people on the ground to whom the hon. Gentleman and I talked and was not cosseted from the real situation. The hon. Gentleman and I hope to go there in the near future, and we will not let the issue go.
What is happening in Kosovo is incredibly serious; it is an attempt to eradicate a whole culture and a whole history. We must ask ourselves why. We cannot simply pretend that it is not happening. In the short time left to me, I shall concentrate on some of the most salient points that form the background to the latest series of attacks. First, the scale of the violence lends credence to the claims that it was systematic and planned by Albanian extremists. Amnesty International, for example, says that 33 violent incidents took place throughout Kosovo in mid-March and involved 51,000 people. Dozens were killed and hundreds injured. Amnesty International also takes seriously claims about the Kosovo police service. I am all for peace and reconciliation, but I do not understand the decision to put Agim Ceku, who led the KLA pogroms of Serbs and other minorities during and after the NATO bombardment, in charge of that police force. That is obscene.
In March, a senior UN spokesman, Derek Chappell, said:
"This is planned, co-ordinated, one-way violence from the Albanians against the Serbs. It is spreading and has been brewing for the past week. Nothing in Kosovo happens spontaneously."
Others have said similar things.
It has been reported in the British press and elsewhere that the violence was sparked by an incident in which Serbs drove Albanian children into a river, so that they were drowned. Those claims are being investigated by

401WH
an international prosecutor. Will the Minister explain what happened? I find it difficult to conceive that Serbs were playing on the Albanian side of the Ibar river—I have been there two or three time;. There were early witness accounts that those claims were not true, and that it was a tragic and dreadful accident. Perhaps the Minister can put us right about whether those claims are true. Even if they are, it stretches credulity to say that the co-ordinated attacks involving 51,000 people were spontaneous.
As Amnesty International and others point out, the violence is related to talks on the future of Kosovo, which are to due to begin next year. If there are no Serbs or other minorities left in the province, it will be considerably easier to make it independent, which is, of course, what the KLA wants. The KLA never disbanded; it simply took another name, and was allowed to keep all its arms. If we give in to such action, we will have deliberately encouraged and rewarded terrorism.
Many authorities have reports from a variety of sources, which establish that the KLA is sustained by organised crime. In my view, that occurs with the tacit approval of the United States and its allies. Some of us, including people far more exalted And knowledgeable than me, warned that that might happen. The hon. Gentleman quoted Major-General Mackenzie, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia during the civil war. In a recent article, the major-general wrote:
"The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo … When they achieve independence with the help of our tax dollars combined with those of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just consider the message of encouragement this sends to other terrorist-supported independence movements around the world."
Christopher Hill, America's chief negotiator and architect of the Rambouillet agreement has, in the past five years, been a strong critic of the KLA's drug dealing. As late as last year, Robert Gelbard, America's special envoy in Bosnia, which is part of the Albanian drug and people trafficking route, described the KLA as terrorists with links to the drug trade. As a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we are undertaking a study on people trafficking in the Balkans, and on the links between the drug trade, people trafficking and terrorism. A visit to Interpol confirmed that bin Laden had strong links with the KLA; while we were acting as the KLA's air force, it retained its links with known terrorists.
The US Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 4.6 tonnes of heroin leave Turkey for western Europe each month, passing through the Balkans. Some 80 per cent. of heroin arrives in Europe through Albanian channels via the Balkans. We have a serious problem on our hands.
Drugs are not the only trade in which those people are involved. They also trade in arms and traffick people. A recent Amnesty International report deals with the trade in women and girls for forced prostitution. I understand that there will be a press conference on Thursday in Pristina, the capital city of the Kosovo province, and I hope that the Government will pay it as much attention as it deserves.
Will the Minister assure us that he will consider and respond to these points, particularly to the criminality in the region, which will destabilise the whole area if we do
402WH
not get it right? An ethnically cleansed Kosovo is not the answer to anybody's dream of a peaceful Balkans. We need an international inquiry. I believe that some people in UNMIK have been involved in some irregular transactions, and that needs to be inquired into. On the issue of ethnic cleansing and the right of the people to return home, why is it right that Albanians are deemed to have an absolute right to return home but Serbs and other minorities are not? There seems to be a huge moral discrepancy there.
I should like to think that Britain is capable of taking all the facts into account, and of ensuring that a multi-ethnic community can live in peace in Kosovo and that the people who have perpetrated the violence and ethnic cleansing are finally brought to account, arrested and taken to The Hague. I am fully in favour of dealing with war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity—be they Serb, Albanian or whatever nationality—but it is obscene that we concentrate on only one set of war criminals and not the other.
11.32 am
Tony Lloyd: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) not only on obtaining this debate but on his timing. The events that took place in March, which he outlined, have made everybody reconsider their views on what is taking place in Kosovo.
I visited Kosovo in February of this year. Although there is no doubt that Kosovo is a depressing place, at that stage there was limited progress. It was not great progress—I do not think that anybody would pretend that it was overwhelming—but it was progress. For example, people said to me that at that time it was possible for Serbs to walk through Pristina. It was significant that things had moved on in that direction. There were also individual communities where people were working hard to operate properly on a cross-cultural and cross-ethnic basis. Later, I will refer to at least one individual who has some significance in that connection. I do not pretend that that progress was uniform throughout Kosovo, but in February things appeared to be moving in a positive direction, if very slowly.
The events in March that the hon. Gentleman has already outlined were horrific in their own right. The loss of Albanian children in the river is not immaterial, because it is human tragedy at any level. However, whether it happened by provocation or by accident, and I am not sure that anybody has come up with an answer to that, it really is not the issue. The previous day, a young Serb boy—again, nobody quite knows the background—was shot. Those are not provocations that should allow anybody to justify a launch into mob violence of the sort that was seen over the following three days, when between 40,000 and 50,000 people stormed various parts of Kosovo and, in effect, almost anywhere where there were Serb minorities. That was almost certainly first whipped up by the media.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the poor role played by the media. It is something that we will have to consider: who controls the flow of information? Who whipped up the incident of the deaths of the Albanian children in a way that allowed terror and mob rule to run amok? Of course, both the hon.

403WH
Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) were right to point out that there were almost certainly political minds behind the actions of the mob. My hon. Friend mentioned the KLA specifically. I do not have the same certainty about that. However, what is certain is that the motives were political; this was an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
I was in Kosovo—or rather on its borders—in 1999, and I witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. It was no more acceptable to me to witness Albanians being cleared from areas of Kosovo at that time than it is to see that happening now to the Serbs or the other minorities. It is as much of an outrage that ethnic cleansing is taking place against those minorities in Kosovo as it was that the Albanians were the victims five years ago.
The brutal truth is that we must say that we are not prepared to accept this; there can be no retaliatory balancing of things by settling old scores. We must recommit ourselves to creating a Kosovo that disbars and punishes that. If people are guilty of crimes, they must be brought before the courts because their crimes are just as serious and heinous as those committed elsewhere in the region.
If we simply say that in all circumstances one community is good and the other is bad, we will fail to address some important issues. Even in the days of madness, there were significant examples of individuals behaving differently. Lutfi Haziri, the Albanian mayor of Gnjilane, attempted to stand up against the mob to protect the Serbs in his community. People like that deserve recognition. There are Kosovar Albanians who are fighting for a humane solution that includes people of all ethnic backgrounds. Prime Minister Rexhepi also went out to the mob outside Pristina, and two thirds of the people turned their backs on mob rule by following him back into the town. In the midst of all the savagery, such acts should be recognised.
Some 4,000 people were chased away; 19 people were killed—eight of them Albanian, so this is not a completely one-sided situation; 900 people were injured; and, from the figures that I have seen, 700 houses were destroyed, as well as the churches that the hon. Gentleman referred to. The destruction has been crass, but it has also had a pattern: it has been an attempt to prevent people from returning. However, there are individuals who represent beacons of hope by working for a better solution.
As we have moved on to other issues, the international community's eye has not been properly fixed on the situation in Kosovo. Last week. the special representative, Harri Holkeri, was in Strasbourg talking to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. He said that he did not have the necessary resources. Of course, we must look into what those resources are for, but there is a real issue there. If the head of our international mission says that he does not have enough resources, we must take that seriously. We as parliamentarians must acknowledge that our Governments—the people who act in our name—have not been concentrating as much as they should on the situation in Kosovo.
404WH
We must accept that we have failed in our primary duty. KFOR and UNMIK are there, and their primary duty is the security of the men, women and children in Kosovo, in so far as it is possible to deliver that. We have failed in that duty because so many people were up against mob rule. We would not be able to accept that in our own cities without major questions being asked about what happened, and we cannot accept it in Kosovo without asking the same questions.
The first priority must be to guarantee security for all people living in Kosovo. I accept that that is difficult, but without it nothing else—investment, the returns policy, the justice system, the building of the infrastructure—will happen as it should. Without security, it would be a waste of time to try to secure those things. Security is central, and I want the Minister to say what he can about the role of KFOR and its capacity, because it is clear that in March KFOR was either not prepared or not able to act quickly enough or in a way that would have deterred the violence that ensued.
The second aim must be a quest for justice, and it is not simply an idle one. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has made this point already, but I must endorse it. The Minister is right to say that some of those involved have been arrested, and without prejudging the proper judicial process, which we must have in Kosovo, it is desperately important that a proper investigation is carried out, people are brought before the courts and those who are found guilty are sentenced to exemplary punishment. The signal must be given throughout Kosovo and to the wider world that those involved in such wanton and politically motivated violence will not be allowed to get away with it. That is a central point.
The intriguing question is always that of Kosovo's status, but I join those who say that the slogan "Standards not status" must be given meaning. Until we establish proper standards in Kosovo, any talk of status is almost irrelevant. Whoever inherits a Kosovo with no standards inherits a kind of desert, which is in nobody's interest.
Within those terms, we have a long way to go to build up capacity. That is another area in which the European Union, which is charged with the process of rebuilding the infrastructure, has not been as committed as it should have been. We need to tell the Commission, through our Government, that it must redouble its efforts. I say that while recognising that laying down a new infrastructure in a situation in which it could be trash tomorrow can work only if we recommit ourselves to the security equation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has already mentioned returns. Even before the events of March, about 200,000 people had fled Kosovo. My hon. Friend gave the figure as 180,000, and I would not argue with that, but whatever the number, she was right to say that those people are entitled to return. We have said that throughout the region. I have stood in places such as Srebrenica and said that we must allow a policy of returns. We have made that demand of the Governments in Belgrade, Sarajevo and Zagreb, and we must make the same demand in Pristina. Only the right to return will show that we are underpinning a future for Kosovo as a multi-ethnic community that—these words may seem casual, but they are necessary—gives equal respect to people, whatever their background. The right to return can work only if the security equation is dealt

405WH
with. If we were to ask people to return to a place from which they were driven at gunpoint, many would tell us that it is impossible under the current circumstances. I underline the fact that everything that we want for Kosovo depends on the re-establishment of a proper security presence.
Although this may sound arbitrary considering the recent violence, there needs to be a return to some sense of normalcy. Capacity and power must be transferred to local communities. That has not taken place at the speed that it should have, and the international agency UNMIK must consider its role and how quickly it has been prepared to transfer that power. Some of those things would help us to get over issues such as the parallel structures supported by Belgrade. One legitimate demand that we should make to the authorities in Belgrade is for them to cease supporting the parallel structures. In return, if we are to begin to rebuild the structures of Kosovo from the ground up, it must be clear that people at the community level have the proper capacity to take control of their own destinies.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate, because the issue has not gone away. From 1999 till the present, the situation in Kosovo has been chronic. It may not have been acute for the most part, which has meant that it has drifted off the agenda. However, it became acute in March, and, to be brutal, if we do not give it consistent attention, as we should have done from 1999 onwards, it will deteriorate.
There are good people in all the communities of Kosovo, and we can see signs of reconstruction and the implementation of proper standards. We can also see that there is a European ambition—hon. Members in different parts of the Chamber can interpret that how they like—for the people of Kosovo and the wider region. However, that ambition will be fulfilled only if we are prepared to recommit ourselves to Kosovo—to recommit the resources and, in particular, the political will to make Kosovo change.
11.45 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like other hon Members, I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. Like him. I think that it is worth putting the issue in the context of the great celebrations that we had at the weekend to mark the expansion of the European Union. While the Minister went to some very glamorous celebrations on the continent, I was at a more modest affair in Galashiels, in my constituency. People throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere are pleased at how Europe has been developing, and although there are no doubt problems ahead, the fact that so many countries—particularly those from the former communist bloc—are now part of the European Union sends the outside world a strong signal about the state of Europe.
Our focus on Kosovo reminds us, however, that the situation in Europe more broadly has not yet been sorted out. The tragic outbreak of violence has brought the province back into the headlines in the most appalling way, albeit briefly. At least 19 people died, and about 900 were injured, in the recent violence. As a
406WH
result, it was necessary to call on NATO reserves to assist in re-establishing order, which rather underlined the seriousness of the situation.
It appears that the objectives of restoring calm and preventing the spread of violence to neighbouring areas have been successfully met, and we should pay tribute to members of the forces from the United Kingdom and elsewhere who put their lives at risk and carried out their task successfully. However, we should not ignore reports that sections of the international forces in Kosovo were not seen to do well when the violence broke out. In its report of 22 April, the International Crisis Group was highly critical of aspects of KFOR's performance:
"KFOR stood revealed as a paper tiger, and will have difficulty redressing its credibility deficit."
The Minister's comments on the issue will be listened to with great care.
Even the most casual observer of the Balkans will be sensitive to the difficult situation in Kosovo and to the region's terrible history. As the different parties there tiptoe towards elections, which we hope will be in the not-too-distant future, the ugly face of ethnic cleansing has once again shown itself. Whatever the rights and wrongs of each side's claims, historic and otherwise. the international community must ensure that all parties understand some basic messages. Political aspirations depend on dialogue and negotiation, not violence and ethnic cleansing. All communities must be able to live in their homes, and the rule of law must prevail. A stable. democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo will never be achieved by inter-ethnic murder and violence.
The recent deaths and terrible disturbances sit in a wider, troubled context. The International Crisis Group report highlights the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia and, to some extent, blames the months in which the nerves of Kosovar Albanians were shredded by Belgrade for causing the tensions that gave rise to the violence. Alongside the problems with Serbia, long-running issues are still hanging over from the terrible events of 1999. I refer, in particular, to missing people. The United Nations interim administration mission figures suggest that about 2,500 Albanians and 1,000 Serbs are missing in Kosovo.
Identification of bodies in unmarked graves from earlier conflicts is a parallel and gruesome task. That problem was focused on by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), when she highlighted in a debate in December the anguish of those families who were affected and the circumstances that gave raise to those deaths, as Milosevic and his regime carried out wholesale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and dumped hundreds of bodies in mass graves. If he has the opportunity, will the Minister tell us what progress, if any, has been made since that debate?
The issue is perhaps the most emotive that exists, but it sits in a wider context of international efforts to regularise the situation in the country. The Minister will be aware from the ICG's report—however briefly he has been able to examine it—that its criticisms go more widely than despair at the experience of KFOR. The report highlights the failure of the UN civil administration to kick-start the economy and provide the necessary development assistance. It is critical

407WH
especially of local institutions when dealing with law enforcement and, in particular, organised crime, a theme that has been highlighted by the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). It focuses on the confusion over the steps that are necessary to move towards the final status discussions about Kosovo and says that that is having a serious destabilising effect.
Last November, the Minister announced a new mechanism of reviews for Kosovo to allow progress towards international standards and final status discussions to be monitored. To what extent has the recent violence knocked that process off track? Is it still the intention to complete the first formal review in mid-2005?
The crisis group has made 14 recommendations to the parties with an interest in Kosovo. Like others who have contributed to the debate, it focuses heavily on the need for enhanced security without which no progress can be made. It urges that there should be preparatory work for final status talks, in particular extended support for the development of the key institutions of government, which are failing. The group argues that it is most important for the international community to acknowledge that UNMIK needs to be restructured and given adequate resources to undertake its job.
The Minister's reply to my contribution and to the points made by the crisis group and others who have contributed to the debate will be listened to with interest. Kosovo is in a parlous and fragile state. This country has played a major part in stabilising it, and such action will undoubtedly continue. I hope that he will explain how.
11.54 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I, too, warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate. He has taken a consistent interest in the part of the world under discussion and has huge personal knowledge of it. I wish to applaud the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who equally has consistently raised such issues at Westminster and enhanced our understanding of the whole region. I welcome the opportunity to debate the situation in Kosovo.
One point has been echoed by everyone this morning, most powerfully by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), and that is that the horrific and controversial events in Iraq and the middle east have pushed Kosovo out of the international news, save when tragic events such as those in Mitrovica occur. We hope, however, that it has not fallen entirely out of view—I know that it has not so far as the Minister is concerned. It is important that the Prime Minister, also, should accord a priority to Kosovo and to the Balkans in general, even though the cameras of the world are focused elsewhere.
None of us can forget the terrible events of 1999, which saw the security forces of Milosevic ramp up the pressure on the Kosovan Albanians and engage in violent large-scale ethnic cleansing just hours after the commencement of NATO's bombing campaign. At the
408WH
same time, we witnessed the radicalisation of the demands of the KLA, coupled with increasing violence, often against innocent Serb civilians. The combination of NATO's air campaign and economic sanctions halted the violence in Kosovo. That, coupled with domestic opposition in Serbia—to which the credit must go—precipitated the fall of Milosevic in October 2000.
We know how complicated the history of the Balkans is. However, the tragic economic state of the region, the large number of displaced people, and the psychological scars of conflict, civil war and inter-ethnic tension bedevil Kosovo in particular. Sadly, five years on, much remains unresolved in Kosovo and the post-Yugoslavia region lingers on in limbo, with a security situation that is not conducive to the economic investment that is crucial, given such huge unemployment. I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who said that security is crucial if all else is to flow from it.
Kosovo's ethnic tensions simmer just below the surface. Questions have been asked about the circumstances leading to the tragic deaths of the three Kosovan Albanian children in Mitrovica in March. What have been clear are the consequence of those deaths—the almost immediate inter-ethnic violence—the Serbian Kosovans being the victims on this occasion.
The violence in March left 28 Serbian Kosovans dead, some 20 churches and 350 houses burned and destroyed and—most ominously—six Serbian enclaves ethnically cleansed with about 3,500 Serbs displaced. That recent violence raises a number of profound questions about the real state of law and order in Kosovo and the prospects for any sustainable long-term settlement.
Too little notice has been taken of the ethnic cleansing and violence directed against Serbs in Kosovo in recent years. While I pay tribute to the dedication and work of NATO and UNMIK in Kosovo. it is clear that sufficient troops on the ground are a prerequisite for a stable security environment and that the performance of the troops stationed there appears to vary according to area and nationality.
Serbians living in Kosovo are reduced to living in what amount to Serbian enclaves surrounded by Kosovan Albanian areas. It is estimated that since 1999, about 350,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo, and that many of them remain too frightened to return. Those who have returned live in dread of violence such as that which occurred in March and fear that the more radical of the Kosovan Albanians—KLA supporters—have the broader agenda of forcing them out to create an ethnically pure Kosovo. However, there is fear on the Kosovan Albanian side too. It sees Kosovo as a large enclave surrounded by an even larger Serb regional presence. Such fears of domination by other ethnic groups, unless reduced, threaten to enflame the region once again—the potential is always there.
A deeply saddening consequence of the tension and violence has been the burning and destruction of many sacred sites, particularly churches and monasteries dating back to the Byzantine era, which represent an irreplaceable architectural heritage and are important sites of religious devotion for many. Their destruction has been a tragic loss for European civilisation.

409WH
I was moved by a letter that I recently received from an artist, Barbara Dorf, who has spent many years visiting the area to paint. She vividly described the appalling destruction of Byzantine churches and the like. She suggested that there should be a
"body to make certain that these sacred sites are preserved … I suggest safe havens around these monasteries".
What is the Minister's response to those suggestions?
Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that UNESCO should not ignore pleas from the Orthodox Church to highlight what is a wholesale destruction of a way of life and culture?
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. If UNESCO has any role in preserving the architectural heritage of anywhere in Europe, those churches and monasteries must be preserved. They are part of our entire civilisation and their destruction is a tragedy for everyone concerned, not only those of a particular religious persuasion.
As the Minister will know, I recently visited Slovenia. While there, I had several interesting; discussions about the Balkan region and Kosovo. It is clear that Kosovo is in dire need of investment and economic growth to provide incomes and employment for its people. Unemployment is high—about 60 per cent.—and privatisation has stalled. A vast number of people without means of employment provide easy pickings for those seeking to stir up resentment against other ethnic groups. However, investment and economic growth must be pursued in parallel with a focus on creating a secure and stable environment in Kosovo. Its regional neighbours are well placed to assist in those respects. However, although the UN and NATO can do much, a desire for reconciliation and respect for the rule of law must ultimately come from Kosovo.
Following the welcome accession of many former eastern bloc countries to the EU at the weekend and the similar steps being taken by others, such as Bulgaria and Romania, the prospect of regional involvement and support should be further explored. Similarly, there are opportunities for those countries to build trade links with Kosovo, given that some 80 per cent. of its trade is with Serbia. Such reliance on one trading partner suggests a need for trade diversification outside Kosovo. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the economic development of Kosovo and persuade its neighbours to assist? What steps do they believe that the EU can realistically take to assist Kosovo's stabilisation and transition as new countries move towards membership?
I shall touch on the possible eventual status of Kosovo, although I know how difficult that will be. As I read it, UN Security Council resolution 1244 is ambiguous. What is the Minister's response to those who argue that a form of partition would eventually lead to intensified pressure on those communities still on the wrong side of any line and risk an unravelling of previous regional accords, such as Dayton and Ohrid? What position does he advocate in respect of Kosovo's final status and how does he envisage the situation developing?
410WH
My conversations in Slovenia strengthened my view that the possibility, however distant, of NATO and EU membership could be an important incentive to stabilising the post-Yugoslav republics and clamping down on human rights abuses. Croatia is on the path to EU membership. Does the Minister agree that by offering that carrot, including to Serbia, the aspirations of politicians in the region would be lifted and it would be clear that membership implies proper European standards of justice and governance, including respect for cultural diversity? I truly believe that that would provide a long-term political framework to replace the political vacuum, not least in Kosovo.
12.4 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am more than grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing this debate, because it enables me to set out Government thinking on Kosovo and the region and to announce to the House today some changes in policy and some discussions that we are having with partners and with our friends in Belgrade and Pristina. I use those words deliberately because I will not seek to get into a blame game for today's activities. It is important that all hon. Members approach this in a balanced way.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) who has taken a deep personal interest in the plight of the Serb people over a number of years. She has done so in conditions of exemplary solidarity, and I hope that her successor as hon. Member for Halifax will maintain that interest. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). He is one of the most distinguished members of our Council of Europe delegation and a predecessor of mine as Minister of State at the Foreign Office. His commitment to the region is of the highest order. As he reminded us, his visits to different sites in the region have informed all his contributions. I disagree with nothing that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said. They asked the right questions and approached the matter with the right tone.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge is right to secure this debate because it is five years almost to the week since the British Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, helped to put together the international coalition that ended the killing fields of Kosovo initiated by the Serb leader, Slobodan Milosevic. During too much of the 1990s Governments in Europe found reasons not to intervene in the western Balkans, and we know the price because we see it in our surgeries. More than a million asylum seekers have flooded into the rest of Europe from the former Yugoslavia.
In 1989 Yugoslavia was the richest country in the then communist world. Its citizens, from the Greek border to the Slovenian alps, could travel freely in Europe without visas. In that sense, it is my ambition to try to help all the people of the regions to get back to 1989. They have just become citizens of our common European Union. Along with the flow of asylum seekers in the early 1990s from Croatia, Bosnia and then Kosovo came the networks that helped to move them. They easily became the networks that could smuggle cigarettes, drugs and today, alas, prostitutes, arms and money. Those criminal networks exist throughout the region. They are not exclusive to Kosovo and we need to deal with that.

411WH
The decade of destruction and warfare unleashed by Milosevic in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and then in Kosovo is a dark chapter in Europe's history. Five years after the end of the formal Milosevic fighting, Europe has a responsibility to help all the western Balkans back to the community of European nations. We have had an uneasy peace in Kosovo since 1999. The weapons are mainly silenced, but the words from both sides are still too full of hate.
It is the power of verbal violence that we need to consider. Reference has been made to the three children who were drowned in the river at Mitrovica. The reporting of the incident by the Kosovan mass media was a disgrace by journalistic standards. I speak as a former president of the National Union of Journalists. It was outrageous how tensions were whipped up by Kosovan journalists to create the climate that then exploded into violence. Those are not just my views. The official at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe who is responsible for media standards reported that to the Berlin conference of the OSCE last week. I will be encouraging the OSCE to see what it can do to set much higher standards for reporting in Kosovo.
Words from political leaders are also extremely important. If I may reveal a bit of private Foreign Office discussion to hon. Members, I remember how my heart sank when I got the reports of the programmatic speech made by the newly elected Serbian Prime Minister, Kostunica, to the Parliament in Belgrade on 2 March. A huge chunk of his speech was not about the problems facing Serbia and Montenegro, working out ways in which it could discharge its obligations to the international tribunal in The Hague or the new economic initiatives that were needed; it was devoted to raising the issue of Serb status in Kosovo. Describing what his Government wanted, he said:
"Substantial autonomy for the Serb population in Kosovo includes territorial autonomy, the division of Kosovo into entities or the cantonisation of Kosovo … and a corresponding cultural and personal autonomy."
I asked my officials why on earth Mr. Kostunica was making a formal speech calling for Serb territorial autonomy in Kosovo, how on earth every Kosovan would react and whether he thought I should condemn it; it is like Germany reclaiming parts of the Czech Republic, Silesia or Pomerania. I said no, however, because I like and trust Mr. Kostunica and I have had many good conversations with him; I like his new Government and I have worked in the region for a number of years. I said that I would not put out an official expression of concern by the British Government and that we should move away from a hectoring approach, preaching against statements by leaders in the region. However, I was sure that there would be a reaction.
Well, the reaction came, because words have consequences and so does announcing unacceptable policies. Although the drowning of those three poor Albanian children and the way that it was dealt with in the Kosovan mass media undoubtedly led to that explosion, and undoubtedly there were extremists in
412WH
Kosovo who fanned the flames, the time has come for everyone, including Members of this House, to measure their words very carefully.
Mr. Randall: The Minister is absolutely right. In that context, I wonder whether he will reconsider the combination of the idea of the annexation of Sudetenland and the issue of Kosovo. After all, Kosovo is still regarded by the international community as part of Serbia and Montenegro.
Mr. MacShane: In Germany, right up until recently, there were giant football stadiums full of people organised by the Bund der Vertriebenen—the league of the expellees—who, under a giant slogan, would have monster meetings and say, "Silesia belongs to us. We will return." People may wish what they want, but to my knowledge no German Government figure would endorse that or bring it into German Government policy. The parallels are never quite exact, but we will have to accept—I will develop this point a little later in my speech—that the time has come in which there can be no question of a return to 1999, 1989 or 1979 in terms of Serb control over Kosovo. If we do not say that honestly and on the record, as I am doing today, in my judgment we will encourage the wrong approach. The terms of any final settlement need to be debated and I will come on to that.
Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I do not really want to have a conversation, because there are some important points that I need to put on record, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend draws attention to one side's words during the recent pogrom in March. Did he take note of some leading nationalist Albanian speeches, both leading up to that and since? The first words of the pacifist Rugova after the pogrom were that it showed that Kosovo must have independence. There are two sides to every argument.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those remarks. That is why it is time for Europe to rethink its policies, and for our country to find new words and new ideas to help move Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo forward to a new relationship with each other, the rest of Europe and the world. We need a new approach in Belgrade and Pristina, as well as new thinking on how UNMIK, KFOR and the other international organisations carry out their duties. We need more investment and more encouragement for those trying to do good, including the mayor of Gnjilane who works collaboratively with villages in Macedonia and Serbia to try to offer local leadership to both communities. We need more condemnation of those who use words to stir up hatred and resentment, rather than to build, if not full reconciliation—that might be too much to ask for—then a modus vivendi that allows tolerance, or at least an absence of hate that spills over so easily into bloodshed.
I appeal again to all hon. Members not to take sides. Ten years ago, it seemed easy: as a new MP I recall listening to speeches in the House, and it seemed clear

413WH
that the Albanian Kosovans and their way of life were persecuted. The distinguished Serbian politician, Biljana Plavšić, who was one of the three top Government officials in the Republika Srpska, said that Muslims in Bosnia were a
"genetic mistake on the Serbian body",
and that to eliminate them was a "natural phenomenon", not a war crime. That language is on the record, and we have not yet seen any reconciliation from Serb leaders, particularly the Church, for what took place. There has been no equivalent of Willy Brandt kneeling in front of the Warsaw ghetto to apologise for the crimes that Germans committed against the Jews. There has been no formal denunciation or apology in Parliament or in the media for that kind of remark. That is not the position of the Serbs with whom I deal, but we must find clear new language. Today, in Kosovo at least, the Kosovan Albanians are in the majority, not the minority. I say to them here, as I said to them there, that they must not make the same mistake that Milosevic made in thinking that ethnic cleansing or violence could ever provide a solution to the difficulties between the two communities.
Last month, I met President Rugova, and told him that I did not want to hear talk of independence. I said that in today's Europe we are all interdependent and Kosovo must find a model of interdependence that allows it to live in harmony with all those who live in its territory and with the rest of the region. I firmly oppose the notion that partition politics arc possible or would make any sense in Kosovo. I visited the Irish troops who behaved with commendable bravery on St. Patrick's day, 17 March, when the rioting broke out and spilled over to 18 and 19 March. They took me to a Serb village called Dubrotin, which was a sad sight, where the people live in some fear. Suddenly, on the same road, with nothing to mark a change, was the Albanian village of Slovenje, with similar houses and people, in the same fields. In the cemetery there were 18 wooden grave markers: they were graves of men born in 1912, men born in the year of my birth and men born in the 1960s, and all killed on the same day in 1999, when 27 Kosovans were taken out by Serbs and shot dead. Only 18 bodies were recovered to be buried. The hatred is still there, just as the appalling attacks on the churches of Kosovo upset every Serb who sees the destruction wrought.
I told President Rugova that I did not want to discuss final status, because I believe that the only final status is when we are all dead. I said that the Kosovan authorities and Belgrade need to enter into a dialogue to find mechanisms to address the status issue on the basis of European values and European interdependence. They must realise that it is not the status of the state that matters, but the status of the citizens who live in a region.
The rioting of 17 and 18 March was inexcusable; I assure hon. Members that violence will not be rewarded. The international community will stay in Kosovo as long as is necessary—for 100 years if that is what it takes—until Kosovans accept their responsibility to stop the violence engendered by some criminal elements among them. I am glad that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, with the help of KFOR and the responsible Kosovan authorities, has ensured a transfer to The Hague of three Kosovan
414WH
Albanians—Haradin Bala, Isak Musliu and Fatmir Limaj—who have been charged with serious crimes. However, it is important too that Republika Srpska and its authorities make earnest efforts to secure the transfer to The Hague of Karadzic and Mladic. We are barely one year away from the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacres, when 7,500 Europeans were taken out, separated from their wives and families, herded together and executed in cold blood. The judges in The Hague defined that 10 days ago as an act of genocide. There are too many people in Republika Srpska who know where Mladic and Karadzic are and who are not persuading them to report to the authorities for transfer to The Hague or helping in their transfer. There has been no clear, decisive condemnatory public language from responsible people in the Serb Government, and no parliamentary declaration, making it clear that it is the duty of those gentlemen to go to The Hague.
The riots were terrible; I saw the video and digital camera footage of the Irish soldiers. They showed children of about 17 or 18 who looked as though they should have been carrying school satchels; they were not KLA-trained people from the 1990s. It is a plain fact that 75 per cent. of Kosovans under 25 are unemployed. There is no economic hope, and Belgrade does not seem able to find a way of letting Kosovo be Kosovo.
The British Government want to move policy forward; we want less UNMIK, a strong KFOR, and more Kosovan economic control and responsibility for policing and security. The only way to make people responsible is to give them responsibilities. In the five years after the military interventions, the international institutions have been too slow and cumbersome in giving responsibility to Kosovans and requiring them to behave responsibly. That must change, but equally it must be understood in Belgrade that there cannot be a return to the past.
I had good, warm meetings with the Serb Government leaders when I was in Belgrade, and I asked them to discuss their ideas for decentralisation and helping the Serb people in Kosovo with Pristina. If we want to decentralise and build from the bottom up, we have to discuss from the bottom up, not issue programmes or plans from the centre and then expect others to fall into line with them.
That is why I find the proposals that have come forward from Belgrade in recent days very hard to accept. From the British Government's point of view, those proposals are simply unacceptable as formal policy. They may be a basis for discussion, but I have read, for example, references to Serbs in Kosovo claiming entitlement
"to parts of the territory that links in a natural way Serb-dominated settlements, in which they previously did not make up a majority".
I really do not understand what that means. I saw a village that was made up of completely contiguous Serb and Albanian parts, on the same road. The notion that they can be separated, which is what seems to be indicated in the plan from Belgrade, simply will not work.
I understand the fears and the needs of the Serbs in Kosovo, but Belgrade must discuss, in depth and continuously, its concerns with Pristina. Policies cannot

415WH
be decided in Belgrade or in New York and then announced as decrees to be obeyed. Dialogue is necessary. Political dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina must be direct, personal and continual, and should be aided by the Governments of Europe and the EU directly, via the European Commission and the high representative of the Council of Ministers. That process of dialogue should be separate from, yet parallel to, the administration of UNMIK.
We need to get political movement in the region, rather than just firefighting when a crisis breaks out. We have examples from which we can learn lessons. In Croatia the hatred has died down. Croatia is firmly on the path to the EU, and, if Croatia's alleged war criminal, Mr. Gotovina, is in The Hague, where he is wanted, by the end of June, I am sure that we shall be opening accession talks with Croatia. To the south, in Macedonia, Albanians and Macedonians have learned to build a political system that allows two communities to go forward together. We can take comfort from other examples in the region.
As I said, we shall need new policy and new thinking. I took Mr. Rugova to St. Nicholas' church in Pristina, where he said that what had happened there was an assault on European cultural and religious traditions. The next day I was in the mosque in Belgrade, which had been attacked by a Serb mob, and in the library there I found books, 200 or 300 years old, which had been put in a pile to be burnt. I need not remind hon. Members of the last time we saw people burning books in a European capital city, but it is not something that we ever want to see again. We have to move away from such hate.
416WH
Certainly the Government need to get more of a grip on UNMIK. The special representatives do an excellent job, but the UN in New York needs to devolve more real power to those on the ground and allow changes that will see UNMIK transfer more economic competences in Kosovo. We need KFOR operations to re-examined. The troops do an excellent job, but some national contingents cannot even be deployed without permission from their national Government. The commanding officer told me that he had about 17,000 troops, of which only one tenth—1,700—could be deployed on the ground. That needs to be changed. Those troops must be trained in riot control mechanisms. They do not use water cannons or tear gas, so there is nothing between having a shield and a baton and opening fire with heavy weaponry. That needs to be revised.
Kosovo needs economic movement. It has to import 70 per cent. of its food, but it is in one of the richest agricultural regions of Europe. We have to urge, at the highest political level, Serbs and Kosovans to discuss their problems. We would like to see a new special envoy shuttling between Pristina and Belgrade to facilitate that process. We need more engagement by European Foreign Ministers. The Foreign Secretary is fully committed to that policy. We need the stars and stripes to be present. We also need Russia to be actively involved at the UN level in finding a way forward.
I can only assure the Chamber that we shall continue to be engaged. Her Majesty's Government realise that, five years after the end of the military conflict, we need new energy and new policy. I am deeply grateful to those hon. Members who have made such constructive speeches, and for the chance to announce what I hope will be a new turn in British policy towards the region.

Human Rights (Western Sudan)
12.30 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: As chairman of the all-party group on Sudan, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a short debate on what Mukesh Kapila, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, has described as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis. I know that at least one other well-informed colleague wishes to contribute, so I intend to be brief.
I begin with a tribute to the tireless and painstaking work undertaken by the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development Sudan unit, under the leadership of Alan Goulty. I also pay tribute to the work of our embassy in Khartoum. Those hon. Members who are in regular contact with our officials regard their work in assisting the Naivasha peace process as an exemplary model of the disinterested and principled way in which the Government are conducting diplomacy in Africa. I look forward to the Minister's response.
It is imperative that the world should turn its attention towards Darfur. The murder of perhaps 30,000 civilians, the complete destruction of villages, the abduction of children and young people, and systematic rape and sexual abuse have all been documented for UN and humanitarian organisations by many people among the approximately 1 million who have been displaced in Sudan and across the western border into Chad. Those people have heard about and documented the theft of livestock and food and the wasting of crops on which many thousands depend for basic subsistence.
All in all, it is estimated that about 3 million people—half the population of a region the size of France—who live, at the best of times, on the margins of a sustainable existence have been and are being affected by the crisis. Anyone can see the potential for worse to come, no harvest this year for many people, animals gone and wells destroyed, so many people's basic means of livelihood stolen, people being displaced perhaps not once but several times, and continuing threats of the most appalling violence and insecurity hanging over so many people.
Child mortality, that crucial indicator, is increasing. The rainy season is almost here—it is due this month and next—and displaced people, are living in overcrowded and unsanitary camps. It is estimated that 61 per cent. of the conflict-affected population have no access to food assistance, 88 per cent. lack appropriate shelter and 89 per cent. lack sufficient clean water. A major problem exists for the world to address.
It seems clear, from the accounts that we have heard, how the crisis began. It stems from the response of the Government of Sudan to the rebellion of two armed groups—the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. It would appear that, acting together, the Sudanese Government armed forces and Janjaweed militia have attacked a range of civilian centres from the air and the ground, in clear violation of the Geneva convention. Civilian targets include markets, homes, wells, shops and fields—the property mainly of African tribes such as the Zaghwara, the
418WH
Masaalit and the Fur. These tribes are Muslim as well as African, and they appear to be targeted mainly by Arab groups that are supported at many levels and in many ways by the Government of Sudan. This is an horrific new outbreak of ethnic cleansing, and it may be genocide in the making. The people of Darfur need local, national, regional and international action now, and much of that action must come from the Government of Sudan.
Some of us have visited Sudan and hope to do so again. We were all heartened by aspects of our last visit. We regularly host Sudanese politicians and officials in this building, and we hear strong commitments to making progress in the largest country in Africa—a country that, apart from 11 years, has experienced civil war for the last 50 years or so. It is estimated that one eighth of the world's refugees are Sudanese. Above all, perhaps, Members of Parliament represent Sudanese constituents. Only this Saturday, I was talking to one of my Sudanese constituents. There are strong links between Members of this House, Sudan and its people.
I am sure that we have all been heartened by the substantial progress made as a result of the Kenyan peace talks. Some issues seem to take a very long time to resolve, but we have had and are seeing historic and remarkable agreements on a future referendum on the sharing of power and wealth throughout the country. We have heard, and I certainly believe, that the Government of Sudan want a united and peaceful country and want the development of Sudan's natural resources to benefit all the people of Sudan. They want the opportunity provided by debt relief and the lifting of sanctions, and they want Sudan—the largest country in Africa, and potentially the richest—to play a large part in the fine future that I am sure Africa has. If the Sudanese Government continue to want that, they should respect the ceasefire that they agreed on 8 April. Indeed, it is their responsibility to do so. They should ensure as far as possible that any militia or other armed groups in Darfur also respect that ceasefire. They should co-operate with international monitoring and allow full humanitarian access to all areas within their borders.
Our Government should make a substantial contribution to the new United Nations appeal for Darfur, and they should prompt the UN and all elements of the international community to ensure that sufficient and timely resources are made available to all war-affected communities in Sudan and Chad. We may need to prompt the UN and the whole international community to give the people of Darfur the support that they need. There cannot be many higher priorities for foreign policy. Perhaps this country should also be prepared to support Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, in his suggestion that the international community should be prepared to take swift and appropriate action if access is denied.
I will now give the Floor to anyone else who wants to take part in this debate, but let me say in conclusion that this is a crucial issue for our time. We have the opportunity to put into practice all the lessons that we have learned from Rwanda and Kosovo and from our experiences across the whole of Africa. This is the time for the international community, which is doing so much to promote the peace process in Sudan, to come together, recognise the dire situation in Darfur and add

419WH
that situation firmly to its agenda. The Government must carry on and develop their superb work in Sudan to ensure that we address the crisis and prevent what seems to be a catastrophe in the making.
12.41 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who chairs the all-party group on Sudan, which stands out as one of the best groups in Parliament. We hope to visit Sudan shortly. I wish to make two points and ask two questions of the Minister; I must say that I am pleased that the Foreign Office is represented here today.
I shall be more blunt than my hon. Friend, who was very diplomatic. My first point is on human rights abuses, which are legion in Sudan. Much as I feel some responsibility for Iraq and for Israel and Palestine, I wish that many more of my constituents got as wound-up about Sudan as they do about those places. I sometimes refer to people Pilgering their consciences. When I respond to all the letters that I get on Iraq and Israel-Palestine, I say, "Please also remember Sudan." There are the makings of a huge tragedy in that country. Already, about 750,800 million people have been killed, moved or brutalised, and it is about time that the western world, and indeed the whole world, gave it its correct priority and recognised the need to take action.
Secondly, the Government of Sudan unfortunately have form, whether we are talking about the Antonov bombers flying over the south, as they have done for many years—they are now flying over Darfur—or the use of Arab proxies in the south. There is the case of the Mullareen and—in this case, as my hon. Friend said—the Janjaweed. The Sudan Government are using forces on the ground to do their dirty work. It is pleasing to hear that the Sudan Government have stayed in the peace talks, and we congratulate them on doing so, but they cannot allow other parts of Sudan to break out into warfare just when the south appears to be closer to salvation than ever before.
My two groups of questions are simple. First, what is the current status of the peace talks between the Government of Sudan, the SLA and the JEM? Are they real peace talks? Will they lead to substantive change on the ground or are they a ruse to make it seem to the world that something is happening? In reality, are people just being moved out for whatever reason, as we know happened for so long in the south?
Secondly—I know that this question is directed more at DFID than the FCO—what contingencies do the Government have ready to allow them to get into not just western Sudan if and when there is an element of stability in the area, but Chad, where there has been a mass movement of people seeking some solace from the conflict? What resources can we put in to give those people hope? As soon as the conflict ends, there will be starvation and further conflict unless we act precipitately. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on those issues.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for raising this issue. The Government are deeply concerned about the situation in Darfur, which is growing worse by the day. It is impossible to overstate the gravity of the crisis.
As my hon. Friends have said, the escalation in the fighting between the Government and the two opposition groups—the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement—has led to a dramatic and potentially catastrophic deterioration of the security situation in Darfur. The UN estimates that the fighting has led to the internal displacement of more than 1 million people, but the UN and other agencies have access to only about half of them. Acute malnutrition has been reported in some areas, and needs in all sectors, including food, shelter and health, are enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, there is compelling evidence that militias have carried out the most deplorable human rights abuses, including systematic attacks on civilians, rape, pillage and the destruction of livelihoods.
It is true that the parties have signed a humanitarian ceasefire agreement. That is a welcome step, and I commend the Government of Chad on the key role that they have played in brokering the agreement. However, there is a great deal more to be done, and there is evidence that attacks by the Government-armed Janjaweed militia continue. We condemn the actions of such militias and of any parties that do not comply with the terms of the ceasefire.
The UK has been active from the outset on the issue of Darfur, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development raised it with the Government of Sudan, including the President, when he visited Khartoum last year. Since then, we have been in almost daily contact with the Sudanese Government and opposition groups through our embassy in Khartoum and our DFID-FCO Sudan unit in London. Our priority has been to stop the fighting.
Since the start of the current crisis, we have made it clear that the only sustainable solution to the problems in Darfur is a peaceful one. While the fighting continues, the humanitarian and human rights situation will continue to deteriorate. If things are allowed to continue unchecked, the situation could overwhelm the fragile negotiations to end the 21-year civil war between north and south.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether the Government think that the peace process is genuine and is making progress. We believe that it is genuine and that it is making progress, and we hope that a framework agreement will emerge in the next few weeks. It will take a few months to tie down the details so that a comprehensive package can be signed and so that planning for the post-ceasefire arrangements can get under way. Obviously, the international community will need to be closely involved to ensure that those arrangements work. As I say, however, there is a danger

421WH
that events in Darfur might take on a momentum of their own and overwhelm the peace process. We are, of course, seeking to avoid that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will realise that I raised the following issue in business questions on Thursday. Can he tell us what practical steps are being taken to do something positive, not only through the United Nations, but through the African Union and other countries? The Sudan Government seem to back off when there is publicity but to start pressing again when it ends.
Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with that point in a moment.
The Abeche ceasefire agreement was signed in September 2003, and it seemed to offer hope. When it collapsed in December, however, it became clear that an internationally monitored ceasefire was needed. The 8 April agreement provides for a commission to monitor the ceasefire and for international participation on that commission. We are in close contact with the parties and with other members of the international community to help to set up such a monitoring mechanism. We attended an AU meeting in Addis Ababa on 19 and 20 April to discuss the issue, and we are discussing the next steps with our US and EU partners. Implementing the monitoring mechanism as quickly as possible is vital to ensure that all parties comply with the ceasefire agreement, civilians are protected and humanitarian assistance is effectively disbursed.
I understand that the AU is now in consultation with the parties on the mechanics of this operation. We are pressing for a proposal to be tabled soon. We hope that all parties will quickly agree to the modalities and that the monitoring team can be deployed soon thereafter. We are prepared in principle to contribute to such a monitoring mechanism. Given the fragility of the situation in Darfur, it is clear that speed is of the essence.
On the points raised about humanitarian and human rights issues, we are extremely concerned by the reports of widespread human rights abuses and breaches of international humanitarian law. We have made strong representations—repeatedly and at the highest levels—to the Sudanese Government. We have made it clear that there can be no excuses for such atrocities, and that they must stop. All parties to the conflict must respect the principles laid down in international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians. We have called for the reported attacks against civilians to be thoroughly investigated and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, and we have pressed the Government to rein in the Janjaweed militias, which seem to be responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I regret that the Sudanese Government have so far appeared to be in a state of denial about both the extent of atrocities and the degree of access permitted to outside agencies.
The recent UN Commission on Human Rights meeting provided us with an opportunity to raise our concerns about Darfur. It mandated an independent expert to provide formal international scrutiny of the human rights situation in Sudan. Such scrutiny has been lacking since the end of the mandate for the special rapporteur when the Sudan resolution was defeated last year at the Commission on Human Rights.
422WH
Unfortunately, the language in the commission's decision was not nearly as strong as we would have liked. The EU tabled a much stronger resolution on Sudan, but it was not considered for procedural reasons. We are now focused on getting the independent expert appointed and operational as quickly as possible.
A UN human rights team led by James Morris, executive director of the World Food Programme, visited Darfur last week, following up its recent mission to Chad. We are awaiting the team's report on the situation and its recommendations on the international response that is needed. We support the call by the United States for a special session of the Commission on Human Rights to debate the report and to consider any appropriate follow-up action.
Under the terms of the recent ceasefire agreement, the parties are committed to "ensure humanitarian access". Access for humanitarian agencies is improving. Agencies can now reach more of the affected population, but things are improving from a very low base and the situation is still far from good. We raise the question of access with the Sudanese Government daily, and our ambassador in Khartoum took the lead in establishing regular meetings between the Sudanese Government and donors, the UN and international non-governmental organisations to discuss and try to reduce the obstacles to humanitarian access.
Despite the problems with access, we are working hard to ensure that the humanitarian needs are met. In that context, I can now address the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. We are the second biggest bilateral donor to the Darfur crisis after the US. We have already committed more than £11.5 million to UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross, and we are planning to contribute to the UN's recent appeal for $115 million for Darfur. DFID has also provided key personnel to reinforce the UN's response.
We urgently need to build the capacity of the various UN agencies and NGOs that are on the ground, and to ensure that they have sufficient supplies of food, water, medicine and shelter, as well as the capability to deliver the supplies to those in need. We are aware of the need to act swiftly, particularly given that the imminent rains will only complicate matters by increasing the risk of epidemics and hindering logistics.
The situation in Darfur remains desperate. The Government of Sudan must allow access to humanitarian assistance and discourage militias such as the Janjaweed from breaking the terms of the ceasefire.
Mr. Dawson:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing all the diplomatic efforts that have been made, but, as he acknowledged, the situation is desperate and urgent. There clearly cannot be delays over humanitarian access to people in desperate circumstances if we are to avoid people dying in greater numbers. I appreciate that he may not be able to say much at this stage, but can I assume that the Government are actively looking at the whole range and continuum of the possible measures referred to by Kofi Annan, which could be used to address the situation in the event of non-compliance by the Government of Sudan or their inability to deal with the militias?
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend would be right to assume that. We raise the question of access almost daily with

423WH
the Sudanese. The last occasion was yesterday, when our ambassador met the Foreign Ministry in Khartoum. We are also in close touch with the Government of Chad, who are the other potential point of access, but there is no getting round the fact that we need the co-operation of the Government in Khartoum if we are to reach most of the people who have been affected and displaced by this tragedy.
In conclusion, let me say that my hon. Friends can be assured that we are well aware of the gravity of the situation and that we are doing all in our power to resolve it.

Home Education
12.57 pm
Sir George Young: I welcome this opportunity for a short debate about home education, which is an important but sometimes neglected tributary of mainstream education. I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards will be replying.
I confess to having known little about the subject before meeting the Medlam family in my constituency. They proved to me both how successful and rewarding home education could be, but also explained how some hurdles that confront families who educate their own children might be lowered. Therefore, after securing this debate I spent the bank holiday weekend, appropriately, educating myself at home about home education.
When I was Minister with responsibility for housing, I remember coming across self-builders. They did not want to buy an off-the-peg house; they wanted not only to design their home themselves, but to build it. I suspect that my then Department regarded them as inconvenient eccentrics, likely to make a hash of a difficult task best left to the professionals. However, having met some of them, I was deeply impressed by them and their homes. I took the view that the role of government was to enable them to find out what was involved before they decided to embark on their project and, once they had, to ensure that they got the support and encouragement that they needed.
The same should be the case with home educators. In the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the European constitution, we should "live and let live." In one sense, we are all home educators; any rigid demarcation between education that happens at school and non-education that happens at home is misguided. For most of us, educating a child is a continuous partnership involving both parents and teachers. Some parents—we do not know how many—heroically choose to do the whole thing themselves, and information technology and the internet may make that a more practical option today than it used to be. Those parents deserve more support and encouragement than they presently receive.
The Department's draft circular—perhaps the Minister can clarify its exact status—and the speeches made by Ministers have sounded a bit sniffy about home education:
"My Department recognises and respects the right to choose to home educate."
That reads as though the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), was giving planning permission for a nudist colony.
We have to read only what is said at recent teachers union conferences to see why parents who cannot afford or do not want private education opt out of the state sector and educate at home. Stressed teachers are unable to give pupils the attention that they need, are grappling with a more and more prescriptive curriculum, and are coping with increasingly violent children who bully one another and assault the staff, against a background of endless standard assessment tests and Ofsted inspections and an ever-growing pile of circulars from

425WH
the Department. That is the view of some teachers. I applaud the work of teachers in my constituency. Indeed, I visited three schools last Friday—Amport, Shepherds Spring junior and Ashford Hill—which all provide quality education.
Children are diverse individuals. If a system of education were to be devised with the aim of suiting every child, it would have to be infinitely flexible and accommodating. That clearly is not possible. Home education is an essential right for children whose learning styles, personalities, abilities or needs cannot be adequately met in school. It is also an important right in a free society for parents who wish to educate their children rather than entrust them to the state, particularly if they have lost confidence in state provision.
The previous debate on this subject was held was almost a year ago on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I shall pick out four points from the reply of the Under-Secretary and then ask some questions. Home educators will then be able to work out what progress the Department has made since its last examination.
The first point, which stems from the Education Act 1996, is that parents who educate at home are not required by law to inform the local education authority of what they are doing. I believe that they should be obliged to do so. That would lessen the risk of children falling through the net or being accused of truancy. It would enable LEAs and the Government to know how many children are being educated at home. LEAs could be more proactive in offering targeted help and could put home educators in touch with one another. I do not want a heavy-handed, intrusive registration system, just a requirement to notify. I am aware that it is the duty of parents to ensure that their children are educated, but society is entitled to know who is exercising that duty for individual children.
Secondly, there was no sign of the Government seeking to promote best practice among the LEAs. The Under-Secretary referred to some LEAs providing
"national curriculum materials or other forms of support".
However, he could not bring himself to suggest that all LEAs should do so. Even in the draft circular to LEAs, the Department was unable to move to exhortatory mode:
"LEAs may be able to offer additional support to home educating parents; this may take various forms … Authorities have the discretion to provide support through local initiative projects should they wish".
That guidance appears to have been written by Treasury Ministers preoccupied with containing public expenditure, rather than Education Ministers concerned with raising standards.
Some Departments, notably including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, have a specific mission of raising standards among local authorities and promoting best practice. Some education authorities are good—for example, Cornwall, Stafford and Essex. According to my e-mails, other authorities are obstructive. What are the Government doing to bring the backmarkers up to speed so that home educators throughout England get a good service?
426WH
The Under-Secretary went on to say that
"there has not been any independent and systematic evaluation at a national level of the overall quality of the education provided and the specific outcomes that it delivers for the children concerned."
That statement sits uneasily with Dr. Paula Rothermel's study, which showed that all children benefited from home education, with children from the lowest socio-economic groups doing best. She found that 65 per cent. of home-educated children scored more than 75 per cent. in a general maths and literacy test, compared with the national figure of only 5.1 per cent. The average national score for school-educated pupils in the same test was 45 per cent., whereas that of the home-educated pupils was 81 per cent. She concluded:
"The improved exam results could be down to the sheer quantity of parental attention and the sense of long-term security that gives them … It could also be down to the fact that families who home educate from birth had worked with their children from the word go and without the disruptive transition at an early age to the very different environment of school."
If the Government do not accept those findings and say that there has been no evaluation, they should get on and do it. We do not know how many children are involved. A year ago, the Under-Secretary estimated the figure to be between 50,000 and 100,000. What plans are there to undertake an evaluation?
The Under-Secretary then referred to the inequity of access to further education for those educated at home, and particularly the under-16s:
"The playing field should not be uneven."
That was against the background of evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that home-educated children aged under 16 are charged £1,800 per subject for a college place to study for GCSE, whereas other children get free places. I regret that there has been little progress in the past year towards putting that right. One of the biggest problems remains the funding for under-16s who want to take courses at local colleges of further education. Many of them, if they manage to get places, have to pay, whereas the 16 to 19-year-olds do not. That is one of the most important issues for those who educate at home. Parents are passed from pillar to post by the Department for Education and Skills, learning and skills councils and LEAs. The Department's draft circular makes it clear that parents are liable to pay all the fees unless their LEA is willing to provide funding. That does not sound like a level playing field.
I assume that, through the revenue support grant, local authorities are getting some funding for those children—certainly their parents are paying council tax. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that; the LEAs deny that they get funds for home-educated children, but my understanding is that the RSG is calculated per head of the population. Who has the funding to enable the children to attend college and how should parents set about getting places for them?
A related irritation is examination fees. The Government want more children to go on to university, but they cannot get there without A-levels. If they go to an LEA school, their exam fees are paid for them. The draft circular confirms that if one saves the LEA and the taxpayer about £20,000 by educating one's child at home, one has to pay examination fees. That is certainly the case in Hampshire. It is difficult to explain the justice

427WH
of that to home educators. Perhaps the Minister would like to have a shot at it. Parents also have difficulty in finding examination centres, some of which charge exorbitant fees. So, against the Under-Secretary's request a year ago for a level playing field, what has his earth-moving equipment been up to?
What was not in the speech? One dog did not bark. The Government are in favour of voluntary organisations, as I am. Usually, in debates such as this, the Minister can point to some help for the voluntary organisations active in the area under discussion. However. I understand that there is no financial or non-financial support for the voluntary organisations that support parents educating children at home. The Home Education Advisory Service may wish to maintain its independence and not receive direct funding, but it could certainly be a conduit for funding to help, for example, with part-time attendance at FE colleges or for GCSE entry fees. Several years ago, the other major organisation, Education Otherwise, received a national lottery grant to send out a booklet to all LEAs, but that is the only grant that I know of. Like the HEAS, EO is funded by member subscriptions and donations.
The Minister's Department refers professionals to the helplines of both EO and HEAS for legal information and advice, and the LEAs also make referrals. The Government's own bully helpline refers parents to EO. Tomorrow will see the national launch of the Government's £125 million fund for voluntary groups at the Emmanuel centre, Westminster. I hope that Ministers make it clear they will welcome applications from groups active in home education.
My interest in the subject, as I said at the beginning, originated with a family of home educators in Hampshire. I asked them the question about social isolation that people always ask. This was their reply:
"Both children did drama at the Watermill Theatre, sang in a local choir, did gym classes, swimming, football and Aikido and played in the Hampshire County Youth Orchestra. There was plenty of interaction with other children from the neighbourhood as well. In addition, as you know, our house is always full of people. And that was one main advantage of our situation: the children interacted with all sorts of people here and seemed to be totally at ease with adults."
A sample of one may be unsound, but I was relieved to read in other research that home-educated children are socially well-adjusted folk. Since this debate was announced, many home educators have been good enough to e-mail me. I quote Annelies Scott:
"I would like the DFES to inform the LEAs to be more open about Home Education being a valid option, and then to carry out their advisory duties in a well-informed and respectful manner, according to the law and not their own internal guidelines."
Last year, the Under-Secretary's speech ended with the following less-than-ringing endorsement for home education:
"We need to pay more attention to the contribution that home educators make".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 66–8WH.]
I hope that the Minister can find a better peroration today.
1.10 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall serving under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing the debate, which follows up the debate secured by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) last year, and thank him for being good enough to send a copy of his speech to the Department this morning. Thanks to that courtesy, we have been able to do further research.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we are all home educators, and he is absolutely right. The roles of parents, grandparents and the wider family in supporting youngsters at home are an important part of the education system. I am glad that he recognises that we do not want to split the issue into two camps—one group of children for whom parents are responsible, and another for whom the state is responsible. For those in the maintained sector, responsibility has to be shared.
On a less consensual note, I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed some negative views about the education system, although he ended his comments by saying that they were the views of only some teachers. He also said that such views were directly contradicted by his own constituency experience. The media image of an education system out of control—I do not know whether these were his exact words—with appalling children and teachers unable to control them is not a modern image of that system, and I am glad that the three schools that he visited on Friday belie it.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that not only children, but adults, are diverse individuals. It must be right that the education system should have the flexibility to cater for individual student needs, interests and aptitudes. That is what we call personalised learning. That is not a phrase that trips easily off the tongue, but it speaks to his understanding that different youngsters have different kinds of intelligence and learn at different speeds, have different interests and get different support from home.
Some parents may believe that home education is right for them. and I shall deal in a moment with why they might hold that view. I agree that such parents should have the right to exercise that choice. For the others, it must be right for the state to seek an education system of sufficient flexibility, a teaching force of sufficient adaptability and out-of-hours provision of suitably high quality to meet those diverse needs. I do not think that that cuts against the national curriculum and some other things that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
As Minister for School Standards, home education is not virgin territory for me, although some details are new territory. Our priority must be to raise the quality of the schooling offered in the maintained sector. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some parents who leave the maintained sector because they are not happy with the standards. I put parents who choose to home educate or to go to the private sector in the same category, because they are withdrawing their children from the state sector. It must be right that the focus of our attention should be to raise standards and the quality of schooling in the maintained sector.
None the less, the home educated have particular needs. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I will draw the points that he made to the attention of the

429WH
Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is responsible for the particular needs of the home educated. I am sure that I will be no substitute for my hon. Friend in depth of knowledge and enthusiasm, but I will go through some specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the home educated.
Sir George Young: The Minister said that he places children educated at home in the same sector as those who attend independent schools. Does he realise that that may not be wholly fair? Those who educate at home may not have the income to send their children to an independent school. It therefore might be a mistake to bracket them as he does, particularly with regard to examination fees.
Mr. Miliband: I did not say that those children were in the same sector; they clearly are not. The independent sector is not the same as the home schooling sector, but I said that the parents in those sectors are in the same category in that they have decided not to educate their children in the state maintained sector. I am happy to overcome any confusion on that point.
It is important to remember that there are two types of home education. The right hon. Gentleman did not draw that fact out, and it is important that I do. Home education can mean two things: education provided at home by parents who elect to educate their own children, which is what I have focused on so far, or home tuition provided by the local education authority for children who cannot attend school tor a period owing to illness or exclusion, for example. We must remember that there are those two types of home education.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a good deal of confusion, or at least uncertainty, about the number of children being home educated. During last year's debate, the figure of 50,000 to 100,000 was used, and we do not have any greater intelligence now about how many such children there are. I will comment later on the Government's role in securing the rights of children who are home educated, and I was interested in what he said about registration, which I shall come to later.
The reason why we have not gone for a national survey or another such headcount is that we have not been convinced that its benefits would outweigh the bureaucratic costs to parents, teachers, schools and local education authorities. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is the Government's responsibility to provide education in schools, but it is the fundamental right of parents to decide not to educate children in the maintained sector. The Education Act 1996, which I think he mentioned but did not quote, states:
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable … to his age, ability and aptitude, and … to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
Parents choose to home educate for a number of reasons. The decision is prompted sometimes by the particular circumstances of the local school and sometimes by the particular needs of the child. The legal position is that when parents elect to provide home education once a child has already attended school, they must tell the school in writing of their intention to
430WH
deregister the child. Children and young people with special needs can be educated at home, but when a child has a statement of special educational needs that names a special school, his or her name may not be removed from that school's register without the education authority's consent. There is some liaison in that system.
Local authorities have a general responsibility to ensure suitable education provision in their areas. Although parents who educate at home are not required by law to be "registered" in any way, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that local authorities have the right to make reasonable inquiries to ensure that children who are withdrawn from school to be electively home educated are receiving appropriate education. The authorities can intervene if that is not being delivered.
The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Children Bill, which is being debated in another place today. The Green Paper that preceded the Bill tried to address the issue of "unknown children", and he will be interested to know that clause 8 of the Bill provides for a database to hold information about every child, including the services that they are using. Some difficulties in this matter are brought home to me by the fact that many home educators say that they are unhappy about that requirement. I understand that he believes that the requirement should not be bureaucratic, but there is a difficult line to tread. Some home educators are unhappy about the provision, but it exists and it is important for this debate.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, LEAs have no legal right to enter a home to see a child, but it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that enough evidence is submitted to an LEA to satisfy it that the child is receiving a suitable education. Parents may choose to meet an LEA officer at home or at a neutral location, and we believe that that strikes the right balance. When an LEA is not fully satisfied that a child is receiving a suitable education, it may decide more regularly to contact the parents and/or the children who are being home educated.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about funding. The LEA does not get any funding for children who are educated at home because it does not have to deliver any services for such pupils. I dare say that his knowledge of the local government finance system is more long standing and, in all humility, much greater than mine, so he will know that the educational formula spending share has two components. The schools block is based on pupil numbers, and includes children educated at home only if the LEA is responsible for making the arrangements. Pupils who are educated at home through parental choice are not included, just like pupils who are sent to independent schools through parental choice rather than under LEA arrangements. My earlier analogy is relevant in that regard. Neither are children who are educated at home included in the count for the LEA block—the block of money for LEA services. Although that is based on the three-to-18 population, the relevant data are drawn from school returns and therefore do not include those who are not in school.
I shall return to the right hon. Gentleman's point about 14-to-16 education, but I want first to touch on the issue of children with special educational needs. As he and I agree, not all children have the same needs.

431WH
Although children and young people with statements of special educational needs can be educated at home, LEAs remain responsible for ensuring that the education that they receive is suitable. He did not dwell on that point, but I am sure that he will agree that it is right that they should have that responsibility. The statement of special needs must stay in force, and LEAs must ensure that parents can make suitable provision, including for their children's special educational needs. If parents' arrangements are suitable, the relevant LEA is relieved of its duty to arrange provision directly, but it remains its duty to ensure that the child's needs are met.
It may benefit the right hon. Gentleman to know that about 3.2 or 3.3 per cent. of all children have statements of special educational needs, although those numbers vary enormously between LEAs and schools. He may know that, in addition to those numbers, 13 or 14 per cent. of children have special needs that are not listed in a statement.
As I said, two types of children receive home education. LEAs may provide home tuition for pupils who cannot attend school for reasons such as sickness, exclusion or teenage pregnancy. There are more students in that category than is often realised—particularly those who are not at school because of sickness. A substantial proportion of the 50,000 to 100,000 figure is accounted for by youngsters who are too sick to attend school. Their education is provided through home tutors and e-learning, which allows schooling to be made available through virtual communities. It is set up in pupils' own homes, or in libraries for groups of young people. Such projects can lead to children obtaining several qualifications.
LEAs can pay directly for home tuition. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Department is providing support for the notschool.net project, which I am glad to say is not an ihateschool.net project, but one that offers IT-based education for disaffected children.
I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would move on to the issues of 14-to-16 education and the support offered to home educators by LEAs and the Government. There is no legal duty on LEAs to provide financial support for parents who educate their children at home, but some provide free national curriculum materials or other forms of support to such parents. We think that it is right that such decisions are made locally, but he is within his rights to ask what the Government are doing to make information about home education available to parents. I can provide some reassurance about something that he may be unaware of: to help to support parents, the Department provides general guidance in the form of an information pack on elective home education and the legal responsibilities of parents, which has links to other useful information on issues such as the national curriculum and assessment arrangements, and to websites created by home educators.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about education provision for 14 to 16-year-olds in college. He will know that that area is new, but growing fast. He will also know that the Tomlinson committee, which is considering the provision of 14-to-19 education, is currently sitting. Its interim report referred to the need for a significant
432WH
number of youngsters in the 14-to-19 age range to be educated not only in one institution, but in two, or in some cases three. It wants youngsters to have a home base in school, but to receive the benefit of vocational courses from a local college or even a local workplace.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Learning and Skills Council was set up to take care of post-16 education. Indeed, the hon. Member for Uxbridge raised that matter List year. The LSC does not have statutory responsibility for learners under 16, although it can provide limited support generally for the vocationally related provision in further education colleges for young people aged 14 to 16. That is operating through a series of pilots that I know from experience have been widely welcomed. The increased flexibility programme for 14 to 16-year-olds is a policy to let local partnerships between colleges and schools decide on provision. and home educators are welcome to request involvement in that programme. I do not know whether he will agree, but in my experience the greater number of children educated at home are younger and towards the primary school age range rather than older.
Sir George Young: Would home educators have to pay if they took part in the programme?
Mr. Miliband: I shall look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman about it. The plans are local, so I shall need to check what is happening in each locality. From memory, there are 39 pathfinder areas for the new provision. He is right to say that provision is patchy. That is because it is new and we are only beginning in such matters.
I wish to mention two other points. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Rothermel study of the quality of home education. He was right that the anecdotal evidence from many parents who opted for home education was positive. They speak enthusiastically about the benefits that it provides and cite independence, maturity and keenness to learn among pupils. Others have pointed to the high grades that home educators receive. Last year, the Under-Secretary said that there had not been an independent, systematic, national evaluation of such matters, but I have been informed that the Rothermel study took place in a particular part of the country and in respect of a specific group of parents who volunteered to be a part of the process. The study was not claimed to be a representative sample. The Under-Secretary's statement was made on that basis.
Finally, I come to tomorrow's launch of the future builders fund, which will be governed through the Home Office and which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, has £125 million to support voluntary activity in five priority service areas: health and social care, crime, community cohesion, education and learning, and support for children and young people. Obviously, the fourth and fifth priority areas include the education service. The fund exists to deliver an increase in the scale and scope of public service delivered by the voluntary and community sector. It will invest in exemplar service and delivery operations in the areas to which I have referred. I shall find out for him whether there are any

433WH
restrictions on who can apply, but I understand that the programme will be open to cover as wide a range of people as possible.
Sir George Young: Before the Minister finishes his response, will he clarify the status of the draft circular on home education that I found on a website? Is it a spoof or is it genuine? If it is genuine, when will it be published?
Mr. Miliband: Much as the Government seek to entertain the public, we do not issue spoof documents. The circular is not a spoof. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was asking about the force behind it. It exists to provide exactly what it says it provides—guidance to local education authorities. He said that he was disappointed by the peroration at the end of the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, but it was perhaps neither the time of day nor the audience for a great peroration. We take seriously the need to choose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Older. Time is up.

Voluntary Organisations (North Lincolnshire)
1.30 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue and to tell the House of the concerns in north Lincolnshire about cuts in the council budget to support the following local voluntary organisations: Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire, the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council, the citizens advice bureaux, the Crosby Community Association and the Humberside law centre. Last year, the organisations' funding from North Lincolnshire council was about £350,000. Most seek no real-terms increase, but the decision to cut the budget to £250,000 was a devastating blow to those groups and to people in need throughout north Lincolnshire who rely on their services.
I shall begin by putting the matter into perspective: starkly, the reduction in funding is the political choice of a new administration. In 2003, in an extremely exciting, all-out election, which is not the norm, the council switched from a Labour to a Conservative administration. There was a good turnout and the Tories won 22 seats to Labour's 21, winning two wards by a single vote. Whoever said that their vote did not count?
As all new administrations do, the incoming Tories inherited the budget set by their predecessors, so for a few months there were no great problems. Indeed, the Government's settlement for that year was, to quote the council leader, Don Stewart, when he was in opposition, "a good settlement". Having taken that good settlement, the administration received a 6 per cent. increase this year—about double the rate of inflation.
Why, therefore, has the council run into problems so quickly? The short answer is that the local Conservatives ran on a simple election pledge: to cut council tax by £40 when they came to power. First, they said that there would be no immediate refund, which would have to wait until they set a budget; then the issue became dependent on the settlement; and finally it was simply abandoned. Services and charges have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency as a result of at best foolish and at worst devious pledges to the electorate.
The 6 per cent. increase on the good settlement was castigated as a poor settlement, and a mythical black hole in the finances suddenly appeared. It was originally claimed to be £3 million, but it grows with every news release and everything is blamed on the outgoing Labour administration, about whose finances I quote the following statement:
"The council achieved a net underspend of £300,000 … more importantly, the council is facing significant cost pressures … and has identified savings to achieve a balanced budget. These savings will not affect the council's … service priorities."
Those words on the position of the outgoing Labour administration are not mine or those of a Labour party member, but those of the council's external auditors. Not only is there no black hole, but there is an underspend to boot, which is not a bad start for a new administration.
The voluntary sector is among those that have had to carry the can for the new administration's pursuit of their poorly costed and unlikely pledges. With only two

435WH
weeks' notice, the groups were informed of the £100,000 cut in their budget and the law centre was told that there would be no funding at all, which did not surprise me. It was originally set up and funded by the former Humberside county council, of which I was a member, and it was opposed by the Tories, including the current leader of North Lincolnshire council, on the ground that it would put local solicitors out of work. It may have given access to the law to those who did not have it, but it did not seem to close any local practices many years later. I was the leader of new unitary authority of North Lincolnshire council when it had its first shadow elections in 1995. We had to decide again whether we wanted to fund the law centre. Yet again, the Tories opposed it, saying that many of the cases that it took up were against the very authorities that funded it. To this day, I find that extremely hard to believe, because it suggests that it is okay for councils to act unlawfully against local people so long as those people have no redress against them. As I said, however, it is unsurprising that the funding will go now that the Tory councillors have the power.
Some of these organisations, such as the community councils and citizens advice bureaux, are well known to many people. Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire, for example, used to be known as the community and voluntary service, and everyone involved in voluntary organisations has heard of the councils for voluntary service. These organisations play key roles in advocacy and service delivery on issues such as social inclusion. However, less may be known of the local Crosby community association, which is based in the constituency of the Minister for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who very much supports its endeavours and those of the voluntary sector in general in the area, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), who also represents part of north Lincolnshire.
As my hon. Friends and I know, the association helps people not only in the Crosby area, as the name might suggest, but throughout north Lincolnshire. Last year, it helped to obtain £1.6 million in unclaimed benefits for the most disadvantaged in our community, as is acknowledged in this quotation about the funding cuts:
"Families with children in the most deprived wards in North Lincolnshire will be badly affected, putting at risk years of hard work by a range of partner organisations to improve the area in and around Scunthorpe Town Centre".
I agree, but, amazingly, that was said by the council leader who is cutting the voluntary organisations' funding. The council's defence is that the association has lost Government single regeneration budget time-limited funds. The association tells me that that is not the case, but that it has had various external funds and seeks to ensure they are replenished so that it can continue its work. In essence, North Lincolnshire council's choice is simple. Is it willing to spend what would amount to thousands of pounds, but which will in turn involve millions of pounds, on the most needy people in north Lincolnshire, and what will it say about its priorities if the answer is no?
436WH
My hon. Friend the Minister will know all about compacts, which are Government-inspired, locally based agreements between those in the voluntary sector and those who fund them and rely on their services to deliver their agenda. I am pleased that a compact exists in north Lincolnshire, and much praise must go to Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire and others for the proactive way in which they approached the issue. I had the great privilege of speaking at the initial meeting at St. Bernadette's hall in Scunthorpe when the idea was first mooted. We all scratched our heads and wondered why no one could think of a better name than "compact", but that is the name. I also spoke about a year ago at the launch of a compact at Scunthorpe baths, and much more recently at the update seminar, when we spoke about the progress that has been made since.
Funding is one of North Lincolnshire council's most critical areas. No one would disagree that councils can decide on funding—after all, they are elected by the local community and they set the council tax. However, the compact is intended to establish that a respectful relationship will be maintained; that groups will be involved in discussions; that funding will not be cut without good, clearly explained reasons; and that due notice will be given.
Every principle of the compact was disregarded by North Lincolnshire council. The previous Labour administration gave groups the safeguard of 18 months' funding and full discussions, and it was a willing signatory to the compact, because it believed that it enhanced the good practice that it wanted to establish. The cuts that I am concerned about were announced with only two weeks' notice on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
It is little wonder that the protests were so loud and strong and that, yet again, the public gallery in the council chamber was full of angry residents, although that has increasingly become the norm in recent times. It does not seem to matter whether the subject under discussion is cuts to voluntary organisations, cuts in leisure services, cuts across the council agenda or increases in charges—we have a very angry community.
The council responded that as the Labour administration had signed the compact, it had nothing to do with the Tory administration. That is an interesting take on all the treaties that any incoming Government inherit from a previous Administration; apparently, somehow they no longer count. It was pointed out that. notwithstanding the date of final agreement of the compact, it had received all-party support when it was passed at a full council meeting. The current position is that the council supports the principle of the compact, but not necessarily all the details.
In the meantime, a welcome decision was taken that groups would be given six months' funding at last year's level. However, that was not quite as good as had at first been hoped. It was pointed out that there would not be any expansion in the £250,000 allocated by the council to the funding of voluntary organisations this year. That means that if six months of increased funding were taken up, there would be even larger cuts later in the year. Anyway, the council has now reduced the period in question to three months.

437WH
I do not want to pretend that all that I have outlined is happening after a time when summers were hotter and longer and the grass was greener. Voluntary organisations are used to difficult times and to having to chase around to fund worthy projects. Golden eras sometimes exist, but golden eras in funding are often apparent only long after they have passed. However, having been involved with the voluntary sector since 1989, when I was first elected a councillor, I have never known that sector to be as bruised, and with such low morale, as it is now following the treatment that it has had this year over funding from North Lincolnshire council.
What is the point of a compact? Why did all those groups from throughout north Lincolnshire spend so long negotiating with the council for it all to be tossed out on the whim of the ruling group? If the Home Office wants such arrangements as the norm and wants them to succeed, what can the Department do to try to influence the decision makers at North Lincolnshire council?
Most importantly, it is via voluntary organisations that much of the Government's agenda—social inclusion is the most obvious item—will be put into practice. The funding often comes via the council, in that the Government put the money in with an expectation that certain things will be delivered, and it reaches the voluntary sector through the halfway house of the council. Given this year's experience, we know that even when councils receive a 6 per cent. increase in their funds, that is not guaranteed to have a positive impact on the voluntary sector. Indeed, our experience in north Lincolnshire this year is quite the reverse.
Is it not time to tell councils that sign agreements and compacts and then tear them up that such irresponsible actions could have an impact on their future settlements? The comprehensive performance assessment is one method of judging councils on their delivery of agendas and formation of local strategic partnerships, and on their involvement of the voluntary sector and others in providing good-quality services in their area. Decisions are made through that assessment on the funding that councils will receive. There seems little point in the Government pumping money into that process if there is no good will from the local authority at the other end.
The compacts are rules that the councils have helped to set, and they now need to abide by them. It seems incredible that just over a year ago in an area of some 153,000 people only two votes were the difference between the ongoing Labour administration and a Conservative one. Those two votes were the difference between a fair council and an unfair one, between being interested in inclusion and causing exclusion, and between being progressive in what was trying to be achieved in north Lincolnshire and being regressive. All that happened simply because of a failed pledge on the level of council tax.
The people of north Lincolnshire deserve better. We need compacts with teeth and compacts that work so that voluntary organisations and the needy people whom they represent are protected from the political whims of an incoming administration that simply does not value what the voluntary sector is doing. I look forward to the Minister's response.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) for drawing the attention of the House to this important issue and for demonstrating his understanding of the vital and unique contribution that voluntary organisations make to community life. He talked about community life in his own and a neighbouring constituency. His account is common to constituencies throughout the country where the impact of voluntary organisations in tackling poverty, which is one example that he used, is second to none. He also demonstrated, in common with many other hon. Members, a familiarity and a connection with the detail of the work of local voluntary organisations that show how assiduously he represents his constituency.
The Government recognise the vital and unique role of voluntary organisations in delivering services to communities. We have put in train a number of mechanisms to support, underpin, enhance and enable them to do that. In many ways the most important factor is to recognise something that is expressed in the compact as the cost of doing business or the important costs of the infrastructure to deliver services to people. At least one of the organisations that he described as being at risk is one of those classic infrastructure organisations. Much of its work is in enabling other voluntary organisations to do their business, which is the traditional role of the council for voluntary service.
We recognise that those organisations are not always the most obviously popular in terms of local funding, yet many other local organisations simply cannot do their business without that support. That is one of the reasons why, following the 2002 cross-cutting review of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery, we have developed a framework for infrastructure and are developing investment in infrastructure, which are designed to enable those more locally focused organisations to do their job well, rather than to supplant local investment in very local organisations.
The job of ensuring the local dimension of funding is partly done by central Government in providing a generous and secure settlement for local authorities, providing an appropriate national framework in which voluntary organisations can thrive and enabling local authorities to invest in the contribution that local voluntary organisations make. As my hon. Friend demonstrated, the local dimension of the funding relationship is particularly important. Indeed, 70 per cent. of voluntary and community sector organisations operate at the local level. That is where the problems that he described arose, despite the fact that North Lincolnshire council received a generous settlement from the Government and that its books were, as he said, left in a healthy state by the previous administration.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree with the Government that local funding priorities should be decided at local level. The Government expect local authorities to value and support the essential role that a strong local voluntary and community sector infrastructure plays in helping authorities to develop and deliver community strategies and to build the capacity of local groups to fulfil their role in

439WH
strengthening communities and delivering services. I am therefore disappointed that my hon. Friend's local council seems not to be investing in such infrastructure.
Such problems are one reason why we developed the local compact, which now covers the overwhelming majority—89 per cent.—of local authorities. The compact provides a basis for building and enhancing the relationship between the local voluntary and community sector and public sector bodies. Published compacts must be used—this is Government policy—to improve the way in which business is done locally. They are about making commitments, calling partners to account and resolving differences. I am disappointed to hear that a locally agreed compact appears to have been disregarded. It is not right that a local council should seek to tear up commitments that it has made, even if it was under different political leadership at the time. As my hon. Friend said, the compact is like a treaty, and Governments cannot simply tear up treaties that have been entered into on their behalf.
We have instigated the compact mediating scheme to resolve disputes over compacts between the local voluntary sector and local public sector bodies.
Mr. Cawsey: Perhaps I can just say two things. First, I fear that we have a lot of work to do on getting the current administration to see the benefits of the principles of the compact. When asked about those principles at a meeting with voluntary sector representatives, one councillor said, "You can't have principles without cash." I am not certain that I would accept that statement, but it was made quite clearly.
Secondly, I, too, have mentioned the mediation scheme to local voluntary organisations. Although they are very interested in it as a possible route to resolving disputes, they are concerned about who will pay for the service, because their funds are declining and they have precious little money of their own to do so.
Fiona Mactaggart: I understand that that is a problem with the scheme, but I nevertheless urge voluntary organisations seriously to consider it because the investment can pay dividends and has done so in other cases. It is difficult for voluntary organisations facing a crisis of the scale that my hon. Friend described to consider taking such steps, and the compact mediating scheme does involve costs, but I would urge organisations to use it. Where it has been used to date, it has frequently produced a resolution that has made a real difference for the organisations involved.
The compact must be made to work. If 89 per cent. of the country is covered by local compacts, it is certain that local government organisations of the same party that is in power in my hon. Friend's local authority have devised, developed and signed up to them. It is neither right nor sensible for his local authority to pretend that the local compact is a creature of another political party. It is a creature of all political parties.
440WH
I look forward to the annual compact meeting tomorrow, which I shall jointly chair with Sir Michael Bichard. One of the reports will be from the Local Government Association on the commitment of local government to the compact. It will be interesting to draw the attention of my colleagues in local government to the example that we have discussed of the failure, perhaps, of one part of local government to live up to the ambitions of the compact.
I also take on board my hon. Friend's point about whether other measures to test the commitment of local government, such as the comprehensive performance assessment, could have embedded in them some way of measuring, for example, commitment to compact. That is already being done. In the newly developing comprehensive performance assessment, there is a greater emphasis on partnership and leadership. Formerly, the assessment of performance involved individual service areas being drilled down and focused on the precise outcomes.
As the scheme is being developed, however, there is a much greater recognition that much of what local government delivers is delivered not by local government itself through either its social service or education departments, but through its partnerships with voluntary organisations and other statutory bodies. At the heart of those partnerships is a relationship of mutual trust and respect. If North Lincolnshire council has decided to tear up the relationship of trust and respect that is embedded through a compact, that puts its ability to deliver at risk.
The council is held to account not, fundamentally, by national Government. but by the local electorate. My hon. Friend's account of the local electorate's response to the way in which his council has not upheld the relationship of trust that is at the heart of the compact suggests that the electorate may well tell the council that they will not tolerate such failures. That is the fundamental resolution of the compact. Nevertheless, I undertake to raise such issues in the compacts annual general meeting tomorrow, so that we can consider whether there are more practical ways to enable voluntary organisations to use the resources at their disposal, such as the mediation scheme, when they are faced with problems of the kind that my hon. Friend faces.
The Government's belief is clear: at the heart of our provision of a public life that engages and involves citizens is a vision not of the local council or the national Government doing everything, but of delivering change in partnership with voluntary organisations and enabling them to be active partners. That might mean disputes over funding, but those disputes should be operated within a framework of trust and mutual respect. That is what we have sought to deliver in the compact and what we shall continue to seek to do—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 April; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [168714]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 21–22 April 2004.

  The Council concluded its consideration of proposals to reform four CAP regimes: those for cotton, olive oil, tobacco and hops. Agreement on all four was eventually reached by qualified majority. This was a difficult negotiation but the outcome is highly satisfactory from a UK point of view. Overall, the agreement followed the main principles of last June's reforms with decoupling in hops from 2005 (with the option to delay this until 2006) and partial decoupling in the other three sectors from 2006. The rates vary but that for cotton is 65 per cent., a small increase over the 60 per cent. originally proposed; and in the case of tobacco, the rate will be 100 per cent. in 2010 and thereafter. Although the UK would have supported higher rates in all sectors and an earlier move to full decoupling, this agreement sends positive signals to our trading partners by marking a further step towards a more liberalised and market focused agriculture in the EU.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position the Government is taking on the proposal by the Irish Government on new animal transport regulation. [169650]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 April the UK sought shorter journey times, more space for animals during transport and better ventilation. Unfortunately, in this area which we see as vital to ensuring improved welfare, the gap between countries was too great to be bridged.

  As a result the proposal, which would have improved animal welfare in many areas, has been effectively withdrawn from discussion for the foreseeable future.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to improve the welfare of animals exported from the UK; and if she will make a statement. [167237]
  1382W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are committed to improving welfare across the EU and was disappointed and frustrated by EU Ministers' failure on 26 April to agree a new regulation on the welfare of animals during transport. The UK, consulting farming, horse and welfare interests, had worked hard to improve the draft proposals but unfortunately it is clear that there are no plans to return to them in the foreseeable future. We will continue to ensure that animals that leave the UK are transported in full accordance with the law. We shall also take every opportunity to press the European Commission and other member states to ensure that the current rules are strictly enforced throughout the expanded EU.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made towards the introduction of a vaccine for bovine TB. [169652]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]The timetable for producing an effective vaccine against bovine tuberculosis remains broadly in line with that set out in the Krebs Report 1997.

  In January 2002, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB set up a Vaccine Scoping Study Sub-Committee (VSSSC) to advise Defra Ministers on whether a TB vaccination strategy for either cattle or wildlife would be feasible. The VSSSC reported to Ministers in July 2003 (published December 2003). This advised on research requirements, but cautioned that a vaccine (for cattle or badgers) remains a long-term policy option. Many obstacles still have to be overcome.

  An Inter-Departmental Vaccine Steering Group is working to identify administrative and legal procedures to allow a potential vaccine to be authorised for use. The work of VSSSC will be carried forward by a new Vaccine Programme Advisory Group which is chaired by the Defra TB Vaccine Programme Adviser, Professor Douglas Young.

  Defra spent over £1 million on bovine TB vaccine research in the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04, and expect to spend over £1 million this year.

  Countryside Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the change in her Department's grant-in-aid budget to the Countryside Agency. [168802]

  Alun Michael
  In 2004–05 the Countryside Agency has a grant-in-aid budget of £95 million. In addition to the baseline of £90.5 million, £2.5 million is available for work specifically on modernising rural delivery, following the recommendations of the Rural Delivery Review led by Lord Haskins. A further £2.0 million is available for work under a new access management scheme, which will help local authorities to implement measures to make the most of new rights of access to the countryside.
  1383W
  The total for 2004–05 compares with a growth from £49.0 million in 1999–2000, £52.6 million in 2000–01, £90.8 million in 2001–02, £98.7 million in 2002–03 and a planned £100.0 million in 2003–04.

  In addition the Countryside Agency receives resources from the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund and funding from the National Lottery and others which amounts to some further £15 million.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely effect of the change in her Department's grant-in-aid budget to the Countryside Agency on the(a) Agency and (b) Vital Villages Campaign. [168803]

  Alun Michael
  The main part of the Countryside Agency's budget for 2004–05 will be directed towards its strategic priorities, which include demonstrating ways of boosting essential rural services, building thriving communities, managing the countryside in a sustainable way and improving recreation and access in the countryside. The grant-in-aid budget for 2004–05 compares with a growth from £49.0 million in 1999–2000, £52.6 million in 2000–01, £90.8 million in 2001–02, £98.7 million in 2002–03 and a planned £100.0 million in 2003–04. The Agency will be able to continue to make a substantial contribution towards Defra's work for sustainable development in rural areas and deliver on key objectives including:supporting Rural Transport Partnership officers
  funding the second and third years of existing Rural Transport projects
  supporting Rural Housing Enablers to secure affordable homes
  continuing the core funding for rural community councils and supporting the community development workers
  helping all rural communities benefit from funds committed to communities through the Vital Villages grant schemes
  maintaining total Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty funding at 2003–04 levels.

  Some £14.2 million will be spent in 2004–05 in supporting the Vital Villages programme, although the Countryside Agency has announced the closure of the grant schemes to new applicants. The Agency is targeting its resources on meeting all existing grant commitments under the programme and helping communities benefit from the funds already committed to them. It will also work to share the lessons learnt with regional and local delivery bodies.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will now fund projects previously funded by the Vital Villages Campaign. [168804]

  Alun Michael
  Although the Countryside Agency has announced the closure of the grant schemes to new applicants, the Agency will meet all existing grant commitments under the Vital Villages programme which was established as a three-year pilot programme to test out new approaches to rural areas. Work is under 1384W
  way on how we can share the lessons learnt from the programme with regional and local delivery bodies to target support for rural communities that need help through mainstream programmes.

  Environmental Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and where she announced the decision to abolish funding for the are you doing your bit campaign. [168806]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001–02 following the creation of Defra, most of the campaign's planned funding had to be re-allocated to rural support during the foot and mouth disease outbreak, although some activities continued.

  Defra's wider focus on sustainable development issues, and continued pressure on resources, led to the closure of the campaign in 2003, although no formal announcement was made at this time.

  Detailed consideration is being given to the options for future communications activity in this area. Thinking will be informed by the current sustainable development consultation, 'Taking it on', launched 21 April 2004.

  EU Accession
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) her counterparts in the EU accession countries on the ability of those countries to meet EU (i) animal slaughter and (ii) food hygiene regulations by 1 May. [167321]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State and her ministerial team have used every opportunity to stress to the European Commission and to the Secretary of State's counterpart; in the EU Accession Countries the importance of complying with the EU acquis communautaire (the rules and regulations laid down by the European Union), and in particular the veterinary and phytosanitary acquis which covers areas such as food hygiene and animal slaughter. Over the last year, ministerial teams have met with colleagues from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. The UK has also been offering practical help, for example via the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO).

  All New member states have undertaken to meet the EU acquis communautaire in these areas. Some Transition Periods have been granted—as has been the case for all previous Accessions—and will begin on the 1 May, on the basis that they are time-limited.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable has been set to ensure that EU accession countries fully comply with EU(a) slaughter, (b) food production, (c) processing, (d) labelling, (e) traceability, (f) hygiene and (g) food safety regulations and standards. [167323]

  Alun Michael
  All the new member states have agreed to comply with the acquis communautaire (the rules and regulations laid down by the European Union) by the

  1385W
  1 May 2004 and bring their national rules fully into line with the EU's food and veterinary laws (chapters 1 and 7 of the Accession negotiations), except where they have been granted Transition Periods. The new member states' Accession Treaty, signed in April 2003, granted Transition Periods of up to three years for animal byproduct establishments and agri-food establishments. These have recently been refined with both some deletions and short-term additions (3–12 months).

  Some Transition Periods are inevitable, and have been a feature of every Accession, including our own. They permit Accession to take place on a specific date and are exceptional, time-limited, and tightly controlled and monitored by both national authorities in the countries concerned and by the European Commission. Transition premises have to be named and listed; all must be 100 per cent. EU compliant by the end of 2007 at the latest. There are currently a total of 1006 Transition Periods for the 10 Accession countries. Crucially, products from transition establishments cannot enter the Single Market.

  Farming
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farm income levels for farmers in Heywood and Middleton in the past five years. [168435]

  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in Heywood and Middleton, there is no robust data available on farm incomes for farmers in that area over the last five years. Net farm income for farms in the EU North Region and for England over the last five years are show in the table.

  Net farm income

  Eu North Region

  England

  1998–99

  8.272

  10,359

  1999–2000

  8,659

  7,981

  2000–01

  12,456

  9,886

  2000–02

  16,457

  13,558

  2002–03

  18,512

  16,435

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Net farm income is the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average level of farm income for farmers is Burnley was in the past five years. [168303]

  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in Burnley, there is no robust data available on farm incomes for farmers in that area over the last five years. Net farm income for farms in the EU North Region and for England over the last five years are show in the following table.

  Net farm income

  EU North Region

  England

  1998–99

  8,272

  10,359

  1999–2000

  8,659

  7,981

  2000–01

  12,456

  9,886

  1386W

  Net farm income

  EU North Region

  England

  2001–02

  16,457

  13,558

  2002–03

  18,512

  16,435

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Net farm income is the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business.

  Harmful Chemicals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect on (i) wildlife and (ii) the environment of exposure to harmful chemicals. [168563]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has commissioned and evaluated significant research programmes on the effect of harmful chemicals on wildlife and the environment. Some of them have focused on specific chemicals such as pesticides; groups of chemicals with similar effects such as endocrine disrupters; or targeted environmental media such as air, water, soil etc. The Department also funds research into the possible impacts on the environment of using veterinary medicines on animals and fish. The results of Defra funded research are published in the peer-reviewed scientific press and most can be found on our website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, with the penalties imposed, the cases since 1994 of illegal food imports where prosecution succeeded. [169651]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]Figures for prosecutions for illegal imports are not held centrally.

  HM Customs and Excise have had responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on products of animal origin from 11 April 2003. Since then they have brought two prosecutions in 2004 under the Customs and Excise Management Act for illegal imports, both of which were successful. In each case the defendant was fined and costs were awarded against them.

  There have been a number of other prosecutions related to illegal imports since 2000 but not all were tried as offences under illegal imports legislation.

  Oysters
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make representations to the European Union to issue a protected geographical indication for the Colchester Native Oyster. [167290]

  Alun Michael
  Registering a food name under the EU Protected Food Name scheme is one way in which producers can add value to their produce. We are sympathetic to this proposal and the Government are keen to encourage more applications under the scheme.
  1387W
  An application to register the name, Colchester Native Oyster as a protected geographical indication was received on 7 April. Officials are currently assessing the application against the scheme criteria. If it meets those criteria, officials will work with the applicant group to prepare the application for submission to the European Commission.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the policy of the rights of way section of her Department is regarding answering the telephone to members of the public on(a) 01173–728–379, (b) 01173–728–957 and (c) other numbers. [169379]

  Alun Michael
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the difficulties he experienced in getting through to officials in the rights of way branch at Temple Quay House in Bristol on 26 April. The building was experiencing intermittent problems with incoming calls on that day, which is why several attempts had to be made before he was successful.

  In normal circumstances telephones are answered promptly. The rights of way branch has a "group pickup" facility, which links all the telephones in the team, and enables them to take each other's calls when colleagues are absent or away from their desk. This is what happened when the successful call was responded to by a member of the team.

  In addition these telephones have a voicemail facility so that callers can leave a message if they wish to, should there be no response.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the history of the request to close the footpath at Cuillan Close, Rise Park; when her Department expects to compete the paperwork necessary to allow Nottingham City Council to close the footpath; and if she will make a statement. [169380]

  Alun Michael
  Nottingham City Council applied on 20 October 2003 to have the area around the footpath designated under Schedule 6 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Following an examination of the evidence provided in the second round of applications for designation, I announced my intention to designate 20 areas, including this one, on 9 February. Since the announcement, Officials at Defra have prepared the detailed digital maps necessary for the legal process and consulted the relevant local authorities about them.

  I have laid the order that designates this area of Nottingham, along with areas in Brighton and Hove, Leeds, York, Middlesbrough, Oldham, Swale, Wirral and the London Borough of Hillingdon. It will come into effect on 25 May.

  The local authorities concerned can now proceed to consider whether to make orders to divert or extinguish rights of way for the purpose of crime prevention.
  1388W
  The time taken to complete the process is as frustrating for ministers as it is for MPs and councillors, so I am looking at whether we can strengthen the process for the future, but this is a formal legal process which has to be done centrally.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria were used in designating severely disadvantaged areas. [168031]

  Alun Michael
  The severely disadvantaged areas in the uplands (then termed less favoured areas) were first designated following the physical, economic and demographic assessment laid down in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 75/268. In 1999, this Article was replaced by Article 19 of Council Regulation 1257/1999 (the so-called rural development Regulation). They are characterised by land of poor productivity which is difficult to cultivate and mainly suitable for extensive livestock farming; and by a risk of land abandonment, which could impair the conservation of the countryside and the viability of communities in the area.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what support schemes farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will be able to apply for. [168033]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 271W.

TRANSPORT

  A19
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and serious injuries have been sustained on the section of the A19 which runs through the Easington constituency in the last 10 years. [170119]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. The number of deaths and serious injuries sustained in reported injury road accidents on the section of the A19 in the Easington local authority area for the years 1993 to 2002 are shown in the table below. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer and I shall write to my hon. Friend with figures Easington and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Fatal and Serious Casualties on the A19 within Easington (LA area): 1993–2002

  Year

  Killed

  Serious

  1993

  3

  4

  1994

  3

  8

  1995

  2

  7

  1996

  1

  10

  1997

  2

  2

  1998

  1

  1

  1999

  1

  2

  2000

  2

  5

  2001

  1

  8

  2002

  2

  4

  Cycle Lanes (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Battersea since 1997. [169767]

  Mr. McNulty
  The promotion of cycling in London is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London. This strategy is delivered, in part, by the individual Boroughs such as Wandsworth. The Mayor's policies on cycling can be found in his Transport Strategy at the following link:

  http://www.London.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/index.jsp

  Lane Rental
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the final report by Halcrow on the lane rental pilot in Camden and Middlesbrough; and on what date it will be made public. [170653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I expect to receive the final report on the lane rental pilots around the end of June. Copies of the report would be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly afterwards.

  Off-shore Wind Farms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the risk of obstruction to the Port of London from the London array wind farm; and what representations he has received on the issue from the maritime industry. [168263]

  Mr. Darling
  The developer of the London Array wind farm in seeking consent for the project must make a thorough assessment of the potential impact of the proposed installation on navigation and ports. The developer must demonstrate to my satisfaction in the case of a Coast Protection Act 1949 consent or that of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the case of an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 that their development, in combination with others that may be in the vicinity, does not present a danger or significant obstruction to navigation. In reaching that decision either Secretary of State will take advice from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and, in the case of the London Array, the Port of London Authority. Any person or organisation who has an interest in the matter may make representations to the relevant Minister and these will be taken into account in the decision making process.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has(a) undertaken and (b) planned with maritime groups about the impact of offshore wind farms on marine navigation. [168264]

  Mr. Darling
  My Department is consulting the shipping and ports industries on the potential cumulative impact on navigational safety of wind farms being developed on the sites for which The Crown Estate has offered leases. In the light of the outcome of this exercise, developers are able to apply to The Crown Estate, between 1 September to 31 December 2004, to adjust the location of their proposed wind farm. In addition, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is 1390W
  consulting on a revised publication giving guidance on the navigational safety issues which developers shall need to take into account in seeking consent for their projects. This consultation is closing on 7 June 2004 with a view to publishing the revised guidance later this summer.

  Officials from my Department together with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry met representatives of the shipping and ports industries on 28 January 2004. Also one of my officials was present when they met the Energy Minister on 16 March 2004 where they were given an assurance that offshore wind farms would not be sited where they present a danger to navigation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the Department of Trade and Industry regarding obstruction to shipping lanes from wind farms. [168261]

  Mr. Darling
  There have been numerous discussions between Departments at ministerial and official level in regard to the obstruction of shipping. The safety of shipping is of paramount importance. Wind farms which would present a significant obstruction or danger to navigation will not receive the development consents from Government which are necessary before projects can be constructed. This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry consult the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and others on navigational safety matters in deciding whether to grant consent for offshore wind farm projects.

  The proposed location of an offshore wind farm may require shipping which passes through those waters to re-route around the installation. Where such new patterns of ship traffic could be established without a detrimental effect on the safety of navigation, such a possibility would be considered on a case-by-case basis as part of the assessment of whether consent should be given to the project.

  Rail Services (Portsmouth Harbour)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2004 to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight,Official Report, column 982W, on rail services (a) what information he collects and (b) if he will make a statement on the punctuality and reliability of trains destined for Portsmouth harbour. [171208]

  Mr. McNulty
  Performance statistics by Train Operating Company (TOC) are published in the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly "National Rail Trend", copies of which are in the Library of the House. The SRA does not hold performance data below TOC level.

  Road Accidents
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in (a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Heywood and Middleton is since 1997. [168546]
  1391W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. In the Rochdale local authority area (which includes the constituency of Heywood and Middleton) there were 16 fatal casualties in 1997 and 11 fatal casualties in 2002. The number of people seriously injured in road accidents increased from 83 in 1997 to 84 in 2002, a rise of 1 per cent. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer and I shall write to my hon. Friend with figures for Heywood and Middleton and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Stalybridge and Hyde has been since 1997. [168731]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. In the Tameside local authority area (which includes the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency) there were four fatal casualties in 1997 and four fatal casualties in 2002. The numbers of people seriously injured in road accidents reduced from 117 in 1997 to 85 in 2002, a fall of 27 per cent. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer and I shall write to my hon. Friend with figures for Stalybridge and Hyde and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people died in road traffic accidents in Wigan in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [169341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the Wigan local authority area there were 10 fatal casualties in 1997 and nine fatal casualties in 2002, the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were seriously injured in road traffic accidents in (a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [169342]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of people seriously injured in reported injury road accidents in Great Britain was 42,984 in 1997 and 35,976 in 2002, the last year for which information is available.

  Road Upgrades
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement concerning the Government's decision on the upgrading of the A358 and the A303 following the decision to be made by the Regional Assembly on 30 April. [170110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I will be considering the Regional Assembly's comments together with the views of the Statutory Environmental Bodies and others before I decide on the route option. I will announce a decision once I have fully considered all of the issues.

  Road Works
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average duration of utility works involving occupation of the highway was in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003. [170650]
  1392W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Based on monitoring work carried out for my Department, the average duration of utility works for the period referred to was as follows:

  Days

  2001 (April to December)

  5.94

  2002

  5.70

  Accurate figures are not available for the period before April 2001 and final figures for 2003 are not yet available.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of congestion on local authority roads in each year since 2000 was caused by(a) street works carried out by utilities and (b) street works carried out by or on behalf of highway authorities. [170651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not hold figures centrally for the proportion of congestion caused by utility and highway authority works respectively on local authority roads

  Speed Cameras
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras are installed in Staffordshire, including Stoke-on-Trent. [169226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Staffordshire Safety Camera Partnership has 217 fixed site speed camera installations and no red light cameras. They currently operate no mobile camera units.

  Train Services (Kent)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many peak-time train services serving Petts Wood, Orpington and St. Mary Cray there are(a) at present and (b) proposed by the Strategic Rail Authority in the Integrated Kent Franchise consultation document. [169818]

  Mr. McNulty
  Services in the morning peak to London (trains arriving at a London terminus between 07:00 and 09:59):

  Petts Wood
  Current: 27 (8 Victoria, 4 Blackfriars, 15 Charing Cross or Cannon Street)
  Proposed: 18 (6 Victoria, 12 Charing Cross).

  Orpington
  Current: 30 (8 Victoria, 4 Blackfriars, 18 Charing Cross or Cannon Street)
  Proposed: 30 (6 Victoria, 12–13 Charing Cross or Cannon Street (fast) 12 Charing Cross (stopping)).

  St. Mary Cray
  Current: 16 (8 Victoria, 8 Blackfriars)
  Proposed: 15 (7 Victoria, 8 Blackfriars).

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions were made by the Strategic Rail Authority in the Integrated Kent Franchise document about(a) current and (b) future capacity in the peak-hour services between Petts Wood, Orpington, St. Mary Cray and London. [169819]
  1393W
  Mr. McNulty
  Estimates of seats provided in the three-hour peak based on analysis (if current scheduled South Eastern Trains service and estimates for the proposed service, based on the best current information about future train formations and vehicle types, are as follows:

  (a) Current

  (b) Future

  Petts Wood

  16,400

  9,200

  Orpington

  17,800

  17,600

  St. Mary Cray

  8,600

  9,300

  Note:

  Numbers are approximate and subject to possible change.

  As now, the key factor is not overall train capacity, but how much spare capacity is available by the time services arrive at these stations.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the passenger usage data for(a) Petts Wood, (b) Orpington and (c) St. Mary Cray that the Strategic Rail Authority used in their consultation document on the Integrated Kent Franchise, broken down by (i) passengers buying season tickets and those not and (ii) passengers taking fast peak-hour trains to London and those taking slow, stopping trains in the peak period. [169820]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not available in the format requested. Ticket information suggests that the average number of passenger journeys to and from these stations per day is:

  Season

  Ordinary

  Total

  Petts Wood

  3,972

  1,814

  5,786

  Orpington

  6,914

  4,697

  11,611

  St. Mary Cray

  1,975

  1,278

  3,253

  Transport Energy Best Practice Programme
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 62-63W, on the Transport Energy Best Practice Programme what proportion of (a) freight vehicle kilometres and (b) freight tonne kilometres these companies account for, (i) in total and (ii) broken down by vehicle type. [169908]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not currently hold the detailed data necessary to answer this question. However the 5 per cent. of freight transport companies mentioned in the answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 62-63W, on the Transport Energy Best Practice Programme, referred to a representative cross-section of the industry.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding has been given to the Transport Energy Best Practice programme, broken down by year. [170017]
  1394W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following funding has been provided to the Transport Energy Best Practice programme:

  £ million

  2002–03

  1.57

  2003–04

  2.67

  2004–05 (forecast)

  2.48

  Transport Services (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in Preston are supported by rural bus grants. [169687]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities. In the case of Preston, this is Lancashire County Council. It is for the authority to decide which services should be supported with the grant. We understand from the county council that, while Preston is mainly urban, there are 11 rural bus services commencing or terminating in Preston that are currently supported by RBSG.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Preston since 1997. [169688]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 1997, three lengths of bus lane have been created in Preston, at Fishergate, Church Street and Ringway, with a total length of 900 metres.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of Preston. [169689]

  Mr. McNulty
  Residents of Preston will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February. The franchise secures investment of around £260m, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region. A new northern franchise, which will include local and regional services through Preston, is out for tender. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see reduction in journey times along the route and increases in service frequency.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Preston since 1997. [169690]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 3.8 km of on-road cycle lanes and 5.6 km of off-road cycle tracks has been provided in Preston since 1997. A further 6.6 km of off-road cycle path, including 3.8 km of improved canal towpath are due to open this summer.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Preston has been since 1997. [169691]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the Preston local authority area there were nine deaths in road accidents in 1997 and two deaths in 2002, the latest year for which information is
  1395W
  available. The number of serious injuries in road accidents fell by 2 per cent. from 156 in 1997 to 153 in 2002.

  Tyres
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of tyres on vehicles he estimates are of energy efficient types, broken down by vehicle type. [169906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no established definition or standard for energy efficient tyres. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate the proportion of energy efficient tyres currently being used on vehicles. We understand that tyres generally are becoming more energy efficient as manufacturers are incorporating energy efficient design features along with new technology. The major tyre manufacturers all sell a range of tyres, some of which are more energy efficient than others.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many tyres have been purchased in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) size and (b) type. [169907]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent information the Department for Transport has on the numbers of new tyres purchased as replacements in the United Kingdom for the years indicated is shown in the table. The data is grouped by vehicle type or use rather than by tyre size and tyre type due to the large number of sizes available in the marketplace currently. Data for 2003 is not yet available. Further information may be available from the trade associations: The British Tyre and Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Imported Tyre Manufacturers Association.

  Number of replacement tyres purchased in the United Kingdom

  Car tyres

  Utility vehicles and off road 4x4

  Heavy vehicle tyres

  Tyres for other vehicles

  1998

  20,202,648

  899,279

  3,013,782

  772,071

  1999

  19,593,786

  1,026,430

  2,712,016

  820,698

  2000

  18,804,523

  917,094

  2,659,233

  845,153

  2001

  20,663,690

  946,271

  3,260,337

  187,174

  2002

  20,874,277

  1,014,894

  3,595,930

  192,937

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) energy efficient tyres and (b) normal tyres cost on average to purchase, broken down by size. [169909]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As stated in my earlier answer (ref 169906), there is no formal definition of an energy efficient tyre. However our information suggests that, for trucks, the more energy efficient tyres cost around 5 per cent. more than normal or low energy efficiency tyres. For passenger car tyres, we understand there is no significant difference in the costs between products from the same manufacturer.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 63W, on fuel efficient tyres, if he will estimate the reduction in emissions that would result from all freight vehicles switching to these tyres. [169910]
  1396W
  Mr. Jamieson
  If all freight vehicles in the UK achieved a saving of 7 per cent. in fuel consumption, this would reduce emissions by around half a million tonnes of carbon. However, as I explained in my earlier answer (ref 169906), we do not know how many trucks are already fitted with he most energy efficient tyres so we cannot estimate the effect on emissions of all freight vehicles changing to use these types of tyres.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 63W, on fuel efficient tyres, what the average distance it is estimated these tyres will last; and what the figure for ordinary tyres is. [169911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is not aware of any independently verified figures quantifying the difference in tyre life between more and less energy efficient tyres. As I stated in my answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 63W, there is some evidence that the tread wear rate for current energy efficient tyres can be inferior to those of standard tyres. However, this is not quantified.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to publicise the use of energy efficient tyres. [170018]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As I stated in my answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 62-63W, through the TransportEnergy Best Practice programme, my Department has recently published a free leaflet describing trials of energy efficient tyres fitted to trucks. These trials have also been reported in the last two editions of the programme's free newsletter, "Freight Future", which is distributed to hauliers via trade journals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Traffic Divisions (M25)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was given to(a) Essex and (b) Kent police traffic divisions in respect of their work on the M25 in each of the last three years; how many (i) officers and (ii) units were deployed following the road traffic accident in the vicinity of junctions 29 and 31 on 17 March; for how long they were deployed; and if he will make a statement. [163255]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 March 2004]Forces do not receive funding specifically for road policing. The police funding formula, on which general grants for police authorities are based, does take into account traffic management needs. It is a matter for the Chief Constable and Police Authority to decide how to allocate the available resources within any given force area.

  Road and traffic expenditure by Essex and Kent Constabularies is not directly comparable. The Chief Constable for Essex police informs me that their Road Policing Units respond to all Essex's roads, not just the motorway, and that total expenditure on road policing is estimated to be £14 million per annum in each of the last three years.
  1397W
  The Chief Constable of Kent police informs me that the expenditure on their traffic unit, as well as officers on areas classified as traffic, is estimated at approximately £5.5 million per annum in each of the last three years.

  35 Essex police officers were deployed to the traffic accident on 17 March. A whole divisional traffic unit was dedicated to this incident, consisting of nine double-crewed vehicles. In addition, a further 10 single-crewed vehicles, two scenes of crime vehicles (one officer each) and a Traffic Investigation Unit (five officers) were involved. None of the officers were involved for the entire duration. In addition, three Metropolitan police vehicles were deployed at Junction 29 for 14 hours. Kent police had no involvement.

  Dangerous Driving
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people driving without requisite insurance cover. [169071]

  Caroline Flint
  On the basis of information from the insurance industry and other sources, we estimate that there are 1.25 million persons driving without compulsory insurance against third party risks.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated total annual cost to the UK economy was of dealing with the drug problem in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what factors the calculation includes. [168725]

  Caroline Flint
  Total direct annual Government expenditure on preventing and tackling drug misuse is as follows:

  Total direct annual Government expenditure

  2000–01

  695

  2001–02

  870

  2002–03

  1,026

  2003–04

  1,244

  2004–05

  1,344

  These total figures reflect the cross Government spend on the four core strands of the Drug Strategy: protecting young people, reducing supply, safe guarding communities and treatment.

  Identity Card Bill
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his draft identity card bill. [167853]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the draft Identity Cards Bill on 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 34WS, as part of a document explaining the need for legislation entitled `Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation' (CM 6178).

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of people who have five points or more on their driving licence. [169446]

  Caroline Flint
  This information is not collected centrally.

  UK Border Controls
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost, per unit, of establishing manned UK customs points in countries other than the UK. [169966]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 23W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Investment (Infrastructure)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's reasons are for the proportional increase in social infrastructure and services investment and the corresponding proportional decrease in economic infrastructure and services investment since 1997. [168879]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The goal of the Department for International Development (DFID) is to eliminate poverty. DFID seeks to do this by focusing on achieving the targets agreed at the Millennium Summit, the so-called Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). DFID works with developing country Governments and other donors to achieve these goals.

  Around a third of DFID's total expenditure is allocated to specific sectors. In recent years, expenditure on social infrastructure and services (by which we usually mean education, health, population and reproductive health, water supply and sanitation, government and civil society, employment and housing) has been significantly higher than that on economic infrastructure and services (for example, transport and storage, communications, energy, banking and financial services, and business). In large part, this is because DFID believes that investment in these sectors will have a greater impact on achieving the MDGs. In 2002, the latest year for which these data are available, there was a large jump in expenditure for the first group, which was not matched for scale in the second one. This was mainly due to a number of large contributions to global health funds.

  North Korea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has be offered to North Korea as a result of the Ryongchon incident; and whether this offer has been accepted. [169775]

  Hilary Benn
  Relief supplies that arrived shortly after the train crash were sent from a Red Cross disaster preparedness warehouse, funded by the Department for
  1399W
  International Development. Last year DFID provided £200,000 of support to the North Korean Red Cross's disaster preparedness activities, which included the provision of pre-positioned disaster relief supplies. A further £200,000 is committed for 2004–05.

  DFID has also set aside £56,000 for support to affected households through the International Federation of the Red Cross, having judged this assistance to be the most effective way to meet the unmet needs. Initial appeals for support are well covered, and while the UK was ready to fund the replenishing of disaster relief supplies, the European Commission has pledged 200,000 Euros for this purpose. The UK's share of this pledge is approximately 38,000 Euros (£25,500).

  DFID will consider further appeals as part of its continuing programme of humanitarian assistance to North Korea.

  St. Helena
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial commitments are planned for St. Helena. [170216]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID will continue to maintain substantial support for St. Helena. This will include budgetary assistance, to include a subsidy for the island's shipping service, plus funding for various development projects and the filling of key posts. A joint DFID/FCO team is currently visiting the island to negotiate proposals for our assistance over the three-year UK period 2004–05 to 2006–07. In addition, as I reported in a written statement to this House on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 1WS, DFID is exploring options for maintaining future access arrangements.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom will make to the new United Nations appeal for the Darfur Region of Western Sudan. [169324]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations has appealed for around $115 million for the humanitarian response in Darfur, Sudan. I am considering our response and we are likely to contribute. I have set aside £10 million from our contingency reserve for our ongoing humanitarian response in Darfur, in recognition of the severity of the situation and the need to work avert a humanitarian catastrophe. This is in addition to the £9.5 million that DFID committed last financial year through the UN, Red Cross and international non-governmental organisations in response to this crisis.

  World Education Forum
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken to meet the UK's obligations arising from the agreement at the World Education Forum in Dakar in April 2000 to achieve primary education for all children by 2015. [170218]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Universal Primary Education by 2015 is the top priority of DFID's education programme and we are working closely with our 1400W
  international partners to achieve this. DFID is targeting countries with a high proportion of children out-of-school, such as Ethiopia, India and Bangladesh, and regions with a high number of countries with chronic levels of out-of-school children, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. Progress has been made in many countries with global enrolment in primary education increasing from 596 million in 1990 to 648 million children in 2000. However, with over 100 million children still not currently enrolled in primary education, much still remains to be done.

  In recognition of this, DFID has invested over £820 million in education in developing countries since 1997. DFID is increasing this investment and are planning to spend £1 billion from 2004–2008. In addition, DFID is providing £12 million to the World Bank Fast-Track Initiative Catalytic Fund for education. This will go to help a specific group of developing countries that need a quick injection of money to get their education systems up and running.

  DFID is collaborating with a variety of partners to accelerate progress on girls' education, as girls are much more likely to be out-of-school than boys (over 50 per cent). DFID is working with the UN Girls' Education Initiative to ensure stronger collaboration and coordination among donors at the global and the national level. At the country level, DFID continues to prioritise support to those governments that give priority to primary education. For example, we are supporting the Kenyan Government, who have recently abolished school fees at primary level, to provide enough school places to keep up with demand and ensure that quality sustained.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Academic Fellowship Scheme
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the new academic fellowship scheme says in section 3.9 of the scheme document that a guarantee of a permanent position is an absolute condition of the award, and also insists in section 3.5 that those who have been promised a permanent position are considered to have achieved the aims of the scheme already and are not eligible. [167130]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Academic Fellowships are a direct response to the Roberts Review on "The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills". This report pointed to a lack of a clear career path for researchers and one of the primary aims of the scheme is to provide a transition between postdoctoral positions and academic posts. Government believes that a goal of a permanent academic post is necessary to improve recruitment and retention by providing the individual with a clear career trajectory and allowing for development needs to be addressed.

  The statements to which my hon. Friend refers are not intended to be contradictory. The guarantee of a permanent position to be provided at the end of the five-year fellowship award (section 3.9) is a requirement on

  1401W
  the host institution in order to provide a career path for the academic fellow. An award will not be made to an HEI without this guarantee being made.

  The statement at section 3.5, however, refers to the eligibility of the individual candidate. We do not believe that it is appropriate that someone with a permanent position, or the promise of one, should undertake a further five years of training towards an academic position. A previous promise by an HEI to provide a permanent position to a researcher shows an existing commitment to the individual and therefore further support through the academic fellowships scheme is unnecessary.

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation has been made of the ideal skills mix of the Board of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC); what the selection criteria are for members of the board how and by whom appointments are made; what contribution CCLRC has made to implementation of the recommendations of the North West Science and Daresbury development group; what input CCLRC has made to the North West Science Strategy; and what targets and milestones have been set by CCLRC to progress the strategy. [168584]

  Ms Hewitt
  A number of evaluations have been made of the template for Council membership in recent years, but, in terms of skills, the basic mix of academic user and industry representation has remained unchanged. Last year the number of members was increased to include a greater number of independent industry or user representatives. We intend to keep the template more generally under review. The Minister for Science makes all appointments to the Council on my behalf in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This is a competitive process overseen by a panel with independent members who recommend candidates who best fit the advertised role and person specification, drawn up in the light of CCLRC's assessment of its needs for expertise.

  The CCLRC and the OST have invested £6 million and £8 million respectively, to progress the Energy Recovery LINAC project, providing the underpinning technology and design for a Fourth Generation Light Source (4GLS). This activity is based mainly at the CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory. CCLRC collaborated closely with the North West universities regarding the recently announced PPARC/CCLRC-supported Cockcroft Institute for Accelerator Science, also to be located at Daresbury. As a result, the CCLRC will co-locate its related accelerator science and technology research activity with the Cockcroft Institute. The results of a CCLRC/North West Development Agency joint-funded analysis of the opportunities for commercial exploitation of Daresbury Laboratory research, and the options for a proposed mixed-economy Daresbury Campus, have now been received. The latter activity will involve the North West Universities and industrial partners with the CCLRC, and the participants are seeking to establish a new "North West Science Partnership" by summer 2004.
  1402W
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) has set for the commercial exploitation of intellectual property to stimulate regional growth in the North West; what CCLRC's vision is for collaboration with the North West Science Council; and how the CCLRC intends to work with the North West Regional Development Agency to generate regional economic growth. [168630]

  Ms Hewitt
  CCLRC seeks actively to develop exploitation routes for its research via its totally owned commercial exploitation company, CLIK, which was established in April 2002. Five new CLIK-generated high technology companies are already in the final stages of formation, three of which are based on research and associated technologies developed at the CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory. The CLIK business plan is based on the formation of three new CCLRC spin-out companies per year for each of the next five years.

  CCLRC has interacted closely with the activities of the North West Science Council (NWSC) since its inception. The Director of the Daresbury Laboratory has been a member throughout this period, and he and his staff also maintain close relations with the NWDA. This has led already to the construction of two new NWDA-supported high technology buildings immediately adjacent to the DL site, on land previously owned by CCLRC, in order to provide easily accessible space for new high technology, spin-out companies and associated business support advisers. The CCLRC/NWDA interaction has also already led to the successful implementation of a number of major new joint-funded projects, which are or will be based at the DL/NWDA Campus including SUPERSTEM, the Energy Recovery Linac project and the new Cockcroft Accelerator Science Centre. Opportunities for new nanotechnology/nanoscience activities and also a new Centre for Instrumentation are also currently being explored.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the associated backup costs for wind penetration of(a) 10 per cent., (b) 15 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent.; and what the assumptions are underpinning these estimates. [169778]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimates of the back-up costs of renewables, including wind power, were made in the report "Quantifying the System Costs of Additional Renewables in 2020" commissioned from consultants ILEX as part of the analysis for the February 2003 Energy White Paper. The report is available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/ 080scar_report_v2_0.pdf.

  The report considered the additional costs associated with increasing the proportion of renewables generation to 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. by 2020.

  Table 12 of the report indicates that the back-up costs of wind power, in terms of generating capacity and system balancing would be of the order of £6 to £7 per

  1403W
  MWh of wind generation. Details of the assumptions used and the analysis applied are contained in the report.

  Estimates have not been made for lower penetrations of renewables. However, the report indicates that backup costs associated with wind are less than £1 per MWh higher in scenarios where renewables reach 30 per cent. of generation, compared with scenarios where renewables reach 20 per cent. of generation.

  Under the electricity trading arrangements, generators have strong financial incentives to deliver the power they have contracted to sell to electricity suppliers.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the backup costs for electricity generated from(a) wind energy and (b) nuclear power. [169779]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimates of the back-up costs of renewables, including wind power, were made in the report "Quantifying the System Costs of Additional Renewables in 2020" commissioned from consultants ILEX as part of the analysis for the February 2003 Energy White Paper. The report is available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/080scar_rcport_v2_0.pdf.

  Table 12 of the report indicates that the back-up costs of wind power, in terms of generating capacity and system balancing would be of the order of £6 to £7 per MWh of wind generation in 2020. Details of the assumptions used and the analysis applied are contained in the report.

  Estimates of the back-up costs of nuclear power have not been made.

  Energywatch
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Energywatch's budget was in each year since it was created, how many calls it received from consumers in each year; and what assessment she has made of Energywatch's ability to help gas and electricity consumers. [168872]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows:

  Expenditure (£ million)

  complaints

  Non-Complaint inquiries

  2000–01

  17.62

  277,705

  n/a

  2001–02

  318.99

  472,362

  106,015

  2002–03

  511.97

  109,230

  70,856

  2003–04

  612.39

  72,079

  90,000

  2004–05

  713 29

  —

  —

  1 Transitional funding

  2 Complaints to OFGEM, Gas Consumers' Council and Energywatch

  3 Includes £8.1 million transitional funding

  4 Excludes February and March 2002, for which no data are available

  5 Includes £0.29 million transitional funding

  6 Includes £0.29 million transitional funding

  7 Budget. Includes £0.29 million transitional funding

  1404W
  Energywatch has significantly aided energy consumers by, among other things, assisting individuals in their dealings with energy companies; promoting the consumer interest as a whole, particularly in areas such as mis-selling, the transfer process and the billing and metering practices of energy companies; and representing the interests of disadvantaged consumers.

  Fireworks
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured as a result of accidents and incidents involving fireworks in the last five years. [169795]

  Mr. Timms
  The firework injury statistics for 2003 are not yet available. The statistics for the previous four years are as follows:

  (a) Deaths

  (b) Injuries

  2002

  0

  1,017

  2001

  0

  1,362

  2000

  2

  972

  1999

  0

  1,056

  The figures in the table are based on the total number of people treated t hospital casualty departments in Great Britain during a 4 week period around bonfire night.

  Ministerial Meetings/Visits
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the official meetings she has had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 and (b) the dates and subject of each meeting. [170571]

  Ms Hewitt
  I met the Mayor of London on 8 November 2001, the subject of the meeting was regeneration.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister of State (Energy, e-Commerce and Postal Services) next plans to visit Japan. [170993]

  Mr. Timms
  I am due to visit Japan on 16-19 May.

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability have worked in the private sector; and in what capacity. [168447]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Membership consists of myself as Chair, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boateng). All current members of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability have worked in the private sector. Biographies are available at: http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm
  1405W
  In addition, the Chair of the Better Regulation Task Force (David Arculus) and the Chair of the Small Business Council (William Sargent) are invited to attend the panel. Their biographies can be found at:
  http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/members/DavidArculus.htm and
  http://www.sbs.gov.uk/default php?page=/sbc/members.php

  Copies of the biographies have also been placed the Library.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of recent trends in investment in renewable energy upon the residents of Wigan. [169365]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent trends in renewable energy investment have been very encouraging. More new capacity has been constructed in the last few years than in the previous decade, and a significant amount is currently in the pipeline. This covers a wide range of technologies including onshore and offshore wind, solar and biomass.

  However, as far as I am aware this has not translated into new or proposed capacity in the Wigan area.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent trends in investment in renewable energy and the effect of those trends upon residents of Preston. [169686]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent trends in renewable energy investment have been very encouraging. More new capacity has been constructed in the last few years than in the previous decade, and a significant amount is currently in the pipeline. This covers a wide range of technologies including onshore and offshore wind, solar and biomass.

  However, as far as I am aware this has not translated into new or proposed capacity in the Preston area.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on renewable energy targets and their achievement; and if she will make a statement. [169753]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's renewable energy target is that renewable energy sources will supply 10 per cent. of our electricity by 2010. The target is challenging as we are starting from a low base; provisional figures suggest that in 2003, 2 per cent. of electricity was generated from sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation. However, the target is achievable. As the SEPN annual report published earlier this week indicates, we have made an encouraging start.

  We have received many representations from stakeholders regarding the targets, and we have listened to them. An example of this is our plan to increase the level of the Renewables Obligation (RO) in the period after 2010, so that it reaches 15.4 per cent. by 2015–16. By increasing the Obligation in these years, this will greatly assist investor confidence and in particular help with the financing of new projects needed to deliver output by 2010.

  Ultra-wideband Wireless Networks
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to license ultra-wideband wireless networks. [169295]

  Mr. Timms
  The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to my hon. Friend. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Wind Turbines
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the proposal for wind turbines in the Thames Estuary; and if she will make a statement. [169750]

  Mr. Timms
  On 16 March I met representatives from the Chamber of Shipping, Trinity House, the Port of London Authority and the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association for a general discussion on a number of navigation related issues in relation to the 15 proposed Round 2 offshore wind farms, 4 of which are planned in the Thames Estuary. To date my Department has not received any development consent applications for a Round 2 wind farm. Before developers can submit applications they must undertake a full environmental impact assessment including a navigational risk assessment in consultation with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other shipping interests. To ensure that all views on consent applications are taken into account, at the time developers submit applications for consent to my department they must advertise the project in both national and local press so that any person can make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All representations are then taken into consideration before a decision is made on whether to give consent.

  Winkleigh Biomass Project
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been conducted by(a) central Government and (b) the South West Regional Development Agency of potential (i) fossil fuel savings and (ii) additional fossil fuel use if the proposed Winkleigh Biomass Project is completed and running at full capacity; and with what results. [169460]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]No such studies have been commissioned or undertaken by the DTI. The developer as part of the application process did undertake an initial assessment of the fossil fuel savings from such a plant. And as part of the assessment process the assessors took into account the estimates made by the proposers.

  No such studies have been commissioned or undertaken by the South West Regional Development Agency either. Further detail will be found in the planned Environmental Impact Assessment, which will include an evaluation of potential road traffic.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Area Plans
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target date is for the implementation of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan; and if he will make a statement. [168215]

  Angela Smith
  The publication date for the Plan has not yet been finalised. Work on the Draft Plan is now well advanced. If the Draft Plan passes through its final stages within the normal time scale, the target for publication is late autumn.

  These final stages include:
  Clearance by other Government Departments; and
  Assessment by the Department of Regional Development for "conformity with the Regional Development Strategy".

  Bangor Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to enhance the services available at Bangor hospital; and if he will make a statement. [169655]

  Angela Smith
  Bangor hospital currently offers GP inpatient services, a minor injuries service and a wide range of other secondary, intermediate and primary care services. Social care and voluntary sector services are also provided at the hospital. Work is ongoing to develop further the services provided, including the introduction of an advanced digital imaging system that, in addition to improving the quality of the x-ray service, will further enhance the hospital's minor injuries service.

  British-Irish Joint Declaration
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing those aspects of the British-Irish Joint Declaration that deal with security normalisation. [166228]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Joint Declaration, which was published by both Governments on 1 May last year, gave a commitment to the complete normalisation of security over a two-year period, in the context of an enabling environment.

  The Prime Minister announced in a statement on 1 May 2003 that the Government would on some aspects of normalisation, push on and do what we can. Since then two towers at Cloghoge and Tievecrum were demolished in June and the Chief Constable announced on 11 February that Clooney Army base in Londonderry would be closed and sold and the Army would vacate the joint Police/Army base at Aughnacloy.

  Any further steps will only be taken in light of the threat and the Chief Constable's advice.

  Housing Executive Properties
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals were awaiting placement in housing executive properties, broken down by area, in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [169658]
  1408W
  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not readily available in the format requested.

  The following table shows the numbers of households at 31 March 2004 requiring social housing (Housing Executive and Housing Association) broken down by the applicant's stated preference of Housing Executive District Office area.

  The waiting list is not static as households move on and off the list during the course of the year. The trend in demand for social sector accommodation continues to rise steadily. The increases in demand are most pronounced in urban areas and in the east of the province.

  Number of households on the waiting list at 31 March 2004

  Housing executive district

  Number

  Belfast 1

  926

  Belfast 2

  1,479

  Belfast 3

  839

  Belfast 4

  801

  Belfast 5

  647

  Belfast 6

  1,001

  Belfast 7

  1,746

  Antrim

  709

  Ballycastle

  225

  Ballymena

  1,032

  Ballymoney

  286

  Carrickfergus

  839

  Coleraine

  855

  Larne

  370

  Newtownabbey 1

  631

  Newtownabbey 2

  662

  Armagh

  559

  Banbridge

  410

  Dungannon

  517

  Fermanagh

  734

  Lurgan

  659

  Newry

  1,301

  Portadown

  413

  Bangor

  1,488

  Castlereagh

  984

  Downpatrick

  919

  Lisburn Antrim Street

  1,362

  Lisburn Dairy Farm

  514

  Newtownards

  1,174

  Cookstown

  230

  Limavady

  337

  Londonderry 1

  623

  Londonderry 2

  457

  Londonderry 3

  531

  Magherafelt

  356

  Omagh

  370

  Strabane

  529

  Total

  27,515

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the numbers of dentists working for the NHS in Northern Ireland. [169931]

  Angela Smith
  The Department has put in place a comprehensive work force planning mechanism that reviews, on an annual basis, supply and demand issues across all HPSS professional groups. The first report on the dental staff group has been completed and its findings did not indicate any general recruitment
  1409W
  difficulties with this group. Nevertheless, the position will be kept under review through the Department's work force planning process.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157740]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  However, from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003, 3134 Parliamentary Questions were tabled to the Northern Ireland Office.

  From 1 May 2003 to 31 December 2003, the 11 Departments of the NI administration answered 986 Ordinary Written questions of which 79 per cent. were responded to within a working week of the question being tabled. Of the 65 Named Day questions tabled in the same period 80 per cent. were answered by the specified date. The corresponding information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office is not currently available on the same basis.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in dealing with prostate cancer in Northern Ireland in the past two years. [169933]

  Angela Smith
  Patients with prostate cancer may be treated either by the regional urology service at the Belfast City hospital or by the Cancer Units at Antrim, Altnagelvin, Craigavon and Ulster hospitals. Strong linkages have been developed between these units in recent years.

  Funding has recently been made available for the appointment of an additional urology consultant, with a special interest in uro-oncology, to be recruited jointly between BCH and the Ulster hospitals, and for the appointment of an additional consultant urologist at Craigavon Area hospital. A number of specialist nurses have also been appointed at BCH, the Ulster hospital and elsewhere. Altnagelvin, the Ulster and BCH have developed nurse-led fast track assessment clinics with direct access to urology consultants. Craigavon also plans to introduce this service to help ensure prompt access to investigations and treatment.

  Radioactive Contamination (Chernobyl Accident)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farms in Northern Ireland, comprising what land areas and in what locations, have restrictions applied to them in respect of land use as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. [169876]
  1410W
  Mr. Pearson
  It is estimated that 153 farms in Northern Ireland located in three small hill areas at Glenwherry in Co. Antrim and Belraugh and Glenshane in Co. Londonderry had controls applied to the movement and slaughter of sheep as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The three areas extended to some 21,612 acres (8,752 hectares).

  Register of Interests
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the requirements are on officials in his Department to declare current interests; and what register of interests is kept for his departmental officials. [164704]

  Mr. Pearson
  The requirements placed upon officials employed in NI Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are set out in the Conduct Sections of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code and the Civil Service Management Code (Home Civil Service). These requirements place responsibility on officials to declare to senior management, as appropriate and when necessary, their current interests. The declaration must include the likelihood of possible conflicts of interest and, where appropriate, seek approval before proceeding with a particular course of action. The contents of the respective Codes are drawn to the attention of officials as part of induction programmes.

  While there is no register of interests maintained centrally in respect of officials working in the NI departments or in the Northern Ireland Office, three NI departments, because of the specialised nature of their business and the interaction with the private sector and non-departmental public bodies, have established departmental registers.

  Secondary School Entry (Craigavon)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect the ending of academic selection for entry to secondary schools as recommended by the Costello Report would have on the Two Tier Dickson system in use in Craigavon; and if he will make a statement. [170458]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Schools and school managing authorities, working together in local areas, will develop new post-primary arrangements that best provide for the needs of all pupils and take account of local wishes, needs and circumstances. A two-tier system could continue to operate provided all pupils have access to the Entitlement Framework.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of using independent hospitals outside Northern Ireland to reduce local waiting lists. [169699]

  Angela Smith
  Health and Social Services Boards purchase services from independent hospitals as an appropriate short-term measure to allow patients to receive their treatment more quickly. During 2002–03 and 2003–04, 628 patients were transferred to various
  1411W
  independent hospitals outside Northern Ireland as part of a range of initiatives to reduce waiting lists and waiting times.

  Water Conservation
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will support pilot schemes to promote water conservation among low income households and vulnerable people in order to reduce the impact of water charging. [168642]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Water Service (Mrs. Katharine Bryan) has written to the hon. Lady in response to this question.

  Letter from Mrs. Katherine Bryan to Lady Hermon, dated 30 April 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question (No. 168642) concerning his support for pilot schemes to promote water conservation amongst low-income households and vulnerable people in order to reduce the impact of water charging.

  In recognising that there is a relationship between water conservation and water consumption it is equally important to recognise that they are not synonymous. Water Service's second Water Efficiency Plan, which I launched in January 2004, sets out a wide range of measures aimed at reducing demand from water. In addition to Water Service's leakage reduction strategy, it involves a proactive approach to water conservation by all customers, including raising awareness and the further promotion of water saving devices such as Hippo Bags. The combination of conservation measures taken by Water Service and reduced consumption by customers should help to reduce projected water demand. This will ultimately reduce the charge to customers.

  Changes to water consumption patterns could have a more direct impact on individual's water bills under a metered water regime. In some circumstances, lower consumption could result in a reduced bill. However, no decision has yet been taken on the form of water charging to be introduced. Research and analysis into the consequences of different approaches is currently being undertaken and the impact of charges on low-income households and vulnerable groups is one of the issues being considered.

  The Government is fully committed to measures that encourage water conservation. I am advised that in June 2002 and November 2003, Water Service officials met with Eaga-partnership Ltd., which is promoting a water conservation programme known as Watersmart and is interested in undertaking a pilot study in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the results of pilot study undertaken by Eaga-Partnership Ltd. in the Essex and Suffolk Water Company indicated that the costs of the programme are considerably in excess of the cost of comparable leakage reduction measures currently being undertaken by Water Service and would not therefore represent good value for money The company was informed of the position and agreed to provide additional information on the economic benefits of the programme. To date, Water Service has received no further communication from the company.

  Water Service continually keeps its activities and procedures under review in order to improve effectiveness and deliver improved value for money to customers and taxpayers. It will continue to consider any proposals, including other pilot schemes, which would contribute to improved water conservation.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve water efficiency in(a) low income households, (b) domestic premises, (c) small businesses and (d) public sector offices; and if he will make a statement. [168930]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Water Service (Mrs. Katharine Bryan) has written to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question.
  1412W
  Letter from Mrs. Katharine Bryan to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 29 April 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question (No. 168930) about what plans he has to improve water efficiency in low income households, domestic premises, small businesses and public sector offices. I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Water Service.

  Water Service's second Water Efficiency Plan was formally launched in January 2004. The Plan sets out how Water Service proposes to extend its information and awareness campaign and to provide advice to all of the community including low income households, domestic premises, small businesses and public sector offices. Water Service will continue to extend its programme of exhibitions at major events, presentations to local groups as well as displays at local shopping centres across Northern Ireland. In addition the successful Water Bus mobile exhibition will continue to deliver the water conservation message to schools, with all children who attend being provided with a home copy of water efficiency information to give to their parent or guardian. All public sector offices have received a full water conservation pack containing Hippo bags, posters, etc and Water Service will continue to work with the public sector to promote water efficiency. Water Service has also sent small businesses and Government offices further information on how to improve water efficiency when it issued metered water accounts in 2003.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further research has been undertaken following the Northern Ireland Audit Office report into water efficiency in 2001; and if he will make a statement on water efficiency targets in Northern Ireland. [168931]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Water Service (Mrs. Katharine Bryan) has written to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question.

  Letter from Katherine Bryan to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 29 April 2002:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question (No 168931) about what further research has been undertaken following the Northern Ireland Audit Office report into water efficiency in 2001, and water efficiency targets in Not them Ireland. I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Water Service.

  Water Service is committed to addressing the issues raised by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and has carried out a comprehensive review its Water Efficiency Plan. A revised Water Efficiency Plan was formally launched in January 2004 which aims to reduce the demand for water through effective leakage management and other water conservation measures. The Plan promotes a more Proactive approach to leakage reduction, water conservation including raising awareness, and the further promotion of water saving devices such as Hippo Bags. It also includes a new Leakline number for customers to report leakage incidents.

  A major element of the Water Efficiency Plan is to reduce leakage from the water distribution system and Water Service has an annual water efficiency target which aims towards achieving a reduction in leakage to an economic level of 172 million litres per day in March 2007. Provisional outturn for 2003/2004 indicates that Water Service has achieved its leakage reduction targets for the past two years, resulting in total leakage being reduced by almost 60 million litres per day. The water efficiency target for 2004/2005 is to reduce leakage from the water distribution system by a further 28 mi8llion litres per day, to a level of 205 million litres per day by 31 March 2005. Water Service is committed to meeting this leakage target through upgrading the water infrastructure and by targeting resources to detect and repair leaks.
  1413W

WALES

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each Civil Service grade within his Department, the total number of staff employed and set out the number employed by(a) gender, (b) ethnic group (c) registered disabled and (d) age group. [166401]

  Mr. Touhig
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected by the Cabinet Office and published in the Civil Service Statistics. A copy of the Civil Service Statistics, 2002 is available in the Library, and at www.civil-service.gsi.gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  The Wales Office Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5928) provides data on staff numbers for the Wales Office for year 2002–03. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 of this publication show staff numbers with disabilities. A copy of the Wales Office Departmental Report 2003 can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Information on numbers of staff employed by age group is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Department. [166374]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office IT is provided as part of the DCA's corporate network. There are no plans to update the existing hardware. Our PFI supplier will, as part of their contractual commitment, update software, including operating systems, office automation and applications, within the next 12 months.

  North Wales Police
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Secretaries about the use of Private Finance Initiative by North Wales Police in respect of(a) refurbishment and replacement of police stations and (b) generally. [170321]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet with Assembly Secretaries to discuss matters affecting Wales.

  The allocation of Private Finance Initiative credit approvals rests with the Home Office. Police projects in Wales also need approval from flu National Assembly who fund annual service charges through their revenue grant. Decisions on which projects to support are entirely for the Assembly.

  Register of Interests
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the requirements are on his officials to declare current interests; and what register of interests is kept for his departmental officials. [164697]
  1414W
  Mr. Touhig
  The Civil Service Management Code sets out the requirement for civil servants declaring any conflict of interest.

  Any such declarations are retained on file.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of regional development agencies in developing tourism in Manchester, Gorton. [167346]

  Tessa Jowell
  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) is working closely with Marketing Manchester, the nominated Destination Management Organisation (DMO) for Manchester. The new DMOs are, in effect, smaller versions of tourist boards. They aim to ensure a strong visitor and market focus to all that is done within the region and strengthen the connection between businesses and other organisations in the tourism sector.

  During 2003–04 Marketing Manchester received £695,000 from the NWDA's marketing image budget for tourism and investment campaigns to promote Manchester. £203,000 was also provided from the agency's tourism budget for a variety of tourism development projects.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Community Learning Budget
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Adult Community Learning Budget is for each English local authority area, expressed(a) in cash terms and (b) per head of population. [169645]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]I have set out in the following table the total budget as set by central Government for adult and community learning run through local education authorities in England.

  The information requested concerning the adult and community budget for each English local authority area expressed (a) in cash terms and (b) per head of population is not to hand. However, it is being collated and I will write to the hon. Member shortly, and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Adult and community learning

  Funding (£ million)1

  2000–01

  145

  2001–02

  153

  2002–03

  183

  2003–04

  206

  1 Total budget, by financial year, on adult and community learning run through local education authorities (recurrent figures). The figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 include the budgets for neighbourhood learning and family learning, starting from a nil base in 2001–02.

  African Educational Institutions
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support(a) his Department and (b) UK educational institutions have given to developing courses for African educational institutions in respect of (i) teacher training courses, (ii) training of health professionals, (iii) distance learning courses and (iv) other courses; and if he will make a statement. [165705]

  Alan Johnson
  UK Government support for courses for African education institutions in respect of teacher training, training for health professionals, distance learning courses and other courses, is provided by the Department for International Development and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 31 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1444–45W.

  There is no central record of the support UK higher education institutions provide for developing courses for education institutions.

  British National Party
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to protect young school children from the campaigning conducted by the British National Party in schools to promote racist propaganda and racist activities. [168285]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are safeguards in Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 against the promotion and pursuit of partisan political views or activities. Governing Bodies, teachers and LEAs must take reasonable steps to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views where political or controversial issues are brought to their attention. With the introduction of Citizenship education as a statutory subject, pupils have an opportunity to develop their political awareness, critical thinking and the nature of prejudice including racism. All schools have been sent guidance on citizenship education which covers teaching of sensitive and controversial issues.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Burnley were taught in classes of more than 30 on the latest date for which figures are available. [167923]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher—January 2003

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Burnley parliamentary constituency

  Total pupils all classes

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils2

  Maintained Primary

  7,651

  1,395

  18.2

  Maintained Secondary

  6,272

  995

  15.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in all classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  1416W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Manchester, Gorton were taught in classes of more than 30 on the latest date for which figures are available. [167444]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher—January 2003

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Manchester, Gorton parliamentary constituency

  Total pupils in all classes

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils2

  Maintained Primary

  6,750

  808

  12.0

  Maintained Secondary

  5,662

  535

  9.4

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in all classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Heywood and Middleton were taught in classes of more than 30 on the latest date for which figures are available. [168498]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher—January 2003

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Heywood and Middleton parliamentary constituency

  Total pupils all classes

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils2

  Maintained Primary

  8,744

  2,142

  24.5

  Maintained Secondary

  5,954

  711

  11.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in all classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill; how many children in Stalybridge and Hyde were taught in classes of more than 30 on the latest date for which figures are available. [168756]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher—January 2003

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Stalybridge and Hyde parliamentary constituency

  Total pupils in all classes

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils2

  Maintained Primary

  7,930

  1,274

  16.1

  Maintained Secondary

  5,685

  854

  15.0

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in all classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Computers for Schools
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been
  1417W
  spent on computers for schools in each of the last seven years in (a) Liverpool, (b) Manchester, (c) Leeds and (d) Sheffield. [166962]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield local education authorities have benefited from the funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA) as follows:

  £

  Allocation to:

  Liverpool LEA

  Manchester LEA

  Leeds LEA

  Sheffield LEA

  1998–99

  978,576

  983,605

  1,700,000

  1,200,000

  1999–2000

  1,050,000

  1,410,000

  1,350,000

  900,000

  2000–01

  2,096,082

  1,861,602

  2,986,463

  1,899,247

  2001–02

  2,306,630

  2,012,866

  3,356,591

  2,242,424

  2002–03

  3,247,326

  2,932,949

  4,687,707

  3,997,782

  2003–04

  3,229,701

  2,880,827

  4,762,382

  3,078,495

  2004–05

  4,120,244

  3,682,324

  6,139,762

  3,969,335

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on computers for schools in Wigan in each of the last seven years. [169289]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However, in the last seven years schools in Wigan LEA have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA).

  Allocation to Wigan LEA (£)

  1998–99

  685,947

  1999–2000

  675,000

  2000–01

  1,328,513

  2001–02

  1,483,483

  2002–03

  2,141,147

  2003–04

  2,557,655

  2004–05

  2,775,768

  Computers within Reach programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) families in Burnley have benefited from the Computers within Reach programme. [167933]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Computers within Reach (CWR) scheme closed on 31 0ctober 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a State Pension with minimum income guarantee.

  At the same time as funding was made available for the Computers within Reach scheme, funding was also provided for the Computers for Teachers programme. For teachers who met certain criteria, this programme subsidised the cost of a computer. It was subsequently replaced by the current Laptops for Teachers scheme which dispensed with subsidies, and through which sufficient funding will be provided to enable two thirds of teachers to receive a laptop by March 2006.
  1418W
  Burnley was not one of the pilot areas for the CWR scheme.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) families in Preston have benefited from the Computers within Reach programme. [168120]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Computers within Reach (CWR) scheme closed on 31 October 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a State Pension with minimum income guarantee.

  At the same time as funding was made available for the Computers within Reach scheme, funding was also provided for the Computers for Teachers programme. For teachers who met certain criteria, this programme subsidised the cost of a computer. It was subsequently replaced by the current Laptops for Teachers scheme which dispensed with subsidies, and through which sufficient funding will be provided to enable two thirds of teachers to receive a laptop by March 2006.

  Preston was not one of the pilot areas for the CWR scheme.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) families in Heywood and Middleton have benefited from the Computers within Reach programme. [168508]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Computers within Reach scheme closed on 31 October 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a state pension with minimum income guarantee.

  At the same time as funding was made available for the Computers within Reach scheme, funding was also provided for the Computers for Teachers programme. For teachers who met certain criteria, this programme subsidised the cost of a computer. It was subsequently replaced by the current Laptops for Teachers scheme which dispensed with subsidies, and through which sufficient funding will be provided to enable two thirds of teachers to receive a laptop by March 2006.

  Of the 24,000 computers delivered through the Computers within Reach scheme, approximately 2,200 were for people in the Manchester area including those in and around Heywood and Middleton.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [168996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The following table sets out such spending in £000s for DfES and its predecessor Department in the relevant years.
  1419W

  £000

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department for Education and Skills

  1996–97

  24

  —

  1997–98

  21

  —

  1998–99

  31

  —

  1999–2000

  21

  —

  2000–01

  20

  —

  2001–02

  —

  11

  2002–03

  —

  16

  2003–041

  —

  18

  2004–05

  —

  Not available

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bodies receive some or all of their funding from his Department; what amount of funding was received by each body in each year since 1997; and who the chief executive is of each body. [167570]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on funding of executive non-departmental public bodies is published annually in the Departmental Report. Information on the chief executives is contained in the individual annual reports issued by each of the executive non-departmental public bodies. Information on other bodies is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

  Earn As You Learn
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children he expects will be persuaded to remain at school beyond their GCSEs through the earn as you learn scheme. [169482]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Extensive independent evaluation of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots shows that EMA increased participation by eligible 16-year-olds in education by 5.9 percentage points. Judged against historic trends, this represents a major increase. Based on evidence from the pilots, the evaluators predict that in the first year of the national scheme, some 35,000 additional young people will participate in post-16 education in colleges and schools as a result of EMA, and that this will rise to over 70,000 per year when EMA is fully in place.

  Education Psychologists
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education psychologists were working(a) in each local education authority and (b) in total in each year since 1997. [168634]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of education psychologists employed in each local education authority in England in each year from 1997 to 2003, the latest information available.
  1420W

  Educational psychologists

  Full-time equivalent

  In Service (January of each year)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  LEA

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  8

  8

  8

  11

  12

  11

  13

  Greenwich

  16

  17

  16

  13

  15

  16

  21

  Hackney

  11

  10

  11

  12

  13

  12

  11

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  8

  9

  8

  6

  8

  10

  Islington

  10

  13

  12

  14

  12

  10

  9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9

  10

  8

  8

  6

  7

  7

  Lambeth

  13

  8

  11

  13

  15

  15

  14

  Lewisham

  14

  14

  13

  13

  14

  14

  12

  Southwark

  14

  11

  12

  12

  12

  13

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  30

  16

  15

  14

  13

  13

  Wandsworth

  11

  12

  11

  11

  11

  12

  12

  City of Westminster

  10

  7

  7

  7

  9

  9

  9

  Barking and Dagenham

  13

  11

  12

  14

  12

  13

  13

  Barnet

  16

  16

  16

  14

  16

  12

  16

  Bexley

  11

  10

  11

  11

  10

  9

  9

  Brent

  12

  10

  9

  10

  11

  12

  11

  Bromley

  12

  12

  12

  11

  12

  10

  10

  Croydon

  10

  15

  14

  13

  12

  14

  12

  Ealing

  13

  14

  24

  15

  14

  16

  12

  Enfield

  15

  13

  18

  21

  19

  21

  17

  Haringey

  15

  13

  15

  14

  12

  10

  10

  Harrow

  11

  5

  9

  10

  11

  10

  9

  Havering

  8

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  11

  Hillingdon

  12

  14

  15

  14

  16

  14

  16

  Hounslow

  10

  11

  10

  11

  11

  10

  8

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  7

  6

  7

  5

  8

  8

  Merton

  7

  7

  7

  7

  10

  10

  7

  Newham

  12

  13

  16

  19

  18

  16

  13

  Redbridge

  8

  8

  10

  10

  7

  10

  10

  Richmond upon Thames

  7

  8

  8

  7

  6

  —

  6

  Sutton

  6

  5

  7

  9

  11

  9

  8

  Waltham Forest

  13

  13

  13

  13

  8

  12

  18

  Birmingham

  39

  40

  46

  23

  46

  46

  53

  Coventry

  13

  13

  14

  15

  16

  16

  16

  Dudley

  11

  11

  12

  8

  12

  11

  10

  Sandwell

  14

  15

  14

  16

  15

  16

  13

  Solihull

  9

  10

  10

  11

  10

  9

  11

  Walsall

  11

  13

  12

  12

  11

  9

  8

  Wolverhampton

  12

  13

  10

  13

  15

  18

  17

  Knowsley

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  —

  6

  Liverpool

  16

  16

  15

  15

  14

  21

  17

  St. Helens

  6

  8

  7

  6

  8

  8

  9

  Sefton

  10

  11

  11

  10

  14

  14

  16

  Wirral

  14

  13

  14

  13

  12

  11

  11

  Bolton

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  10

  10

  Bury

  8

  7

  6

  8

  9

  5

  6

  Manchester

  18

  21

  22

  18

  21

  20

  21

  Oldham

  7

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  6

  Rochdale

  8

  9

  9

  8

  9

  8

  7

  Salford

  10

  8

  8

  11

  9

  8

  6

  Stockport

  12

  11

  11

  11

  10

  12

  13

  Tameside

  8

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  9

  Trafford

  5

  5

  5

  4

  7

  5

  6

  Wigan

  12

  12

  12

  12

  10

  11

  13

  Barnsley

  4

  7

  7

  7

  8

  6

  6

  Doncaster

  11

  12

  11

  11

  10

  11

  12

  Rotherham

  12

  11

  8

  7

  9

  10

  12

  Sheffield

  19

  21

  22

  23

  26

  22

  21

  Bradford

  19

  19

  21

  22

  22

  20

  18

  Calderdale

  8

  7

  7

  8

  9

  5

  8

  Kirklees

  22

  23

  20

  23

  25

  22

  23

  Leeds

  15

  17

  19

  22

  20

  22

  24

  Wakefield

  10

  10

  11

  9

  9

  11

  13

  Gateshead

  9

  10

  10

  10

  7

  11

  11

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14

  10

  15

  11

  9

  10

  10

  North Tyneside

  7

  8

  6

  8

  9

  9

  9

  South Tyneside

  6

  8

  5

  7

  7

  7

  5

  Sunderland

  12

  12

  14

  16

  11

  19

  15

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bath and North East

  Somerset

  5

  5

  5

  9

  7

  10

  9

  City of Bristol

  17

  14

  16

  19

  20

  24

  14

  North Somerset

  8

  8

  9

  12

  11

  10

  9

  South Gloucestershire

  7

  7

  9

  10

  11

  11

  10

  Hartlepool

  3

  4

  4

  3

  2

  4

  3

  Middlesbrough

  5

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  Redcar and Cleveland

  5

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Stockton on Tees

  9

  5

  7

  6

  8

  9

  10

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  8

  8

  10

  10

  11

  12

  12

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  8

  8

  8

  7

  9

  9

  7

  1421W

  Educational psychologists

  Full-time equivalent

  In Service (January of each year)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  North East Lincolnshire

  4

  5

  5

  6

  6

  5

  6

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  North Yorkshire

  13

  14

  16

  15

  15

  17

  16

  York

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  9

  7

  Bedfordshire

  16

  6

  10

  10

  12

  12

  12

  Luton

  —

  5

  5

  6

  7

  6

  6

  Total former Bedfordshire area

  16

  11

  16

  16

  19

  18

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  25

  18

  20

  20

  19

  24

  24

  Milton Keynes

  —

  10

  7

  10

  12

  10

  11

  Total former Buckinghamshire area

  25

  28

  27

  30

  30

  34

  35

  Derbyshire

  32

  22

  21

  23

  21

  28

  30

  Derby

  —

  9

  9

  11

  11

  12

  11

  Total former Derbyshire area

  32

  31

  29

  34

  32

  40

  42

  Dorset

  25

  14

  13

  13

  13

  15

  16

  Poole

  —

  6

  6

  5

  5

  6

  6

  Bournemouth

  —

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  8

  Total former Dorset area

  25

  24

  24

  23

  24

  27

  30

  Durham

  23

  16

  21

  21

  23

  23

  25

  Darlington

  —

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Total former Durham area

  23

  20

  24

  25

  27

  27

  29

  East Sussex

  18

  12

  14

  13

  17

  18

  20

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  7

  7

  8

  8

  12

  13

  Total former East Sussex area

  18

  19

  21

  20

  25

  30

  33

  Hampshire

  61

  49

  48

  50

  43

  45

  46

  Portsmouth

  —

  11

  9

  14

  11

  10

  11

  Southampton

  —

  10

  12

  13

  13

  12

  12

  Total former Hampshire area

  61

  70

  69

  77

  67

  66

  69

  Leicestershire

  26

  21

  23

  25

  21

  28

  26

  Leicester

  —

  13

  13

  13

  21

  23

  20

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total former Leicestershire area

  26

  34

  36

  38

  42

  51

  46

  Staffordshire

  28

  21

  20

  22

  19

  23

  24

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  6

  8

  6

  6

  8

  12

  Total former Staffordshire area

  28

  27

  28

  29

  25

  31

  36

  Wiltshire

  13

  14

  21

  16

  14

  17

  14

  Swindon

  —

  6

  5

  7

  7

  6

  7

  Total former Wiltshire area

  13

  20

  26

  22

  21

  23

  21

  Former Berkshire

  21

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  2

  4

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  7

  6

  5

  5

  7

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  5

  6

  8

  9

  9

  Reading

  —

  —

  4

  5

  5

  6

  8

  Slough

  —

  —

  5

  8

  10

  6

  8

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  5

  5

  5

  6

  8

  Total former Berkshire area

  21

  20

  29

  33

  36

  34

  44

  Former Cambridgeshire

  20

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  19

  18

  17

  17

  17

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  Total former Cambridgeshire area

  20

  20

  26

  25

  23

  24

  25

  Former Cheshire

  30

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  19

  24

  18

  21

  18

  Halton

  —

  —

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Warrington

  —

  —

  6

  10

  6

  8

  6

  Total former Cheshire area

  30

  28

  29

  39

  29

  35

  28

  Former Devon

  35

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  21

  19

  22

  27

  26

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  10

  9

  10

  12

  12

  Torbay

  —

  —

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Total former Devon area

  35

  33

  34

  32

  35

  43

  42

  1422W

  Educational psychologists

  Full-time equivalent

  In Service (January of each year)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Former Essex

  63

  61

  54

  60

  64

  69

  68

  Essex

  —

  —

  46

  48

  52

  58

  57

  Southend on Sea

  —

  —

  4

  5

  6

  5

  6

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  5

  8

  6

  6

  5

  Total former Essex area

  63

  61

  54

  60

  64

  69

  68

  Former Hereford and Worcestershire

  22

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  5

  6

  6

  6

  8

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  20

  19

  23

  24

  25

  Total former Hereford and Worcester area

  22

  20

  25

  24

  28

  30

  33

  Former Kent

  56

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  38

  44

  42

  44

  46

  Medway

  —

  —

  10

  10

  10

  8

  10

  Total former Kent area

  56

  50

  47

  54

  52

  52

  56

  Former Lancashire

  55

  52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  41

  43

  42

  38

  40

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  8

  9

  8

  6

  7

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  5

  6

  7

  6

  4

  Total former Lancashire area

  55

  52

  54

  58

  57

  50

  51

  Former Nottinghamshire

  33

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  23

  25

  26

  21

  23

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  9

  9

  15

  15

  16

  Total former Nottinghamshire area

  33

  31

  32

  35

  41

  36

  39

  Former Shropshire

  13

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  14

  15

  17

  14

  12

  Total former Shropshire area

  13

  13

  14

  15

  17

  14

  12

  Cornwall

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  17

  Cumbria

  17

  17

  17

  20

  24

  18

  17

  Gloucestershire

  9

  9

  18

  18

  19

  22

  23

  Hertfordshire

  35

  35

  36

  35

  32

  34

  31

  Isle of Wight

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Lincolnshire

  19

  15

  17

  17

  19

  24

  21

  Norfolk

  24

  22

  24

  21

  21

  20

  18

  Northamptonshire

  23

  29

  28

  28

  26

  29

  25

  Northumberland

  9

  9

  9

  15

  9

  17

  11

  Oxfordshire

  18

  20

  19

  21

  22

  26

  29

  Somerset

  16

  17

  21

  24

  24

  21

  22

  Suffolk

  16

  20

  20

  19

  19

  20

  20

  Surrey

  34

  31

  31

  34

  37

  39

  38

  Warwickshire

  15

  15

  18

  20

  16

  16

  16

  West Sussex

  22

  23

  22

  24

  26

  26

  28

  Total England

  1,768

  1,788

  1,867

  1,929

  1,956

  2,020

  2,026

  Source:

  Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies (618g)

  Education Statistics (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total education budget awarded to Havering was in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2001, (d) 2003 and (e) 2004. [169946]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table provides the total education funding for 1997–98 to 2004–05. There have been changes to the structure of Standard Spending Assessments and their successor from 2003–04, Education Formula Spending, which make them incomparable over time: for example, several large transfers from SSA/EFS to grant funding. Only total funding per pupil (including SSA/EFS and grants) is comparable between years. Also, for 2003–04 and 2004–05, pension transfers to EFS and the Learning and Skills Council are excluded from EFS and total funding figures to enable comparison between years.
  1423W

  £ million (real terms at 2002–03 prices)

  SSA/EFS

  Grants1

  Grants

  1997–98

  98.5

  3.5

  101.9

  1998–99

  104.2

  1.6

  105.7

  1999–2000

  106.4

  2.6

  109

  2000–01

  110.7

  8.1

  118.8

  2001–02

  115.1

  12.9

  128

  2002–03

  113.1

  17.6

  130.7

  2003–04

  116.6

  218.4

  2135

  2004–05

  121.2

  318.9

  3140.1

  1 Grants are all revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EPS pupils aged three to 19. Education Maintenance Allowance's (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level are excluded.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Estimated.

  Note:

  Real terms figures based on GDP deflators as at 26 March 2004 (2002–03 prices).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new computers the Department plans to put in schools in the next five years; and how many of those will be put in schools in Havering. [169949]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our targets for 2004 were to achieve computer: pupil ratios of 1:8 in primary schools and 1:5 in secondary schools. We have already reached the primary school target and confidently expect to reach the secondary target this year. Funding for ICT in schools is currently available through the Standards Fund and the Devolved Capital Grant and it is for schools to decide how to spend their allocations to best meet their local need and circumstances.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the forecast budget for the Borough of Havering for education is for 2005–06. [169985]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government do not produce forecast budgets by local education authority. The settlement for 2005–06 will be announced in the autumn of 2004.

  Electronic On-screen Assessment
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority regarding electronic on-screen assessment. [168968]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The effective use of electronic on-screen assessment will have an important role to play in supporting learners in schools and colleges in the future. Both Ministers and officials in this Department have discussed with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority ways in which electronic assessment can be introduced, while maintaining standards; ensuring access for all learners; and guaranteeing high security levels. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is developing more detailed plans for electronic on-screen assessment, and we look forward to further discussions with it as we seek to promote greater use of such techniques in the learning process.

  Examination Boards
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the readiness of the examination boards for this summer's examinations. [169952]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2003, the summer examinations ran smoothly, and students received their results on time. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, as regulator, is in close contact with the examination awarding bodies to achieve the same outcomes in summer 2004.

  Last November the Secretary of State announced that £100 million would be available over the next two years to help modernise the examination system and ensure its safe delivery. I am glad to say that investment is already delivering improvements. More examiners are being recruited, and training is being provided for examination officers in schools and colleges. Further investment is planned to improve the system for transfer of examination information between schools; colleges and awarding bodies, and streamlining and making more secure the movement of examination papers and scripts. We look forward to close co-operation between the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and examination awarding bodies to ensure our investment creates an examinations system which fully meets the needs of students, both this year and in the future.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) black Caribbean, (b) Pakistani, (c) black African, (d) Bangladeshi, (e) white, (f) Indian and (g) Chinese (i) males and (ii) females achieved five A*-C grades at GCSE in each year since 1994; [170121]

  (2) how many (a) Pakistani, (b) black African, (c) Bangladeshi, (d) white, (e) Indian, (f) Chinese and (g) black Caribbean (i) males and (ii) females achieved level 2 or above at Key Stage 1 in (A) English, (B) mathematics and (C) science in each year since 1994; [170122]

  (3) how many (a) black Caribbean, (b) Pakistani, (c) black African, (d) Bangladeshi, (e) Indian, (f) Chinese and (g) white (i) males and (ii) females achieved level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in (A) English, (B) mathematics and (C) science in each year since 1994; [170123]

  (4) how many (a) Pakistani, (b) black African, (c) Bangladeshi, (d) white, (e) Indian, (f) Chinese and (g) black Caribbean (i) males and (ii) females achieved level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in (A) English, (B) mathematics and (C) science in each year since 1994. [170124]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Information and Communications Technology (School Funding)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated to schools in Manchester, Gorton for information and communications technologies since 2001. [167435]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer to his question on the funding spent on computers for schools in Manchester, Gorton in each of the last seven years on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 985W.

  School. Funding (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each school in the Wigan constituency has received from the New Deal for Schools; [169284]

  (2) how much public money has been spent on repairing schools in Wigan in each year since 1997; [169282]

  (3) how much money has been invested in Wigan to build sustainable school sports. [169276]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows the schools in the Wigan constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Since 2001, the majority of capital support has been allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level; this should be held at local authority level.

  Table B sets out the capital support made by the Department to Wigan local education authority and its schools since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A).

  Table B: Capital allocations: Wigan local education authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Additional NDS Grant (615)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  —

  —

  Assistance with AMPs

  —

  —

  —

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic L C Vap

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  743

  958

  Basic Need

  2,784

  1,685

  1,529

  4,210

  4,318

  1,640

  4,382

  5,927

  Class Size initiative

  —

  —

  670

  1,124

  237

  —

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,620

  3,291

  4,464

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,279

  2,200

  2,874

  4,478

  Energy

  —

  —

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,338

  2,745

  NDS 1

  —

  720

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  —

  2,618

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  —

  3,797

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,055

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  202

  202

  —

  —

  School Security

  —

  84

  105

  106

  105

  74

  64

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  90

  30

  71

  150

  210

  324

  455

  661

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  264

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  85

  108

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  206

  232

  394

  393

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  —

  200

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  164

  1426W
  The Government are investing significant funding to enhance school sports facilities across England. The New Opportunities for PE and Sport Programme is providing £581.25 million in England (£25 million of which has gone towards the Space for Sport and the Arts Programme) and schools from all local education authority areas are benefiting. The Space for Sport and the Arts Programme is providing £130 million to support projects at primary schools in 65 target areas; £4,310,000 will be invested in Wigan to build sustainable school sports facilities. All funds from these programmes have now been allocated to local authorities and schools.

  Table A: NDS allocations to schools in the Wigan constituency

  Year/School

  Project

  Package

  Funding (£)

  1997/98

  Wigan St. Andrew's CofE Junior and Infant School

  To renew a backlog of defective roof coverings

  LEA wide grant

  720,000

  Mab's Cross Primary School

  To renew a backlog of defective roof coverings

  LEA wide grant

  720,000

  Pemberton Primary and Nursery School

  Major repair and replacement of decrepit WC blocks

  LEA wide grant

  720,000

  Beech Hill Community Primary School

  Major repair and replacement of decrepit WC blocks

  LEA wide grant

  720,000

  Mere Oaks School

  Major repair and replacement of decrepit WC blocks

  LEA wide grant

  720,000

  1998/99

  Beech Hill Community Primary School

  Replacement of dining hall/kitchen

  —

  439,600

  2000/01

  The Deanery CofE High School

  Replacement of dilapidated accommodation

  —

  150,000

  Scot Lane Community Primary School

  Toilet Refurbishment (Group 1)

  Project including 13 schools

  362,840

  Mab's Cross Primary School

  Toilet Refurbishment (Group I)

  Project including 13 schools

  362,840

  1427W

  Table B: Capital allocations: Wigan local education authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Successful Speculative Bids

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  437

  —

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  581

  1,586

  1,279

  228

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  126

  18

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  468

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  757

  2,367

  2,907

  1,036

  829

  1,111

  1,457

  —

  To date we have allocated £20.5 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Positive Activities for Young People
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why the money for the Positive Activities for Young People Initiative is not paid directly to youth and community services. [169880]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Positive Activities for Young People is a targeted programme that aims to provide diversionary and developmental activities for young people aged eight to 19 years who are at risk of social exclusion or committing crime. There was no one organisation at the local level which covered the whole age group or range of activities. In order to meet the above objectives and to ensure that regional needs and priorities were met, Government Offices were chosen to administer the programme. It is also the role of Government Offices to work with local partners such as Youth Offending Teams and Behaviour Improvement Programme schools to ensure that the target group of young people is reached.

  52 Lead Delivery Agents (LDAs) have been appointed across England to manage the delivery of the programme and the performance of the providers delivering the activities. In eight of the 52 areas the LDA role is performed by the Local Authority Youth Service.

  SATs
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the Key Stage One pilots; and if he will make a statement. [169790]

  Mr. Miliband
  The trial started in September 2003 and will cover the 2004 Key Stage 1 assessments, which are not due to be completed until the second half of the summer term. It is therefore too early to have made an assessment of the trial at this stage.

  QCA has commissioned an independent evaluation from Leeds university which will focus on a representative sample of 150 of the 5,000 schools taking part in the trial. The evaluation will look at workload and whether the new arrangements ensure really robust and comparable results that can be used as a basis for calculating value-added. We expect a full report to be ready at the beginning of September.

  School Sports
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of investment in school sports in Wigan since 1997. [169275]
  1428W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested. Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged 5-16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5-16 year olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing just over £830,000.00 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in the Wigan LEA area. The partnership includes 14 secondary and 40 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Wigan LEA area with over £4.3 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been invested in Heywood and Middleton since 1997 to build long-term sustainable facilities for school sports. [169439]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information at constituency level. The majority of capital funding is now allocated to schools and authorities by needs-related formulae. This enables them to decide how to target the rapidly increasing resources to address their highest priority needs in line with local asset management plans. I would direct my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question 168497, which lists capital allocations made to Rochdale local education authority since 1997. Rochdale also received £2,873,000 in November 2001 under the New Opportunities PE and Sports Programme, which is administered by the New Opportunities Fund.

  School Tests
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the merits of performance testing in schools. [169953]

  Mr. Miliband
  Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. National Curriculum testing provides an objective means of testing all children in the country on a consistent basis. It is an important part of
  1429W
  the overall drive to raise standards in the core subjects at the primary and secondary stages and lays firm foundations for future learning.

  The information from testing helps teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses, which can then be used to inform teaching and learning. It allows us to compare the progress of children in different schools and provides parents with clear feedback against national standards.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in the Easington constituency, broken down by school, have reached level four in mathematics and English in the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [168070]

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4

  2003

  2002

  2001

  2000

  School Name

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  Acre Rigg Junior School

  68

  61

  73

  62

  57

  66

  73

  60

  Blackball Colliery Primary School

  51

  60

  64

  71

  71

  63

  80

  75

  Cotsford Junior School

  68

  77

  71

  82

  78

  85

  78

  70

  Dene House Primary School

  64

  68

  63

  63

  69

  75

  82

  76

  Deneside Junior School

  51

  59

  78

  77

  73

  67

  38

  53

  Easington CofE Primary School

  100

  75

  83

  83

  73

  67

  71

  82

  Easington Colliery Primary School

  70

  67

  58

  65

  76

  55

  60

  51

  Eden Community Primary School

  60

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eden Hall Junior School

  —

  —

  56

  53

  50

  66

  56

  62

  Haswell Primary School

  54

  54

  20

  27

  50

  29

  58

  47

  Hesleden Primary School

  85

  92

  86

  86

  63

  74

  87

  67

  Howletch Lane Primary School

  89

  91

  68

  88

  86

  90

  84

  87

  Murton Jubilee Primary School

  75

  88

  93

  85

  64

  89

  74

  84

  Murton Primary School

  70

  91

  90

  97

  71

  75

  63

  73

  New Seaham Primary School

  84

  93

  86

  95

  83

  90

  90

  100

  North Blunts Primary School

  74

  83

  70

  76

  66

  59

  50

  43

  Our Lady of Lourdes Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary

  90

  85

  85

  69

  88

  88

  89

  89

  Our Lady of the Rosary Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary

  84

  91

  73

  75

  79

  86

  81

  75

  Our Lady Star of the Sea Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary

  62

  81

  68

  75

  84

  68

  81

  81

  Princess Road Junior School

  66

  56

  68

  50

  67

  73

  65

  76

  Ropery Walk Primary School

  63

  56

  81

  81

  77

  77

  76

  79

  Shotton Hall Junior School

  85

  81

  70

  79

  75

  76

  82

  75

  Shotton Primary School

  59

  65

  57

  59

  63

  57

  65

  64

  South Hetton Primary School

  76

  76

  94

  97

  100

  96

  88

  88

  St Cuthbert's Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary School

  72

  72

  84

  94

  88

  96

  79

  86

  St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary School

  88

  88

  100

  100

  91

  100

  100

  83

  St. Mary Magdalen's Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary School

  79

  86

  76

  79

  96

  87

  91

  91

  Westlea Primary School

  80

  89

  73

  89

  84

  87

  71

  63

  Yohden Primary School

  65

  74

  63

  67

  57

  71

  55

  72

  Easington Constituency (all schools)

  71

  73

  71

  74

  73

  74

  71

  England (all schools)

  75

  73

  75

  73

  75

  71

  75

  72

  Note:

  The results for St Joseph's Catholic Prinu ry School, Murton and Glendene School have been suppressed as there are less than 11 pupils at Key Stage 2

  Schools (External Controls)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will 1ist(a) each of the external controls over schools referred to in the document, "Devolved Decision Making: Delivering Better Public Services: Refining Targets and Performance Management", and (b) the purpose of each. [165293]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The definition of external control used in the document is a very broad one. The list identified includes very few direct requirements of schools, but rather a wide range of school performance measures, the majority of which are attributable to
  1430W
  Mr. Miliband
  The results from the 2003 National Curriculum tests showed that 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds in England reached Level 4 in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics. These results represent a significant improvement in standards—of 12 percentage points in English and 11 percentage points in mathematics—since 1997, reflecting the impact of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies on primary schools. We remain absolutely committed, through our new Primary Strategy, to supporting schools to achieve the ambitious targets we have set for standards of literacy and numeracy.

  The results for Easington constituency as a whole, are slightly below the national average in English and above the national average for mathematics and show only a small improvement in mathematics since 2000.

  The results for Easington constituency broken down by school are as follows:

  Ofsted and their arrangements for conducting section 10 inspections. These place no performance management requirements on schools as nearly all of them are graded judgments made by inspectors when they visit a school on, currently, a six-year cycle.

  Ofsted have recently consulted on and are reviewing their current arrangements for school inspection to ensure that parents, teachers, Government and the public continue to receive full, frank, relevant and more frequent information about the performance of schools whilst reducing the burden of inspection. The Department is also currently consulting on an approach to a school profile through which the schools' performance would be recorded.

  Secondary School Places
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant secondary school places there were in Northamptonshire, broken down by(a) school year group, (b) borough or district area and (c) individual establishment, at the start of the spring term of the school year 2003–04. [169941]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of surplus secondary school places in Northamptonshire broken down by individual establishment. The figures state the position at the beginning of the calendar year beginning 2003 rather than the school year.

  We do not collect surplus place data by school year group, or borough or district area.

  Number of surplus places in secondary schools in Northamptonshire at January 2003

  Secondary school name

  Surplus places

  Sponne School

  0

  Montsaye Community College

  1

  Huxlow School

  86

  Ise Community College

  92

  Moulton School

  0

  Roade School Sports College

  0

  Daventry William Parker School

  18

  Wollaston School

  0

  Kingsbrook School

  0

  Guilsborough School

  0

  Campion School

  0

  Prince William School

  108

  Danetre School

  148

  Latimer Community Arts College

  35

  Trinity School

  313

  Delapre Middle School

  143

  Cherry Orchard Middle School

  10

  Kingsthorpe Middle Community School

  0

  Cliftonville Middle School

  212

  Duston Upper School

  117

  Weston Favell Upper School

  41

  Abington Vale Middle School

  3

  Mereway Upper School

  257

  Lings Upper School

  302

  Kingsthorpe Community College

  153

  Goldings Middle School

  118

  Ryelands Middle School

  11

  Parklands Middle School

  1

  The Northampton School for Girls

  0

  Boothville Middle School

  4

  Blackthorn Middle School

  194

  Millway Middle School

  0

  Chenderit School

  0

  Spencer Middle School

  142

  Oundle and King's Cliffe Middle School

  107

  The Ferrers School

  13

  Ecton Brook Middle School

  0

  The Rushden School

  288

  Mereway Middle School

  0

  Corby Community College

  240

  Magdalen College School

  92

  Bishop Stopford School

  0

  All Saints Church of England Middle School

  0

  St. David's Catholic Middle School

  14

  Our Lady and Pope John Catholic Secondary School

  177

  St. Mary's Catholic Middle School; Northampton

  87

  Thomas Becket Catholic Upper School

  91

  Emmanuel CofE Voluntary Aided Middle School

  131

  Southfield School for Girls

  29

  1432W

  Number of surplus places in secondary schools in Northamptonshire at January 2003

  Secondary school name

  Surplus places

  Kingsley Park Middle school

  83

  The Kingswood School

  0

  The King John School

  112

  Northampton School for Boys

  175

  Lodge Park Technology College

  29

  Manor School

  0

  Montagu School

  0

  Weavers School

  230

  Sir Christopher Hatton School

  74

  Wrenn School

  117

  Total

  4,598

  Student Statistics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the staying-on rate at 16 years is for(a) Canvey Island, (b) Castle Point, (c) Essex and (d) England. [169796]

  Mr. Miliband
  Data on the percentage of students staying on in full-time education and education and training is not calculated for areas smaller than local education authorities (LEAs) as reliable estimates cannot be made.

  Canvey Island and Castle Point are part of Essex LEA. The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education. and in education and training in Essex LEA and in England for the latest academic year, as at end 2001, are shown in the table.

  Participation in education and training by 16-year-olds in Essex LEA and in England for end 2001

  Essex LEA

  England

  Full-time education

  70

  71

  Education and training1

  79

  82

  1 Includes participation in full-time education, part-time education and government supported training.

  Source:

  DfES Statistical Bulletin 01/2004, published 26 February 2004.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, 'Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17-year-olds in Each Local Area in England'.

  Teachers' Visas
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether at any future Ofsted inspection of schools account will be taken of the consequences of the moratorium on issuing visas to teachers appointed to meet the teaching skills and recruitment shortage in schools in Essex and Thurrock, pending the result of the inquiry and visits to Sofia of Mr. Ken Sutton; and if he will make a statement. [170029]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Leaseholders (Buildings Insurance)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will implement the parts of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that will allow leaseholders to choose their own buildings insurance; and if he will make a statement. [169923]

  Keith Hill
  Our original intention was to make an Order by May 2004 bringing into force the remaining provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. These provisions include those relating to property insurance for leasehold houses, accounting and forfeiture. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to consult on the accounting provisions that form part of this Order, allowing a three-month consultation period. We now anticipate the Order being made in November 2004.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of stall employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166387]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data on staffing levels in the civil service is collected by the Cabinet Office and published in Civil Service Statistics. A copy of Civil Service Statistics, 2002 is available in the Library of the House, and at; www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  In addition, our Departmental Annual Report also contains staffing information. A copy of the 2004 report is available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) renovation and (b) maintenance projects on buildings (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department were undertaken in each of the last five years; and what the associated costs were of each. [163957]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established in May 2002. Since that date the following renovation and maintenance projects have been undertaken at the properties (i) owned and (ii) rented by the office. All figures are exclusive of VAT.

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Renovation

  Maintenance

  Renovation

  Maintenance

  (i)Owned Burlington House

  0

  98,000

  25,000

  55,000

  QEII Conference Centre

  0

  139,418

  400,000

  3,127,511

  Fire Service College

  230,257

  108,097

  956,008

  182,151

  Government Office Network

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1434W

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Renovation

  Maintenance

  Renovation

  Maintenance

  (ii) Rented ODPM—HQ buildings

  2,088,941

  0

  298,263

  649,394

  PINS—Temple Quay Bristol

  0

  0

  0

  109,316

  Fire Service Improvement—Marchington

  0

  42,416

  0

  52,766

  Valuation Tribunal Office Network

  42,822

  255,204

  115,166

  193,059

  Government Office Network

  102,351

  143,000

  608,989

  191,740

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister records an item of work as a project if it exceeds £15,000. Work of lower value is funded from bulk maintenance. The number of projects has prevented detailing each, as this could have been provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures provided are gross expenditure and do not reflect receipts from other building occupants. Although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the buildings occupied by Government offices, they carry out functions on behalf of 10 Departments.

  Housing Developments (Milton Keynes/South Midlands)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the submissions made by the Government Office for the South East to the Examination in Public of plans for housing developments in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands area to 2031. [170356]

  Keith Hill
  The submission of GOSE to the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub regional strategy public examination is contained in the joint submission by GOEE, GOEM and GOSE.

  Copies of the joint submission have been made available in the Library of the House.

  Hunting (Tied Properties)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to protect the tenancy rights of those employed by a hunt living in a tied property in the event of a ban on hunting being introduced. [170133]

  Keith Hill
  The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, which provides housing security for qualifying agricultural workers living in tied accommodation, takes its definition of agriculture from the Agriculture Wages Act 1948. The definition does not extend to workers employed solely in activities not related to agriculture such as gamekeeping and hunting. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to extend the definition to cover such activities.

  Retained Distribution Centre
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the publications and other products distributed from his retained distribution centre. [169367]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's publications distribution centre holds over 1,300 items for distribution. A list of publications and other products has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Roadside Advertising
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice his Department offers local authorities regarding positioning of roadside and roundabout advertising. [170451]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 30 April 2004,Official Report, column 1332W.

  Town Centres
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he intends to publish the final version of PPS6; [169866]

  (2) how many responses have been received to the consultation paper Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6: Planning for Town Centres; and if he will list them; [169867]

  (3) how many organisations and individuals were invited to respond to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6: Planning for Town Centres; and if he will list them. [169868]

  Keith Hill
  Draft PPS6: Planning for Town Centres was published on 15 December 2003, was launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, was widely publicised, put on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website and some 500 copies were sent to a standard list of consultees, including all local authorities, relevant professional and trade bodies, plus investors, developers, retailers, leisure operators and environmental groups—in line with the guidelines on consultation at that time. The consultation closed on 15 March 2004.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received 384 responses to date, which officials are currently analysing. All responses, except those where the respondent did not agree to their response being made public, will be made available in the library of the House, consistent with normal practice, when the final version of PPS6 is published in the autumn.

  Traffic and Community Wardens
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the responsibilities of(a) traffic wardens and (b) community wardens are. [168255]

  Yvette Cooper
  Traffic wardens are civilian employees of police authorities, but act under the direction of chief officers of police. Section 95 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 makes provision for them to discharge duties, including law enforcement, normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of traffic and stationary vehicles. These 1436W
  functions relate to the control and regulation of, and enforcement of the law relating to, traffic, including pedestrians and stationery vehicles. Traffic wardens can also require vehicles to stop for specific purposes. The powers conferred on traffic wardens and the duties they may undertake are prescribed very precisely by the Home Secretary in the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, as amended.

  Part 1 of the Traffic Management Bill empowers the Secretary of State for Transport as the traffic authority for trunk roads in England, and the National Assembly for Wales as the traffic authority for trunk roads in Wales, to establish a uniformed on-road traffic officer service to manage the traffic consequences of random incidents such as breakdowns, obstructions, debris and accidents.

  The Bill enables traffic officers to carry out certain traffic management functions currently carried out on trunk roads by the police in order to deal with incidents and keep traffic moving. Specifically the Bill would provide traffic officers with powers to stop and direct traffic and to place and operate traffic signs. These powers are similar to those of the police and may only be exercised in order to:
  assist the movement of traffic;
  prevent or reduce congestion;
  avoid danger to persons or traffic; or
  prevent damage to anything on or near the road.

  The traffic officer service will comprise uniformed officials patrolling motorways and trunk roads in England around the clock. They will be appointed by the Highways Agency directly, although the Bill allows flexibility for the service to be contracted out should it ever be decided that this is in the public interest.

  Responsibilities for community wardens vary according to local priorities. Wardens and warden schemes do however need to fulfil the four broad categories of environmental improvements, community safety and crime prevention, community development and housing regeneration. They provide a link between local residents and key agencies such as local authorities and the police. And they encourage neighbourhoods to develop innovative ways to tackle their environmental problems and the behaviours that create an atmosphere of neglect and encourage crime.

  Unoccupied Property
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many unoccupied non-domestic properties paid empty property business rates in England in each year since 1997; [169485]

  (2) how many unoccupied industrial properties were exempt from property business rates in England in each year since 1997. [169492]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities have reported that 240,830 non-domestic properties in England received empty premises relief in 2002–03. The latest available figure for 2003–04 is 237,035, as estimated by local authorities in early 2003. Figures were not collected centrally for earlier years, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1437W
  Information on the number of unoccupied industrial properties in England that are r of required to pay business rates is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty residential dwellings there were in England in each year since 1997. [169486]

  Keith Hill
  The available information on empty residential dwellings in England is tabled as follows. This data has been provided from combination of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Housing Investment Programme return and Housing Corporation's Regulatory Statistical Return.

  Vacant dwelling stock, England 1997–2003

  HIP and RSR2

  1997

  767,000

  1998

  753,000

  1999

  767,000

  2000

  761,000

  2001

  751,000

  2002

  732,000

  2003

  720,000

  Note:

  Figures presented to the nearest thousam.

  Sources:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme return and Housing Corporation's Regulatory Statistical Return.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent violence in Aceh. [169154]

  Mr. Straw
  The British Government regularly raise their concerns about the situation in Aceh with the Indonesian Government, most recently on 20 April 2004 when the British ambassador to Jakarta called on the Indonesian Head of the armed forces, General Sutarto. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) also raised Aceh with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr. Wirayuda, when he met him at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Kildare on 18 April.

  There continue to be reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Free Aceh Movement (the GAM) and the Indonesian armed forces. We are monitoring the situation closely. The Indonesian military has said that it will continue to court-martial soldiers arrested on suspicion of human rights abuses.

  We, with our EU partners, continue to urge the Indonesian Government to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, as only negotiation will offer a long-term solution to this ongoing conflict.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on end use monitoring of UK arms exports used in Aceh by Indonesian forces. [169155]
  1438W
  Mr. Straw
  Our embassy in Jakarta receives information from a wide a range of sources including international agencies, NGOs, other observers, the media and the Indonesian Government as part of their efforts to monitor the use of British-built military equipment. We have had no confirmed reports that British-built military equipment has been used other than for protection and evacuation purposes. We will follow up all credible allegations on the misuse of British-military equipment.

  On 18 April 2004 at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Kildare, my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) raised with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Wirayuda, the use of British-built military equipment in Aceh.

  On 20 April 2004 the British ambassador to Jakarta met the Indonesian Head of the armed forces, General Sutarto. General Sutarto told our ambassador that he had ordered the withdrawal of all remaining British equipment from Aceh. The only British-built equipment in Aceh are armoured vehicles and they have only been used for supply convoy protection and casualty evacuation.

  Conflict Prevention Pool
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the independent evaluations of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and the African Conflict Prevention Pool. [170087]

  Mr. Rammell
  The joint external evaluation of the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool and the Global Conflict Prevention Pool began in June 2003. The fact-finding phase was completed in December 2003 and a final draft report including a synthesis of the main findings and recommendations has now been produced.

  The evaluators concluded that the Conflict Prevention Pools are funding worthwhile activities, which make positive contributions to effective conflict prevention, and that the progress achieved through the Pools mechanisms is significant enough to justify their continuation. They also considered that the Pools were demonstrating increasingly good joined-up working between the three Departments.

  The interim conclusions of the evaluation helped inform recent work on the Spending Review 2004 process.

  Final editing of the Evaluation report is now being done. In summer 2004, the Evaluation, and the Government's response to it, will be published and made available to the House.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the joint steering team responsible for the Global Conflict Prevention Pool has met in each year since 2001–02. [170088]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Steering Team of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) comprises officials from FCO, MOD and DfID as well as representatives of HM Treasury and Cabinet Office.
  1439W
  They have met, usually fortnightly, throughout each year since the GCPP's inception in April 2001, although at busier times they meet every week.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds were allocated to the(a) Global Conflict Prevention Pool and (b) African Conflict Prevention Pool in each year since 2001–02; and how much was spent in each year. [170090]

  Mr. Rammell
  The budget and spend information requested for(a) The Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) is as follows:

  To nearest £ million

  Financial year

  Funds allocated

  Spend

  2001–02

  60

  50

  2002–03

  68

  66

  2003–04

  74

  186

  1 Current forecast—departmental accounts to be finalized in summer 2004

  Note:

  Does not include Peacekeeping figures.

  The budget and spend information requested for (b) The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool (ACPP) is as follows:

  To nearest £ million

  Financial year

  Funds allocated

  Spend

  2001–02

  50

  43

  2002–03

  50

  45

  2003–04

  50

  140+

  1 Current forecast—departmental accounts to be finalized in summer 2004

  Note:

  Does not include Peacekeeping figures.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on 26 April to refuse to introduce universal suffrage for the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive in 2007. [169852]

  Mr. Rammell
  On 26 April, I issued a press release about the Chinese National People's Congress decision on constitutional development in Hong Kong.

  The record of the statement can be found on the British Consulate General in Hong Kong's website at www.britishconsulate.org.hk/english/press/pr040426.htm.

  Iraq
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had on how the UN Oil For Food programme in Iraq was audited. [169700]

  Mr. Rammell
  The management and administration of the Oil For Food (OFF) programme was carried out by the UN's Office of the Iraq Programme under a mandate from UN Security Council resolutions. Regular reports were made to and discussed by the UN 1440W
  Security Council. In light of on-going allegations of corruption during the lifetime of the OFF programme, the UK fully supports the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1538 (21 April 2004) endorsing a high-level independent inquiry into the management and administration of the programme, and will cooperate fully with that inquiry.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other UN Security Council members on the fee levied by the UN for operating the Oil For Food programme in Iraq. [169701]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government had regular discussions with the UK's Security Council partners on all aspects of the operation of the Oil For Food (OFF) programme until it ended on 21 November 2003. In light of ongoing allegations of corruption during the lifetime of the OFF programme, the UK fully supports the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1538 (21 April 2004) endorsing a high-level independent inquiry into the management and administration of the programme, and will co-operate fully with that inquiry.

  Ministerial Visits
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the overseas visits made by each Minister in his Department in financial year 2003–04. [169754]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The details for the financial year 2003–04 will be published as soon as possible. During the financial year 2003–04 other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers made the following overseas visits:

  Dr. Denis MacShane MP, Minister of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  3 April 2003

  Riga

  Joint bilateral visit to Latvia with French Europe Minister

  6–8 April 2003

  Belgrade. Pristina. Skopje

  Bilateral visits to the Balkans

  14 April 2003

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  16–17 April 2003

  Athens

  Informal European Council, Signature of the Accession Treaty and European Conference

  29 April 2003

  The Hague

  Attend Conference on Chemical Weapons Convention

  5 May 2003

  Brussels

  Bilateral

  10–12 May 2003

  valletta

  Bilateral

  15–16 May 2003

  Berlin

  Konigswinter Conference

  19 May 2003

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  29–31 May 2003

  Warsaw

  Bilateral

  6 June 2003

  Madrid

  Bilateral

  19–21 June 2003

  Porto Caras

  European Council and EU/Western Balkans Summit

  26 June 2003

  Rome

  Bilateral

  30 June 2003

  Amsterdam

  Apeldoorn Conference

  3–4 July 2003

  Gibraltar

  Bilateral

  3–5 September 2003

  Oslo and Helsinki

  Bilaterals

  14–15 September 2003

  Kiev

  Bilateral

  1441W

  Dr. Denis MacShane MP, Minister of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  19–21 September 2003

  Pontignano

  Pontignano Conference

  21–22 September 2003

  Paris and Strasbourg

  Bilaterals

  29 September 2003

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  7–11 October 2003

  Bucharest. Sofia and Hydra

  Bucharest and Sofia: Bilaterals Hydra: Hydra Conference

  16–17 October 2003

  Brussels

  European Council

  13–15 November 2003

  Madrid and Berlin

  Madrid: Bilateral Berlin: BMW European Forum

  17–18 November 2003

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  1–4 December 2003

  Maastricht and Naples

  OSCE Ministerial Council in The Netherlands and Euromed Conference in Italy

  8 December 2003

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  11–13 December 2003

  Brussels

  European Council

  12–14 January 2004

  Ankara. Istanbul and Izmir

  Bilateral

  20 January 2004

  Paris

  Bilateral

  26 January 2004

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council

  30 January 2004

  Berlin

  Bilateral

  6–8 February 2004

  Madrid

  Bilateral

  10 February 2004

  Vienna

  Bilateral

  17–19 February 2004

  Amsterdam

  Bilateral

  23–24 February 2004

  Berne

  Bilateral

  27–28 February 2004

  Venice

  Aspen European Dialogue Conference

  3–4 March 2004

  Stockholm

  Bilateral

  5 March 2004

  Skopje

  Funeral of Macedonian President

  25–26 March 2004

  Brussels

  Bilateral visit and to attend the European Council

  Mike O'Brien MP, Minister of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  1 April 2003

  NATO SHAPE, Belgium

  Meetings with UK Military Representation and SACEUR

  12–14 April 2003

  Tehran, Damascus

  Bilaterals

  26–29 April 2003

  Baghdad

  Central Iraq Conference

  19–21 May 2003

  Algiers

  Bilateral

  22 May 2003

  Paris

  Conference on Drug Routes

  2–5 June 2003

  Jakarta

  Bilateral

  6 July 2003

  Palermo

  Informal EU Trade Ministers Conference

  19–21 July 2003

  Beijing

  Accompanying the Prime Minister and Trade Delegation on bilateral visit to China

  22–25 July 2003

  Bali

  ASEM Foreign Ministers' Meeting

  8–16 September 2003

  Cancun

  WTO Ministerial Conference

  16 October 2003

  Berlin

  Bilateral

  21–24 October 2003

  Kabul

  Bilateral

  2–4 November 2003

  Washington

  Bilateral

  8–12 December 2003

  Islamabad and Karachi

  Bilaterals

  4–8 January 2004

  New Delhi and Hyderabad

  Bilaterals

  26 January 2004

  Cannes

  Attend MIDEM (Music Industry event)

  10–12 February 2004

  Casablanca and Rabat

  Bilaterals

  15–18 March 2004

  Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi

  Bilaterals

  22–23 March 2004

  Warsaw

  Bilateral

  1442W

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, Minister of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  30 April 2003

  Paris

  OECD Trade Ministerial

  16 May 03

  Washington

  Bilateral

  15–15 July 2003

  Jordan

  Bilateral

  3 September 2003

  Vienna

  Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Conference

  15–18 September 2003

  Morocco and Tunisia

  Bilateral

  23–25 September 2003

  New York

  United Nations General Assembly

  29 September to 1 October 2003

  Israel

  Bilateral

  8–9 October 2003

  Iraq

  Bilateral

  22–24 October 2003

  Madrid

  Iraq Donors' Conference

  18–20 November 2003

  Lebanon

  Bilateral

  1–2 December 2003

  Istanbul

  Response to the terrorist attacks against the British Consulate General and HSBC Bank

  4 December 2003

  Brussels

  NATO Foreign Ministerial

  8–9 December 2003

  Syria

  Bilateral

  21–23 January 2004

  Occupied Territories

  Bilateral

  23–26 February 2004

  Bahrain and Qatar

  Bilateral

  9–11 March 2004

  Jordan

  Bilateral

  19–19 March 2004

  Iraq

  Bilateral

  Baroness Amos of Asthal, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  1–6 April 2003

  Botswana and South Africa

  Bilaterals

  14–17 April 2003

  Mali

  G8 Meeting

  5–8 May 2003

  Dominican Republic

  Bilateral

  Chris Mullin MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  21–25 July 2003

  Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone

  Bilaterals

  28 October to

  Kenya and South

  Bilaterals

  5 November 2003

  Africa

  2–8 December 03

  Abuja

  Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting

  12–20 January 2004

  Ethiopia. Djibouti and Eritrea

  Bilaterals

  3–6 February 2004

  Washington and New York

  Liberia Donors' Conference

  23–24 February 2004

  Paris

  Bilateral to discuss Africa

  Bill Rammell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  31 March to 1 April 2003

  Washington

  Bilateral

  11–15 May 2003

  Brazil and Colombia

  Fundacion Euroamerica Conference

  21 May 2003

  Stockholm

  G8 Global Partnership on WMD—Signing MNEPR Treaty

  26–27 May 2003

  Crete

  Euromed Conference

  12–13 June 2003

  New York

  Conflict Prevention Conference, International Peace Academy

  18 June 2003

  Madrid

  Bilateral

  22–27 July 2003

  Kabul

  Bilateral

  6–21 August 2003

  Papua New Guinea, Australia. New Zealand and Solomon Islands

  Bilateral and attendance at the Pacific Islands Forum (New Zealand)

  1443W

  Bill Rammell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  20–24 September 2003

  New York

  United Nations General Assembly bilateral meetings

  9–10 October 2003

  Dublin

  Address to Trinity College

  16 October 2003

  Rome

  EU Ministerial meeting

  26–31 October 2003

  Mexico and Majorca

  Mexico: Bilaterals Majorca: Launch of the Travel Foundation for Sustainable Tourism

  14 November 2003

  Washington

  Bilaterals on Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Counter-Narcotics and UN Reform

  29 November to

  Falkland Islands

  Falkland Islands: meetings

  3 December 2003

  and Chile

  Chile: Bilateral

  16–19 December 2003

  Beijing and Hong Kong

  Beijing: Bilaterals and a speech at the Central Party School Hong Kong: Bilaterals

  13–18 January 2004

  Guatemala and Belize

  Joint trip with Spanish Minister Cortes to Guatemala to attend the swearing-in ceremony of President Berger. Bilaterals in Guatemala and Belize.

  25–26 January 2004

  Stockholm

  Stockholm International Forum preventing Genocide: Threats and Responsibilities

  1–3 February 2004

  Washington and New York

  Washington: Bilaterals New York: Bilaterals and a speech on the UN

  15–20 February 2004

  Argentina and Uruguay

  Bilaterals

  2–5 March 2004

  Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad

  Jamaica: Round table with CARICOM and Bilaterals Barbados and Trinidad: Bilaterals

  18 March 2004

  Geneva

  UNCHR

  President of Poland (Official Visit)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many hon. Members other than Privy Councillors have been sent invitations to banquets, receptions and other official events organised or hosted by the(a) Royal Family and (b) Government for the forthcoming visit of the President of Poland; and if he will make a statement. [170355]

  Mr. MacShane
  President Kwasniewski of Poland's State Visit will take place from 5 to 7 May. 106 Members of Parliament have been invited to hear President Kwasniewski's keynote speech at University College London on 5 May, 72 of whom are not Privy Councillors. 10 MPs have been invited to the State Banquet at Buckingham Palace, four of whom are not Privy Councillors and one MP who is not a Privy Councillor, has been invited to a reception for the Polish community at St. James's Palace the same night.

  Four MPs have been invited to a seminar on economic reform to be held at Lancaster House on 6 May, two of whom are not Privy Councillors. 10 MPs have received invitations to the dinner given by President Kwasniewski at the Dorchester Hotel that night, of whom three are not Privy Councillors. 48 MPs have received invitations to a lunch at the Guildhall in honour of President Kwasniewski on 7 May, 35 of whom are not Privy Councillors.
  1444W

CABINET OFFICE

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office under what criteria a draft regulation will be referred to the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. [167508]

  Mr. Alexander
  As set out in the Budget documentation, any regulatory proposal likely to impose a major now burden on business will require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, based on a thorough impact assessment of the proposal agreed by the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit.

  The criteria for defining major proposals will be based on that set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment guidance available at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation and copies are available in the Library.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the(a) role, (b) function and (c) membership of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. [167509]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will set out the reformed functions of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. [169017]

  Mr. Alexander
  The role of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability is to clear any regulatory proposal likely to impose a major new burden on business. The panel will consider all such proposals in the context of Departments' previous regulatory performance and the overall burden of regulation across key business sectors.

  Apart from chairmanship by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the membership of the panel remains unchanged, and information on the existing Panel can be found on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk and in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he expects the next version of Public Bodies to be published. [169115]

  Mr. Alexander
  For 2004, the Cabinet Office are replacing the existing publication with a searchable database, accessible via the internet. Development and testing are continuing, but it is hoped the results will be available before the end of 2004.

  Emergency Planning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the civil contingencies grant for emergency planning to(a) North Yorkshire, (b) the City of York, (c) Hambleton district council and (d)Harrogate borough council was in each year since 2000. [165088]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Civil Defence Grant is paid as a contribution to the cost of civil protection at the local level. The level of funding available for counter terrorism and civil protection has substantially increased in recent years, including £330 million for counter terrorism work in the 2003 Budget.
  1445W
  179 local authorities are eligible for the Civil Defence Grant. These are the authorities with a statutory duty for civil defence, namely county councils, metropolitan districts and London boroughs, unitary authorities, and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities Shire districts, such as Hambleton and Harrogate, have no statutory duty for civil defence and therefore receive no direct funding from central Government. Shire counties carry out emergency planning on behalf of their districts and for this work they receive an additional amount included in their grant allocation, currently set at £12,000 per district.

  The allocations of Civil Defence Grant to the authorities of North Yorkshire county council and the City of York council since the financial year 2000–01 are set out in the table. The increase in 2001–02 was due to the suspension of the process of allocating funding by use of a formula. Following negotiations with the local Government Association, the Civil Defence (Grant) Act 2002 re-established a formula, which led to the stabilisation of grant levels in 2002–03.

  £

  Financial year

  North Yorkshire Civil Defence Grant

  City of York Civil Defence Grant

  2000–01

  161,369

  50,525

  2001–02

  268,150

  79,815

  2002–03

  244,137

  71,834

  2003–04

  244,523

  72,220

  2004–05

  244,523

  72,220

  Mr. Howell James
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will make a statement on the process which led to the appointment of Mr. Howell James as Permanent Secretary in charge of Government Communications, with particular reference to political involvement; [167779]

  (2) by what means the post of Permanent Secretary, Government Communications, was advertised to (a) Civil Service candidates and (b) the general public; [167780]

  Percentage

  Supplier

  Name of paper used

  Recycled content

  Post consumer recycled content

  Copier paper

  Banner

  A4 Copier

  100

  100

  A4 Sterling

  No, but ECF wood free pulp1

  A4 Office

  No, but ECF wood free pulp1

  A4 Value

  No, but ECF wood free pulp1

  Various

  No

  No

  Evolve

  A4 Office

  100

  100

  A3 Office

  100

  100

  Xerox

  Premier

  No

  No

  Business

  No

  No

  Alpha

  A4 Copier

  No

  No

  Southern Paper

  Duo Office/Duo Copy

  No

  No

  Stationery

  Redlin Print

  100 gm bond

  100

  60–100

  Evolve

  100 gsm

  100

  100

  Finesse

  Conquera White Wove

  No

  No

  1446W
  (3) how many persons applied for the post of Permanent Secretary, Government Communications; how many were shortlisted; and how many were interviewed; [167781]

  (4) if he will list the members of the panel who selected the Permanent Secretary, Government Communications. [167782]

  Mr. Alexander
  This post was openly advertised in early December, and the usual selection process for appointing Permanent Secretaries was followed and overseen by the First Civil Service Commissioner, Baroness Usha Prashar. The decision to advertise was taken with my agreement.

  The post was advertised on the Civil Service Recruitment Gateway website and circulated to members of the Senior Civil Service. An advertisement also appeared in the national press in December. Headhunters were also engaged to complement this process.

  Of the 86 people who applied, five were interviewed by the Panel.

  The Panel to select the Permanent Secretary, Government Communications was chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner, Baroness Usha Prashar. Also on the panel were Sir Andrew Turnbull, Head of the Home Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Richard Mottram, Permanent Secretary of DWP, Bob Phillis, CE Guardian Media Group, and Sally Davis BT Global Products.

  As is normal practice, the appointment of Mr. Howell James was approved by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Head of the Home Civil Service.

  Recycled Paper
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports, in each case stating (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the (A) recycled and (B) post-consumer recycled content of each paper. [167737]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the Cabinet Office's main suppliers of copier paper, envelopes, stationery and paper for reports are shown in the table.
  1447W

  Percentage

  Supplier

  Name of paper used

  Recycled content

  Post consumer recycled content

  Envelopes

  Banner

  Cartridge White

  No

  No

  OHMS 381x254

  80–100

  60–85

  OHMS 324x229

  80–100

  60–85

  OHMS 229x162

  80–100

  60–85

  OHMS 406x305

  80–100

  60–85

  OHMS 110x220

  80–100

  60–85

  Plain 324x229

  80–100

  60–85

  Plain 330x279

  80–100

  60–85

  Plain 110x220

  80–100

  60–85

  Plain 324x229

  60

  40

  Other various

  80–100

  60–85

  Keepsafe

  280x385

  No

  No

  330x462

  No

  No

  460x377

  No

  No

  Survivor

  Peel/Seal 324x229x3

  No

  No

  Peal/Seal 394x305

  No

  No

  Banner

  White Wove

  100

  80

  Jiffy Padded Bags

  No

  No

  Finesse

  Conquera White Wove

  No

  No

  Reports

  Howard Smith

  Various

  100

  75

  Premier

  Various

  100

  75

  Robert Home

  Various

  100

  75

  Macnaughtons

  Various

  100

  75

  Banner

  Evolve 80gsm

  100

  80

  Revive Filk

  75

  40

  1 Elemental Chlorine Free pulp (ECF) is the process of bleaching the pulp without using harmful chlorine compounds.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government. [167741]

  Mr. Alexander
  Promoting the delivery of sustainable development within Government is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), but one for which all Departments have a role to play.

  The Cabinet Office is working closely with DEFRA to ensure that sustainable development is embedded into all of the Departments operations. For example, the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) template has recently been amended to incorporate DEFRA's Integrated Policy Assessment (IPA) tool. Departments must now identify not only economic costs and benefits but also any social and environmental costs and benefits for all major proposals.

DEFENCE

  Cluster Bombs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster bombs are stockpiled by the Ministry of Defence, broken down by type. [169956]

  Mr. Ingram
  Stockholdings of cluster bombs are held at an authorised War Reserve stock figure. Details of the precise numbers of weapons could provide a potential adversary with information that could undermine our defence capabilities. This information is therefore withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  1448W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when current stockpiles of(a) BL-755 cluster bombs and (b) RBL-755 cluster bombs will become obsolete; what plans his Department has (i) to replace them and (ii) to destroy them; and if he will make a statement. [169957]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans all stockpiles of the BL755 and the RBL755 cluster bomb will be withdrawn from RAF service before the end of the decade. The IBL755 will be withdrawn from service by the end of this year. Existing stocks of all three variants will be disposed of through recognised de-militarisation procedures.

  Based on current predictions these weapons will not be replaced. However, it is intended that the Brimstone advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon will replace the capability of tho RBL755 in the anti-armour role.

  Defence Personnel (Vale of York)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) role and (b) specialisation is of the Royal Naval personnel serving in the Vale of York. [170003]

  Mr. Caplin
  Royal Naval Personnel are employed at the Defence High Frequency Communications Service facility at Forest Moor. Their role is to provide specialist military oversight and guidance to the contractor who operates the site. Personnel are drawn from the Weapons Engineering and Operator Mechanic (Communications) specialisations.

  The RN also has a small number of personnel based at Linton-on -Ouse who are Qualified Flying Instructors, and a number of RN student pilots undertake training here on an annual basis.

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory's revenue has been derived from QinetiQ; and what proportion of its outgoings have been paid to QinetiQ since the creation of QinetiQ. [169388]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2001, the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency was split to form the PPP QinetiQ, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

  Since vesting the income derived by Dstl from QinetiQ by financial year is as follows:

  Financial year

  Income (£ million)

  2001–02

  17.75

  2002–03

  18.50

  2003–04

  12.55

  Total

  48.80

  Dstl expenditure with QinetiQ since vesting by financial year is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  2001–02

  53.57

  2002–03

  67.40

  2003–04

  57.74

  Total

  178.71

  Departmental IT Infrastructure
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the advantages and disadvantages of privatising IT infrastructure in his Department; [168386]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of privatisation of IT infrastructure in his Department on national security. [168385]

  Mr. Ingram
  These questions have been answered with respect to the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme. The Ministry of Defence is currently in negotiations with two potential commercial Delivery Partners (DP) for the provision of information systems services for Ministry of Defence.

  It should be noted that the DII programme is not a privatisation of IT infrastructure. Under the terms of the Public-Private Partnership arrangement, the MOD will continue to own the infrastructure but the delivery of the service will be the responsibility of the commercial Delivery Partner.

  The DII programme is crucial to the delivery of the Defence Change Programme and has the potential to support delivery of significant benefits across Defence. The DII programme will enable Defence to realise a greatly increased capability at reduced cost. The three main benefits of DII are:
  the reduced cost of providing computing facilities due to the economy of scale;
  1450W
  the ability to put in place pan defence corporate processes that improve the way Defence conducts its business on a day-to-day basis; and
  the ability to integrate more closely our battlefield systems with our support systems, leading to improved decision making and intelligence collection and analysis.

  No disadvantages to the implementation of the DII programme have been identified.

  The DII programme will not increase threats to national security. Deployed operations will continue to be supported by Service personnel. Increment One of the programme currently consists of 72,000 workstations. Only 10,000 of these are currently supported by in-house staff. The remainder are already supported by commercial service providers.

  As a key part of providing a Network Enabled Capability, DII will improve national security both on deployed operations and in the United Kingdom. As a pan-defence service, it will greatly improve the ability to exchange operational information within the MOD, between the three Services, and between fixed locations and deployed elements of the Services.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the investment appraisal of the proposed move of most of the activities of RAF Boulmer to RAF Scampton. [169163]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]A list of the principal options considered during the study into the future basing of the RAF's Air Combat Service Support Units and other minor units, including RAF Boulmer, has been made widely available during the course of the study. Defence officials have also given the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members a personal briefing. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have written to the right hon. Gentleman with information on the relative costs in investment appraisal terms, of maintaining Boulmer as now and moving units to RAF Scampton. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In my written ministerial statement of 23 April 2004, Official Report, column 3OWS, I indicated the option I am inclined to accept. I will not make a decision on the outcome of the study until formal consultation with the Ministry of Defence Trade Unions is complete. While this process is continuing, I am withholding details of the Investment Appraisal in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to internal discussion and advice. In the meantime, I am placing a list of the principal options considered in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to write to the hon. Member for North Down with the information requested in her question ref.151328. [170094]

  Mr. Ingram
  Further to my answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 746W, the information requested is still not available due to serious computer failure. As it is proving impossible to retrieve

  1451W
  information by this means within a reasonable timeframe, we are looking at other ways of providing the information requested. I would hope to be in a position to write to the hon. Member in the next few weeks.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which procurement decisions in each of the last five years have not been made solely on the basis of best value for money. [169703]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I said in my reply of 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 427W, value for money is a fundamental factor in all our procurement decisions. In assessing value for money we take account of the long-term implications of decisions, including their industrial and wider economic impact. As set out in the Government's Defence Industrial Policy, we seek to maximise the economic benefit to the United Kingdom from our defence expenditure, a healthy and globally competitive defence industry and the development of a high value technologically-skilled industrial base, consistent with the Government's wider manufacturing strategy.

  Information on all procurement decisions taken throughout the Department is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Quick Reaction Alert Aircraft
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role of Quick Reaction Alert aircraft is. [169991]

  Mr. Ingram
  Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) comprises armed Tornado F3 aircraft held at ground readiness for immediate take-off, the Air Surveillance and Control System to provide warning and command and control of the fighter aircraft, and tanker aircraft also held at high ground readiness. QRA fulfils two concurrent functions. Firstly, it meets the United Kingdom's responsibility within NATO to provide air policing of agreed member airspace. Secondly, under UK national control, QRA provides an airborne contribution to countering threats against the UK by terrorist organisations or individuals.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft are on Quick Reaction Alert status at(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Leuchars and (c) RAF Coningsby. [169992]

  Mr. Ingram
  To provide geographic coverage, there are two aircraft continuously on Quick Reaction Alert at RAF Leuchars and a further two at RAF Coningsby. Aircraft and personnel for the latter are provided from Tornado F3 squadrons deployed from RAF Leeming.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Court Closures (Luton)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on delays to court hearings of the current closure of courts in Luton. [169405]
  1452W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs has allocated £1.85 million of capital funding in order to carry out essential building maintenance and improvement work at Luton magistrates court. While work is being carried out to this courthouse it will be closed for six months starting from July 2004. No other courts will close. Neighbouring court accommodation will be used during this period at Luton Crown and county courts and Bedford county and magistrates court. Additionally temporary accommodation is being provided at Dunstable courthouse.

  My Department's officials have worked with the Justice Chief Executive for Bedfordshire Magistrates' Courts Committee and no delays to court hearings are expected.

  Emergency Protection Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Depart merit for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report, columns 852–53W, on emergency protection orders, how many applications were heard for emergency protection orders in each county in England in each year from 1997 to 2001, and what proportion was granted. [170973]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures showing the number of applications for an emergency protection order and the number of orders made, by each county in England for the years 1997 to 2001, are provided in a table, which has been placed in the Library.

  Operation Payback
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what initial assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Operation Payback on the Wirral. [167965]

  Mr. Leslie
  Operation Payback was conducted in the Wirral on 23 March and was considered a success. Enforcement Officers, working closely with the Police, executed 194 outstanding warrants and collected £13,600 during the day. In the Merseyside area as a whole approximately £36,000 was collected during the three days that the Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) ran the operation. The MCC also reported an increase in compliance in the payment of fines following the operation, although separate figures for cases directly involved in Operation Payback are not available.

  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will place in the Library the transcripts of the judgments of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in cases relating to(a) detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and (b) removal of nationality under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [167993]

  Mr. Lammy
  A copy of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission's open judgments in cases relating to detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 will be placed in the House of
  1453W
  Commons Library in the forthcoming weeks. The Commission have yet to hear a substantive Deprivation of Citizenship appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provisions.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the costs have been of(a) administration and (b) the salaries and expenses of members of the special Immigration Appeals Commission (i) to date and (ii) on average in relation to (A) appeals against removal of nationality and (B) consideration of cases of detainees under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [168225]

  Mr. Lammy
  As the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is administered jointly with other jurisdictions, separate records in respect of operational costs of its administration, and the salaries and expenses of its members, are not collated. To provide this information would incur-disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, columns 896–97W, on Special Immigration Appeals Commission Hearings, if he will place in the Library transcripts from open sessions of the Commission (a) with sensitive appellants' details excised and (b) in cases where the appellant has either identified himself or agreed to his identity being revealed; and if he will make a statement. [170169]

  Mr. Lammy
  The transcripts from the sessions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) are not divisible between the open and closed sessions and it would therefore be inappropriate to release them into the public domain due to the sensitivity of the material. The administrative processes of SIAC are reviewed on an ongoing basis and consideration is being given to the publication of material from the open sessions of SIAC.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against detention under anti-terrorism and removal of nationality legislation are outstanding; what dates have been set for each of those appeals; what the expected timetable is for each of those appeals(a) for open session hearings and (b) in total for each case; and if he will make a statement. [170170]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are currently four appeals outstanding before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC); three of the appeals are against certification pursuant to Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, with the remaining appeal brought against an order of the Secretary of the State for the Home Department pursuant to s40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. A provisional timetable for the 1454W
  serving of evidence by both parties in each of the outstanding appeals has been issued by SIAC. For the three appeals pursuant to Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 the provisional timetables are as follows:

  Timetable of Appeal for I, Issued 9 January 2004, Date for Submission
  Rule 38 hearing to commence
  12 April 2004
  Provisional substantive hearing date
  8 June 2004

  Timetable of Appeal for S, Issued 9 January 2004, Date for Submission
  Rule 38 hearing to commence
  21 June 2004
  Provisional substantive hearing date
  12 July 2004

  Timetable of Appeal for K, Issued 9 January 2004, Date for Submission
  Rule 38 hearing to commence
  2 June 204
  Provisional substantive hearing date
  22 June 2004

  The timetable for the outstanding appeal brought against an order of the Secretary of the State for the Home Department pursuant to s40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 is as follows:

  Timetable of Appeal for Mostafa Kamel Mostafa aka Abu Hamza, Issued 26 April 2004, Date for Submission
  Amendments to the Appellant's Grounds of Appeal, whether by addition or deletion, to be notified to the respondent and the Commission
  30 July 2004
  Provisional substantive hearing date
  10 January 2005

  Agreement as to the mixture of open and closed sessions of the appeals will be decided on the first day of each relevant substantive appeal.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appeals have been heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission; and for how many(a) days and (b) hours in total the Commission has sat in open session in relation to appeals against detention under anti-terrorism legislation and removal of nationality. [170171]

  Mr. Lammy
  To date there has been a combined total of fifteen substantive appeals heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). Of the 15 substantive appeals, two were brought before SIAC pursuant to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, with the remainder brought before SIAC pursuant to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Information relating to the amount of(a) days, and (b) hours SIAC has sat in open session is not available without incurring disproportionate costs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Climate Change
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of Sir David King's views on the need to tackle climate change in deciding what time to set aside for his speech at the launch of the Climate Group on 27 April. [169862]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir David King and I are in full agreement that climate change is one of the most serious environmental threats we face and that we need to address it now. I fully support the Climate Group's aim of promoting the acceleration of reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost to public funds was of the launch of the Climate Group on 27 April. [169896]

  The Prime Minister
  The Climate Group is not a Government-funded entity. Funding for the event is a matter for the Climate Group.

  Departmental Procurement (Sea Bass)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that sea bass served at functions at which he is the host is sourced from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167546]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Fisheries, (Mr. Bradshaw) gave to him on 30 April 2004,Official Report, column 1344W.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains the intention of the Government in the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference on the proposed EU constitution not to accept qualified majority voting on all matters of social security. [169765]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Unanimity for social security for migrant workers is a Government red line.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those policy areas where the Government have agreed that qualified majority voting should replace unanimity under the proposed EU Constitution. [169766]

  The Prime Minister
  The Constitutional Treaty has not been agreed, but our approach to the extension of QMV will, as always, be to agree where it is in Britain's interests, but not to do so in areas where our national interests dictate otherwise. We welcome the use of QMV as the general rule for legislative proposals.

  Those areas for which we will insist that unanimity remains are set out in the White Paper—The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 2003.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, consequent to his decision to hold a referendum on the proposed constitution of the European Union, he will publish a white paper in which in respect of each of the proposed articles he will state the part of any treaty 1456W
  already in force which contains the same or amended, content; and, for those articles which do not, if he will set out an explanation of the case for the new provisions and their likely effect on the United Kingdom and its judicial procedures. [169893]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will publish a range of material to accompany the Constitutional Treaty, including a laypersons' guide and a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the existing Treaties and the new Constitutional Treaty.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Statement on Europe, of 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 155-57, whether it is his policy to describe the draft Constitution for Europe as a tidying-up exercise. [170572]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government made clear their view of the draft constitutional treaty in their White Paper of September 2003—paragraphs 41 to 43. The draft treaty consolidates the existing treaties into a single logically ordered text; sets out a more transparent and accountable structure for the EU; makes it clear that the national Governments of the member states remain in control; and it provides for a more efficient European Union after enlargement.

  There are a number of changes that the Government wish to see to the draft text. If a treaty is successfully negotiated it will not alter the constitutional relationship between the Union and the member states, and would be less far reaching than changes brought into effect by either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement on Europe, of 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 155–57, what factors he took into account in reaching his decision on whether to hold a referendum. [170573]

  The Prime Minister
  The factors leading to the Government's decision to hold a referendum were set out in my statement of 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 155–57.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask Prime Minister pursuant to his answer, of 21 April 2004,Official Report, column 287, what discussions he held with ministerial colleagues prior to his decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution. [170574]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

  European Evidence Warrant
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will veto the legislative instrument proposing the European Evidence Warrant; [170781]

  (2) if he will refuse to accept the European Constitution if at the next Summit on the European Constitution the European Evidence Warrant forms part of the corpus of the draft Constitution and laws of the EU. [170783]

  The Prime Minister
  No. We shall seek to negotiate effective arrangements in the UK's interests.
  1457W
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the European Evidence Warrant complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. [170782]

  The Prime Minister
  Under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, all legislative instruments must respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government would of course ensure that implementing legislation was compatible with the Human Rights Act.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that political representation in the House of Lords from Northern Ireland reflects the community there. [170488]

  The Prime Minister
  As I have made clear before, membership of the House of Lords is kept under ongoing review.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he last raised the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change with President Bush. [170998]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have discussions on a wide range of issues with President Bush including on climate change. As with previous Administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public details of discussions with foreign Governments under exemption 1(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Libya
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will secure from Libya an inventory of the arms that it supplied to the IRA. [170342]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Pearson) gave to the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) on 26 April 2304,Official Report, column 822W.

  Middle East
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement on Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process, of 19 April 2004,Official Report, columns 21-23, (1) whether he urged President Bush that the Quartet should be involved in further decisions affecting the peace process rather than for such decisions to be decided bilaterally between the United States and Israel; [170575]

  (2) what representations he made to President Bush before the President announced his endorsement of Prime Minister Sharon's plans. [170576]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have discussions with President Bush on a wide range of issues, including the Middle East Peace Process. As with previous Administrations it is not the practice of this Government to make public all details of discussions 1458W
  with foreign Governments under exemption 1(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  I have made clear my view that the Quartet—which is meeting at Principals level in New York today—must lead the international community's efforts to take forward the Middle East Peace Process through the Roadmap. I hope that today's meeting will see the Quartet playing that role fully.

  Morganatic Marriages
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has recently held discussions on introducing legislation permitting members of the Royal Family to enter into morganatic marriages; and if he will make a statement. [170550]

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no such discussions.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the overseas(a) cities and (b) countries which he has visited on official business in the first four months of 2004, broken down by date of visit. [170972]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 is currently being collated and will be published in the normal way before the summer recess.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Living Allowance
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average period was between a disability living allowance application form being received and it being considered by a decision maker in respect of applications(a) from Wales, (b) from England, (c) in Welsh and (d) in English in each of the last three years; [170221]

  (2) what percentage of disability living allowance decision makers are able to work through the medium of Welsh; [170222]

  (3) what the target period is for the time between the receipt of a disability living allowance application form and its consideration by a decision maker; [170223]

  (4) what percentage of disability living allowance claims submitted in Welsh are considered using (a) the original Welsh versions and (b) a translation into English; and what criteria are employed in decisions as to whether claims submitted in Welsh are translated for consideration in English; [170224]

  (5) what arrangements are in place for the translation into English of disability living allowance application forms completed in Welsh. [170225]
  1459W
  Maria Eagle
  Information on the time taken for a disability living allowance claim to reach the decision maker following receipt in the Disability and Carers Service is not routinely collected.

  There are three Welsh speaking Decision Makers (DMs) and one Administrative Officer all based in Cardiff Disability Benefits Centre (DBC). The total number of Decision Makers in the Disability and Carers Service nationally is approximately 1,170.

  The clearance targets set by the Secretary of State, against which performance is judged, reflect overall clearance times, from claim registration to decision notification and no distinction is made between those claims received in the Welsh language and those in English. In the year ended March 2004 the national target performance on new claims cleared was an average of 39.7 days against a target of 42 days. On renewal claims the national performance achieved was an average of 28.2 days against a target of 32 days.

  Any disability living allowance claim completed in Welsh received in the Disability and Carers Service whether in Cardiff Disability Benefits Centre, which administers new claims for the whole of Wales, or elsewhere is initially translated into English by the Welsh speaking staff based in the Cardiff Disability Benefits Centre. It is then processed in exactly the same way as a claim completed in English. Cardiff translated 28 disability living allowance and 78 attendance allowance claim forms from Welsh into English in the year to March 2004.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints have been received in the West Midlands about the tests for work applied to those on incapacity benefit. [168974]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of incapacity benefit claims is carried out by Jobcentre Plus; the medical examinations are carried out by Atos Origin, which provides medical services on behalf of Jobcentre Plus.

  Information on the number of complaints made to Jobcentre Plus about incapacity benefit tests is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For the period March 2003 to February 2004, Birmingham Medical Services, which covers the West Midlands, carried out 43,162 incapacity benefit related medical examinations; for the same period it received 114 complaints about these examinations. These complaints covered a range of issues including clinical findings, accommodation, and travelling expenses.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance is issued to those(a) in receipt of incapacity benefit and (b) who have carer's responsibilities in respect of jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement. [168975]

  Maria Eagle
  General advice regarding all benefits is available to customers from Jobcentre Plus staff before a claim is made; advice regarding a customer's specific needs is given at new claim stage by the contact centre and by the customers personal and financial advisers.
  1460W
  Leaflet SD4 "Caring for someone" and Leaflet SD1 "Sick or disabled" are available from Jobcentre Plus offices and give detailed information for customers wishing to claim incapacity benefit or who have caring responsibilities. Copies are available in the Library.

  No advice is given to people in receipt of incapacity benefit with regard to jobseeker's allowance specifically; however customers who are no longer eligible for incapacity benefit due to the results of a personal capability assessment or because they are no longer ill may be advised to clam jobseeker's allowance if they are available for work.

  People who claim jobseeker's allowance and have caring responsibilities are allowed to restrict the hours they are available for work to less than 40 hours, providing they are available for as many hours as their caring responsibility allows, and that this is at least 16 hours a week.

  Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether women who have been in paid employment throughout pregnancy who changed employer during this period will be eligible via(a) statutory maternity pay and (b) maternity allowance for 90 per cent. of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks of paid leave where they have not been employed by their current employer for 26 weeks; [167332]

  (2) whether the benefits available through maternity allowance are equal to those made through statutory maternity pay for women who have been in paid employment during pregnancy; and if he will make a statement; [167333]

  (3) if he will make statutory maternity pay available to women who change employer during pregnancy without taking a break; and if he will make a statement; [167334]

  Maria Eagle
  Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and Maternity Allowance (MA) are an integral part of the measures the Government has taken to help parents balance their work and family life.

  Both SMP and MA can be paid for up to 26 weeks. SMP is paid by the employer at 90 per cent. of the woman's average weekly earnings for the first six weeks followed by the lessee of £100 a week or the 90 per cent. rate; MA is paid by the Department for Work and Pensions at the lessee of £100 a week or 90 per cent. of the woman's average weekly earnings.

  To get SMP, a woman must earn at least £79 a week on average and have been continuously employed by her employer for at least 26 weeks into the 15th week before the week her baby is due. She must therefore have been working for the employer who would be liable to pay SMP to her before she became pregnant and would have worked for the employer for a reasonable period before that employer is askccl to administer and meet some of the costs of paying SMP to her.

  To get MA, a woman must have been employed and/or self-employed for at least 26 weeks out of the 66 week period ending with the week prior to the week in which

  1461W
  her baby is due. The weeks do not have to be continuous and a part week counts as a full week. She must also earn at least £30 a week on average.

  The standard rate of both SMP and MA was increased in 2003 to £100 a week. This substantial increase, the biggest since maternity pay was introduced in 1948, coupled with extending the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks mean that most pregnant working women getting SMP or MA are more than £1,200 better off than in 2001.

  We currently have no plans to make any further changes to these schemes.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost in each of the next 10 financial years from 2006–07, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional income tax revenues, of paying from April 2006 a basic state pension to all single people aged 75 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for single people regardless of contribution record, and a basic state pension to all couples where one or both partners is aged 75 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for couples, with that pension being indexed to earnings in subsequent years, and assuming that the savings credit is abolished for those aged 75 or above. [170649]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However such information as is available is in the table.

  £billion

  1Net cost

  2006–07

  3.9

  2007–08

  4.2

  2008–09

  4.5

  2009–10

  4.8

  2010–11

  5.2

  2011–12

  5.6

  2012–13

  6.0

  2013–14

  6.4

  2014–15

  6.9

  2015–16

  7.4

  1 Before tax

  Notes:

  1. The net cost includes all savings except for additional Income tax revenue, (see note 3). Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, using the GDP deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Basic State Pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002 based population projections. Basic State Pension costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for consequential changes to National Insurance Fund benefits and non-means tested vote benefits.

  3. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using current tax rates. The Income tax estimate for 2006–07 is based on the 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes and is projected in line with March 2004 Budget assumptions. The cost net of income tax revenue in 2006–07 is £2.6 billion. For illustrative purposes, we have assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the illustrative total net cost in 2007–08 is £2.6 billion and in 2008–09 is £3.1 billion. Estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty.

  4. The State Second Pension is assumed to be unchanged.

  1462W

  5. The savings credit is abolished for those aged 75 from April 2006 with no payments to existing pensioners and no new recipients after 2006.

  6. The savings from savings credit and other income related benefits (guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2006–07. It is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the first year is constant for subsequent years.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Stalybridge and Hyde have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [168738]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency who have benefited from a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  13,760

  2000–01

  15,230

  2001–02

  15,395

  2002–03

  15,535

  2003–04

  15,580

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

HEALTH

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the PFI contract in respect of the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. [169837]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital PFI scheme was the fourth major PFI scheme to reach financial close and sign contracts. The Norfolk and Norwich is a high quality hospital and was recently named among the top 40 hospitals in the UK by an international company involved in measuring healthcare performance.

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on MRSA in hospitals. [169838]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We already have standards to ensure there is a managed environment which minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. We are confident that implementation of our action plan
  1463W
  "Winning Ways" will reduce infection rates for all healthcare associated infections including methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to increase the number of NHS dentists in Leeds. [169839]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Currently 145 dentists are treating NHS patients in the Leeds area. The overall number of dentists treating NHS patients in Leeds has remained similar for the 12 months to December 2003, the latest data that we have available. The primary care trusts in Leeds are currently preparing action plans to submit to West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority, which include plans to increase the numbers of dentists accepting NHS patients locally.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS dental provision in south Devon. [169842]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The whole of the South West Peninsula strategic health authority area has been identified as an "Options for Change" field site, and dentists are increasingly opting for the new ways of working that Personal Dental Services allows. Teignbridge PCX, along with others in the Peninsula, is currently working on a Dental Action Plan which is expected to be agreed later this month.

  Health Inequality
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the public health reports from primary care trusts in areas suffering from health inequality. [169841]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Strategic health authorities are responsible for agreeing local national health service plans informed by public health reports. SHAs are leading work on monitoring the performance of primary care trusts, and take a particular interest in areas experiencing health inequalities. We are in discussion with SHAs about ways of assessing the impact of these reports.

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the abuse of elderly people. [169843]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Since 1997 the Government have been active in promoting better and more consistent standards of care for older people through the publication and implementation of the National Service Framework for Older People and National Minimum Standards of care for a range of services. Raising standards of care is the best way to minimise abuse and neglect. In addition the statutory guidance "No Secrets" provides a national framework for local councils and partner agencies to use in developing local multi-agency codes of practice to prevent and tackle abuse. Local codes of practice had to be in place by October 2001. Shortly, the Government will also implement the 1464W
  Protection of Vulnerable Adults scheme, which will act as a work force ban on those that have harmed vulnerable adults in their care.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to assist the work of local diabetes self-help groups. [169844]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is funding Diabetes UK—the major charity for people with diabetes—to undertake a user involvement project to help people with diabetes become fully involved in local decision making about their diabetes services.

  Health Services (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding improvements to children's and maternity health services in(a) Leeds and (b) West Yorkshire. [169845]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has received a number of representations in support of a dedicated children's and maternity hospital for West Yorkshire to be based in Leeds. I have agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) to discuss this issue.

  Mental Health Bill
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he proposes to start the pre-legislative scrutiny stages of the draft Mental Health Bill. [169846]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A revised and completed Mental Health Bill will be brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny in this session.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in making payments available through the ex-gratia payments scheme for patients infected with hepatitis C. [169847]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work is proceeding to finalise the arrangements necessary to begin making payments. The Skipton Fund was incorporated on 25 March. Officials are continuing to consult with patient groups and medical experts on the implementation of the scheme. The four UK health departments expect the Skipton Fund to be operational shortly.

  Anti-depressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that SSRI antidepressants carry a warning that they may make patients suicidal. [168841]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The safety of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been closely monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Government's independent expert advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) since first authorisation.
  1465W
  The CSM has considered the question of suicidal behaviour in association with adult use of SSRIs on a number of occasions and has advised that it is general clinical experience that patients taking any antidepressant may develop an increase in suicidal behaviour in the first few weeks of treatment. prescribers were informed of this advice in an article in the drug safety bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", in 2000 and advised that patients thought to be at risk should be monitored carefully, especially in the early stages of treatment.

  Product information for patients for all SSRIs contains warnings that suicidal behaviour may increase in the early stages of treatment with any anti-depressant and that any patient who has suicidal thoughts should seek urgent medical attention.

  In December 2003, CSM advised that four SSRIs (paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram) and the related anti-depressant, venlafaxine, should not be used in treating children and adolescents under 18 years with depressive illness because clinical trials had not demonstrated efficacy in this population and there was evidence of an increased risk of adverse effects, including suicidal behaviour and self-harm compared to placebo. The product information (summary of product characteristics and patient information leaflets) for these SSRIs contains appropriate warnings.

  A Europe-wide review of the safety of paroxetine led by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands was completed on 22 April 2004. The European scientific advisory committee, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal products (CPMP) recommended that paroxetine should not be used in children and adolescents and that there should be careful monitoring during paroxetine treatment of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour, including those with a history of suicidal behaviour and young adults. The CPMP recommendations are now subject to consideration by the European Commission.

  The CSM's expert working group on the safety of SSRIs is continuing to review the available evidence relating to the safety of all SSRIs, with particular reference to behavioural disorders, including, suicidality to ensure that the advice in the product information is optimal for safe use of these medicines.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the future arrangements for the monitoring of care standards will include the use of lay visitors. [168691]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I understand from the Chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that the CSCI is considering a range of options to include service users and others in the range of its work. The use of lay assessors is one of these options.

  Cataract Surgery
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for cataract surgery in each Greater London NHS Trust for more 1466W
  than (a) three, (b) six and (c) nine months in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each year. [168937]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  CFS/ME
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding has been allocated to Professor Simon Wesley's team at the Institute of Psychiatry for research into CFS/ME; [166707]

  (2) what funding has been allocated to (a) the Merge Group in Perth, Scotland and (b) other biomedical researchers for work regarding CFS/ME. [166708]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology.

  The MRC does not normally allocate in advance for particular areas of research. Funds are awarded on the basis of specific research proposals judged in competition.

  The MRC has not provided funding for Professor Wessely's team or the Merge Group for research into chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). We do not hold records centrally for other funding bodies' allocations.

  The MRC announced funding in May 2003 for two trials: PACE—Pacing, Activity and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: a Randomised Evaluation, and FINE—Fatigue Intervention by Nurses Evaluation to look at the effectiveness of various treatments for CFS/ME. The MRC is also funding a £400,000 clinical trial: training general practitioners to manage patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 19 February with regard to Mrs. S. Wild. [164934]

  Dr. John Reid
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 5 April 2004.

  Drugs (Self-Administration)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are attending NHS hospitals and clinics whose condition is a direct result of the self-administering of drugs, broken down by region. [168853]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on the number of admissions to hospital which are drug related are shown in the table. The information is broken down by strategic health authority areas.
  1467W

  Count of finished in-year admission episodes by strategic health authority (SHA) of treatment—NHS hospitals, England 2002–03

  SHA of treatment

  Finished in-year admission episodes

  Q01 Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  3,198

  Q02 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  915

  Q03 Essex HA

  941

  Q04 North West London HA

  821

  Q05 North Central London HA

  947

  Q06 North East London HA

  1,532

  Q07 South East London HA

  1,153

  Q08 South West London HA

  645

  Q09 Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  3,642

  Q10 County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  3,259

  Q11 North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  3,130

  Q12 West Yorkshire HA

  4,927

  Q13 Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  3,765

  Q14 Greater Manchester HA

  3,211

  Q15 Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  3,987

  016 Thames Valley HA

  2,331

  Q17 Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  3,063

  Q18 Kent and Medway HA

  1,288

  Q13 Surrey and Sussex HA

  2,473

  Q20 Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  2,388

  Q21 South West Peninsula HA

  2,446

  Q22 Dorset and Somerset HA

  1,220

  Q23 South Yorkshire HA

  2,029

  Q24 Trent HA

  4,104

  Q25 Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  969

  Q26 Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  1,847

  Q27 Birmingham and the Black Country HA

  4,642

  In year elective admission episodes for selected NHS Trusts, 1998–97 to 2002–03

  NHS Trust

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  30,363

  31,063

  32,959

  32,437

  33,401

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  13,569

  14,106

  13,838

  14,730

  15,165

  The Cardiothoracic Centre—Liverpool NHS Trust

  7,846

  8,301

  8,539

  9,091

  10,223

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  3,841

  4,184

  3,893

  3,710

  4,123

  Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust1

  n/a

  22,992

  23,053

  20,035

  18,181

  Southport and Formby Hospitals NHS Trust1

  13,867

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Lancashire NHS Trust1

  8,564

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  78,050

  80,646

  82,282

  80,003

  81,093

  1 Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust was created on 1 April 1999 from Southport and Formby Hospitals NHS Trust and part of West Lancashire NHS Trust. The figure for West Lancashire NHS Trust in 1998–99 is for the whole trust. It is not possible to identify the proportion of the figure attributable to Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust.

  2 Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  3 An in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Periods of care on-going at the end of the data year (unfinished admission episodes) are included. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Eye Tests
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Heywood and Middleton have access to free eye tests; [168482]

  (2) how many residents in Heywood and Middleton aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests; [168483]
  1468W

  Count of finished in-year admission episodes by strategic health authority (SHA) of treatment—NHS hospitals, England 2002–03

  SHA of treatment

  Finished in-year admission episodes

  Q28 Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  1,561

  England

  66,434

  The Department does not collect information on the number of patients who attend (but are not admitted to) national health service hospitals and clinics as a result of the self-administering of drugs.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current or past research conducted or funded on behalf of the NHS has examined the relationships between self administered drug use and patients' attendance at NHS hospitals and clinics. [168854]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has not commissioned research specifically on the relationships between self administered drug use and patients' attendance at national health service hospitals and clinics.

  Elective Admissions (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Crosby in the past five years. [160433]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis, but at national health service trust level. Data for NHS trusts is shown in the table.

  Jim Dobbin
  how many residents in Stalybridge and Hyde over 60 have benefited from the aboliton of charges for eye tests. [168773]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency by the number of senior citizens is not collected centrally.
  1469W
  The total number of national health service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03 for patients aged 60 and over was 189,900. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 493,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent general practitioners there were in each year between 1979 and 1997 inclusive. [168985]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of headcount and whole time equivalent general practitioners in each year between 1979 and 1997 is shown in the table.

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)1 in England, 1979–1997 England

  Headcount

  Estimated whole-time equivalents2

  1979

  23,062

  n/a

  1980

  23,674

  n/a

  1981

  24,359

  n/a

  1982

  24,835

  n/a

  1983

  25,341

  n/a

  1984

  25,788

  n/a

  1985

  26,190

  n/a

  1986

  26,529

  n/a

  1987

  27,023

  n/a

  1988

  27,420

  n/a

  1988

  27,420

  n/a

  1989

  27,749

  n/a

  1990

  27,523

  26,982

  1991

  27,888

  27,135

  1992

  28,185

  27,299

  1993

  28,460

  27,387

  1994

  28,735

  27,495

  1995

  28,869

  27,489

  1996

  29,116

  27,549

  1997

  29,389

  27,660

  n/a = Not available

  Notes:

  1 All Practitioners (excluding GP Retainers) includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS Other.

  2 Prior to 1990 all GPs were considered to be full-time

  WTE data has been estimated using the results from the 1992–93 G?MP Workload Survey;

  Full time = 1.00 wte; three quarter time = 0.69 wte; job share = 0.65 wte; half time=0.60 wte.

  All data as at 1 October

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  GP Waiting Times (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients in the Battersea constituency were offered appointment with a general practitioner within 48 hours in each year since September 2001. [168856]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the percentage of patients in the Battersea constituency offered an appointment to see a general practitioner within 48 hours is not collected. Information is provided by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority 1470W
  (September 2001 and March 2002) and Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, which was established on 1 April 2002, and includes patients from the Battersea area.

  Percentage

  Organisation

  September 2001

  March 2002

  March 2003

  February 2004

  Wandsworth PCT

  85.0

  100.0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  182.5

  178.4

  England

  180.1

  174.6

  88.2

  97.0

  1 Data collected between September 2001 and March 2002 are based on percentage practices not patients and are not strictly comparable but are included here for completeness.

  Health Ombudsman
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 703W, on the Health Ombudsman's Report (Long-term Care), how many cases have been reviewed so far; how many wrong assessments have been discovered; and what action (a) has been and (b) is to be taken to rectify the wrong assessment cases. [169229]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department expects information on the number of reviews completed and the number of cases granted recompense to be available in due course. Restitution payments are offered when the review suggests that national health service care was inappropriately denied.

  Health Services (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Birkenhead in the past five years. [166223]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Provider of treatment—Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust—count of finished elective (waiting list, planned and booked) admission episodes NHS hospitals, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Finished admission episodes

  1998–99

  36,667

  1999–2000

  29,759

  2000–01

  32,018

  2001–02

  33,351

  2002–03

  29,664

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (ie the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Heart Disease (Batley and Spen)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's campaign to reduce heart disease in Batley and Spen. [167057]
  1471W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The coronary heart disease (CHD) national service framework (NSF) was published in March 2000 and sets national standards for the prevention and treatment of CHD. In the West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority area, which includes Batley and Spen, around 25,900 people have quit smoking for at least four weeks with the help of local smoking cessation services since the publication of the NSF. In December 2002, 16 people were waiting over nine months for heart surgery. Today no-one is waiting over nine months. The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust will benefit from two new catheterisation laboratories at Pinderfields General Hospital and Dewsbury and District General Hospital.

  Hospital Episode Statistics
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS finished consultant episodes were recorded by hospital episode statistics in England in each year since 1979. [168907]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department holds finished consultant episode statistics recorded by hospital episode statistics for financial years back to 1989–90. For years prior to 1989–90, there is no comparable data collected centrally. The information available is shown in the table.

  Hospital Episode Statistics, finished consultant episodes (FCEs)1 NHS hospitals in England, 1989–90 to 2002–03

  Financial year

  Finished consultant episodes

  1989–90

  10,321,556

  1990–91

  10,228,485

  1991–92

  9,919,020

  1992–93

  10,364,186

  1993–94

  10,597,979

  1994–95

  11,373,067

  1995–96

  11,041,554

  1996–97

  11,098,998

  1997–98

  11,601,203

  1998–99

  12,108,141

  1999–2000

  12,290,278

  2000–01

  12,476,470

  2001–02

  12,338,590

  2002–03

  12,756,260

  1 A FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year. The figures in the table include both in-patient and day cases.

  Note:

  Figures are grossed for coverage, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Infection Control Nurses Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the review of community infection control nurses announced in 2002. [167411]

  Mr. Hutton
  Copies of "Informing the Future—A Review of the Role and Responsibilities of Community Infection Control Nurses and Communicable Disease Control Nurses in England", produced by Thames Valley University, have been placed in the Library.

  Integrated Falls Strategy
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has a facilitate greater use of pacemakers as part of an integrated falls strategy. [169272]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently consulting on the second draft of its clinical practice guideline for the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. The consultation runs to 18 May 2004 and final guidance is due to be published in September 2004. More information can be found on the NICE website at http://www.nice.org.uk/cat.asp?c=20116. The guideline will include recommendations on the use of pacemakers, where they are relevant to the assessment and prevention of falls in older people.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds there were in each Greater London NHS Trust in each year since 1997. [168942]

  Mr. Hutton
  Available adult intensive care and high dependency provision data has been published since March 1999 and the most recent data available is for January 2004. Copies of the publications are available in the Library. Data from July 2001 to the most recent available is also on the Department's website at http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/index.htm.

  Mental Health Provision
  Simon Hughes
  7 o ask the Secretary of State for Health how man.,(a) consultant psychiatrists, (b) mental health n uses and (c) primary care mental health workers (i) we re recruited by and (ii) left the NHS in each of the pre Jious five years in each Greater London NHS Trust. [168938]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Musculoskeletal Disease
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are suffering from musculoskeletal disease; and if he will make a statement; [166206]

  (2) how much money was spent by the NHS on the management and treatment of musculoskeletal disease in the last year for which figures are available; [166207]

  (3) what assessment he has made of equality of access to treatment and services for musculoskeletal disease; and if he will make a statement. [166209]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Three of the most commonly occurring musculoskeletal conditions are osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis. Arthritis Care estimates that between 8 and 10 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from the condition.

  Information on how much was spent by the national health service on the management and treatment of musculoskeletal disease specifically is not collected centrally. Primary care trusts (PCTs) receive allocations to cover the costs of all hospital and community health

  1473W
  services to meet the needs of the population they serve. The level of funding made available for the drugs, staffing and other costs of managing and treating musculoskeletal conditions is determined locally. It is for PCTs, in partnership with other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations, including those with musculoskeletal conditions.

  Following reviews by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Department has made two new classes of drugs, Cox II inhibitors and anti-TNF therapy available to patients with these conditions.

  The Department is driving forward a major programme of work to improve equality of access to all NHS treatment and care services Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will fall to six months. This will help all NHS patients, including those with musculoskeletal conditions.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what budget has been made available for 2004–05 to NHS Accident and Emergency departments for(a) art, (b) plants and (c) music; [167701]

  (2) what budget is available to ward managers for the management of their wards; [167706]

  (3) whether ward managers receive a direct financial allocation for their ward budget. [167707]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions on allocation of budgets are taken at local level by individual trusts.

  Patient Information
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to set aside funds to empower patients via (a) improved information access and (b) further development of the expert patient scheme. [169274]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department's "Improving Patient Experience" programme established the "Informed Patient" project, a three-year programme of work (2003–06) managed by MIS Direct Online. The project will improve the quality, range and accessibility of patient information; thereby empowering people to make informed decisions about their healthcare. Funding for this work amounts to £1,814,000 in 2003–04 and £2,127,000 for 2004–05. Funding for the third year will be agreed in early 2005.

  Following the publication of the strategy document in September 2001, "The Expert Patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century", the Department has funded and supported a community based pilot, from April 2002 to 2004 for each primary care trust (PCT) to provide training for people in the self management of long term conditions. Nearly all 300 PCTs in England have piloted the "Expert Patients" programme and data at the end of the pilot in April 2004 showed that almost 10,000 people had taken part.
  1474W
  Funding has been allocated by the Department to support the mainstreaming of the programme across the national health service from 2004 to 2007.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in each year since 1997; and how many of them were dispensed. [168582]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is available on prescriptions that are dispensed in the community in England. However there is no information available centrally on prescriptions that are issued but not dispensed.

  The table shows the number of prescription items dispensed in the community from 1997. The information does not include prescriptions dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Further information on prescriptions dispensed in the community is available on the Department's website at http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/prescriptionstatistics/index.htm.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England

  Number (million)

  1997

  500.2

  1998

  513.2

  1999

  529.8

  2000

  551.8

  2001

  587.0

  2002

  617.0

  2003

  649.7

  Thimerosal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the link between Thimerosal in vaccines and autism. [163554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As with all medicinal products, vaccine safety is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and its independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

  The only vaccines currently used in the routine childhood immunisation programme that contain thiomersal (also known as thimerosal) are the combined diphtheria/tetanus/wholecell pertussis/Haemophilus influenzae type B and the diphtheria/tetanus vaccines. Measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine does not contain thiomersal.

  The MHRA and CSM have thoroughly reviewed the safety of thiomersal-containing vaccines, including alleged links with autism, on a number of occasions. In 2001, CSM conducted a major review of the available evidence and has considered new data as it has emerged. Following a review of further studies in 2003, including two United Kingdom studies involving more than 100,000 children, CSM advice was placed on the MHRA website at http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk. Further studies from Denmark involving almost half a million children have also specifically investigated the

  1475W
  suggested link between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism. None of these studies found any evidence of a causal association.

  On the basis of the available data, the advice of CSM remains that there is no evidence of harm from thiomersal contained in vaccines, with the exception of possible hypersensitivity reactions (typically skin rashes or local swelling at the site of injection). The CSM advises that the benefits of immunisation with such vaccines outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. This view concurs with that of the World Health Organisation.

TREASURY

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many economically inactive adults of working age there are, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) reasons for economic inactivity. [168143]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Willetts, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economic inactivity. I am replying in his absence. (168143)

  I have arranged for the information requested to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The data provided gives the estimates of the number of economically inactive people and the reasons for their inactivity for each Local Authority. The figures are the averages for the twelve months ending February 2004, the latest period for which information is available.

  However, please note that a large number of local area estimates are not given because the sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates.

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

  Employment Statistics (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Preston; [169673]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term (a) adult and (b) youth employment in Preston over the last seven years. [169665]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Hendrick, dated 4 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployment. (169665, 169673)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Preston Parliamentary Constituency.
  1476W
  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The attached table gives the annual average number of people claiming JSA for over 12 months, and the annual average number of these claimants aged 18 to 24 years, in the Preston constituency, for each year since 1997. The table also shows the annual average total number of JSA claimants in the constituency for these years.

  Annual average number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and number claiming for at least twelve months1

  Claimants for at least twelve months

  Preston parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  All claimants

  All ages

  Aged 18–24

  1997

  3,364

  917

  135

  1998

  2,826

  478

  67

  1999

  2,632

  536

  23

  2000

  2,375

  475

  8

  2001

  2,118

  391

  6

  2002

  2,056

  315

  8

  2003

  1,894

  262

  10

  1 Computerised claims only.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Preston from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [169675]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Preston since 1997. [169676]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Mark Hendrick, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Preston. I am replying in his absence. (169675, 169676)

  While statistics of new jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The attached table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs in Preston for 1997 and 2002, which is the latest year available.

  Information is not available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 in Preston parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Number, per cent

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  52,800

  71,600

  2002

  60,200

  83,600

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  7,300

  12,000

  Percentage

  13.9

  16.8

  1 Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, resealed 2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  1477W
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Preston on the latest date for which figures are available. [169677]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Hendrick, dated 4 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Preston. (169677)

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Preston was 5,500. This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives museums etc

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Preston in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [169682]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Mark Hendrick, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Preston. I am replying in his absence. (169682)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies in the Preston travel-to-work area was 2558 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Employment Statistics (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Wigan in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [169354]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Neil Turner, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Wigan. I am replying in his absence. (169354)
  1478W
  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies in the Wigan travel-to-work area was 1,843 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Wigan; [169358]

  (2) what the levels of long-term (a) adult and (b) youth employment in Wigan were in each of the last seven years. [169309]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Neil Turner, dated 4 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployment. (169358, 169309)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Wigan Parliamentary Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The attached table gives the annual average number of people claiming JSA for over 12 months, and the annual average number of these claimants aged 18 to 24 years, in the Wigan constituency, for each year since 1997. The table also shows the annual average total number of JSA claimants in the constituency for these years.

  Annual average number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and number claiming for at least 12 months

  Claimants for at least twelve months1

  Wigan parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  All claimants

  All ages

  Aged 18–24

  1997

  2,516

  871

  137

  1998

  2,029

  339

  46

  1999

  1,825

  317

  10

  2000

  1,629

  252

  2—

  2001

  1,444

  232

  2—

  2002

  1,325

  191

  8

  2003

  1,331

  189

  10

  1 Computerised claims only.

  2 Value between 1 and 5, not shown to prevent disclosure.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what(a) change and (b) percentage change there has been in full-time permanent jobs in Wigan from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [169359]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Wigan since 1997. [169360]
  1479W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Neil Turner, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Wigan. I am replying in his absence. (169359, 169360)

  While statistics of new jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The following table shows the information requested relating to all jobs and full-time jobs in Wigan for 1997 and 2002, which is the latest year available.

  Information is not available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 in Wigan parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Number, per cent

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  24,000

  35,000

  2002

  24,200

  36,400

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  200

  1,400

  Percentage

  0.9

  4.0

  1 Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, resealed 2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers in Preston have benefited from the national minimum wage. [169664]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Hendrick, dated 4 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Preston who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW). (169664)

  This information is not available at local authority level.

  However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions. A guide to measuring low pay and associated articles and data can be found on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vink=5837&Pos=1&Co1Rak=l&Rank=272

  Budget Implications (Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect that Budget 2004 will have on the Hull, North constituency. [169736]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has the long-term economic goal of maintaining macro-economic stability. Budget 2004 showed that all parts of the UK are set to benefit from the domestic stability delivered by the Government's macro-economic framework, with 1480W
  inflation forecast to remain low and close to target and the Government on track to meet its strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle.

  Kingston upon Hull North has clearly already benefited significantly from Government policies to build a strong economy and a fair society. For example, since 1997 claimant count unemployment has fallen by over a third, long-term unemployment has fallen by over three quarters and long-term youth unemployment has fallen by almost 70 per cent.

  The Neighbourhood Statistics Service provides a wide range of statistical information at Parliamentary Constituency level, taken from the 2001 Census and other sources. This service is freely available via the National Statistics website at www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the disposal of entitlement under the introduction of single farm payments will be subject to capital gains tax. [169329]

  Ruth Kelly
  Implementation and administration of the single farm payment scheme is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in England, and the devolved administrations. Under general taxation principles, the tax treatment of any single farm payment to which an individual is entitled will depend upon the precise nature of the payment. However, from the information currently available, the Inland Revenue considers that the disposal of an entitlement to receive a single farm payment will normally be the disposal of a chargeable asset for capital gains tax purposes, and that the extinguishing of an entitlement to receive agricultural subsidies will also be a disposal for capital gains tax purposes.

  Computer Equipment
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Preston have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [169674]

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Wigan have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [169357]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not available.

  Customs Point, Coquelles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent in each of the last three years on the manned customs point that is staffed by the UK at Coquelles in France. [169967]

  John Healey
  The Law Enforcement arm of HM Customs and Excise is a flexible and intelligence-led organisation which regularly reviews its resource deployments against their latest assessment of risks. Information about the deployment of Customs staff at
  1481W
  specific locations is not available; exemption 4(b) (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the British economy grew on average per annum(a) in total and (b) per capita in the period (i) 1992 to 1997 and (ii) 1997 to 2003. [170100]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Willetts, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much the British economy grew on average per annum (a) in total and (b) per capita in the period (i) 1992 to 1997 and (ii) 1997 to 2003. I am replying in his absence. (170100)

  The UK economy grew by an average of 3.1% per annum between 1992 and 1997 and by an average of 2.6% per annum between 1997 and 2003.

  On a per capita basis the UK economy grew by an average of 2.9% per annum between 1992 and 1997 and by an average of 2.3% per annum between 1997 and 2003.

  Environmental Campaigns
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much funding he has allocated to Government departments to promote environmental campaigns in each of the last 10 years. [169770]

  John Healey
  Departmental Expenditure Limits are set through the bi-annual spending review process. Within these limits Government Departments are responsible for allocating funding to their full range of activities, including environmental campaigns where appropriate.

  Housing (First-time Buyers)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce additional fiscal measures to help first time buyers purchase their homes; and if he will make a statement. [169903]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government keep all taxes under review and announcements of fiscal measures are a matter for the pre-Budget report and Budget.

  The Government are committed to addressing the instability and major problems of housing affordability that has characterised the housing market over past decades. The Government have announced they intend to implement a programme of change to the planning system and to the delivery of development so as to improve affordability and lock in macroeconomic stability, as recommended in the Barker Review of Housing Supply, a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Influenza
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died of influenza-related illnesses in each of the last 20 years. [169326]
  1482W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 4 May 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people died of influenza-related illnesses in each of the last 20 years (169326).

  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. The number of deaths certified as due to influenza1 are given in the table below, for the calendar years 1983 to 2002. Previous analysisa,b has shown that deaths certified as due to influenza under-estimate the increase in mortality associated with influenza outbreaks and epidemics.

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1983

  796

  1984

  346

  1985

  662

  1986

  587

  1987

  190

  1988

  285

  1989

  2,114

  1990

  791

  1991

  248

  1992

  262

  1993

  439

  1994

  62

  1995

  251

  1996

  179

  1997

  347

  1998

  129

  1999

  585

  2000

  509

  2001

  38

  2002

  38

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 487 for the years 1983 to 2000, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes J10-J11 for 2001 and 2002.

  a Curwen M, Dunnell K, Ashley J. Hidden influenza deaths: 1989–90. Population Trends 61 (1990), 31-33.

  b Ashley J, Smith T, Dunnell K. Deaths in Great Britain associated with the influenza epidemic of 1989–90.

  'Population Trends' 65 (1991), 16-20.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the proposed move of the Office for National Statistics office in Titchfield to Southampton, considered in submissions for the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review, was not implemented. [164753]

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

  Letter from Peter Walton to Mr. Mark Hoban, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for what reasons the proposed move of the Office for National Statistics office in Titchfield to Southampton, considered in submissions for the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review, was not implemented. I am replying in his absence. (164753)

  This proposal to relocate from Titchfield was not implemented because the ONS statistical modernisation programme was given highest priority for the available resources at the time of this Spending Review.
  1483W

  Public Liability Insurance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average cost of public liability insurance was in each year since 1997. [169899]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not collect regular information on average UK public liability insurance premium costs.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of applying hedonics methodology to the Retail Prices Index; what plans he has to make further such adjustments; and if he will make a statement. [170101]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Willetts, dated 4 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment has been made of the effect of applying hedonics methodology to the retail prices index and what plans there are to make further such adjustments. I am replying in his absence. (170101)

  Technical issues such as hedonic methodology fall within the remit of the National Statistician. Our estimate is that the change to hedonic methods has had a minimal effect on the Retail Prices Index (RPI) with less than a 0.05 percentage point reduction on the annual rate of change.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has examined the possible use of hedonic methods for a number of items in the RPI, but has made the decision to implement the method only in those cases where it represents a significant improvement in methodology. This was the case for personal computers and digital cameras, where hedonic methodology has been implemented. However, for other goods, such as televisions, DVD players, still cameras and washing machines, the method has not shown conclusively to be an improvement and so has not been implemented.

  In the future, ONS will continue to examine the use of hedonic methods on a case by case basis and intend to investigate their use for laptop computers and digital camcorders. We are not planning a blanket implementation of hedonic methods, but intend to use them only where they are proven to give a real improvement in methodology. This is likely to be mainly for high technology, fast-developing goods newly entering the RPI basket. Such goods are the most common subjects of hedonic methods in the consumer price indices of other developed countries.

  Further details can be found in Adrian Ball's article 'The Introduction of Hedonic Regression Techniques for the quality adjustment of computing equipment in the Producer Prices Index (PPI) and Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP)', Economic Trends, vol No. 592, or by accessing the National Statistics website: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCl/article.asp?ID=290&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=208

  School Finance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out the total cash sums available to individual schools by way of direct per pupil payments following the Budget statement; and what the equivalent figures were for the previous years. [169331]

  Ruth Kelly
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor set out a £7.4 billion increase in Education spending in England by 2007–08. This amounts to an average spend per pupil of at least £5,500, a figure £1,000 higher than 1484W
  in 2003–04. As part of the statement, he illustrated the scale of payments that are made directly to heads to increase their flexibility on budget decisions. He said that in 2005–06 heads would receive direct payments that sum to £55,000 for a typical primary and £180,000 for a typical secondary school. For 2003–04 the comparable figures were £50,000 and £165,000. Individual schools will receive different amounts according to their pupil numbers.

  Sealskin
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much trade has been recorded by HM Customs and Excise in(a) whitecoat sealskin, (b) blueback sealskin and (c) sealskin apparel in each year since 1998. [169407]

  John Healey
  Figures on imports and exports of sealskin and sealskin apparel are published under commodity codes 43017010, 43021941 and 43031010 in `Overseas Trade Statistics' published by FIM Customs and Excise, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. However, figures for whitecoat and blueback sealskins are not separately identified.

  Senior Citizens (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Wigan qualified for the 10 pence rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [169355]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10 pence starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 8,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Wigan constituency in 2001–02. A reliable answer cannot be given for 2000–01 because in the Survey of Personal Incomes the sample size of pensioners living in this constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the effect of a 0.05 per cent. reduction in the rate of inflation would be on(a) total spending on social security benefit, (b) total spending on interest payments on Government debt and (c) tax revenues if tax allowances were to be raised in line with inflation. [170102]

  Ruth Kelly
  The inflation indices used to uprate social security benefits, tax allowances and debt interest payments are rounded to one decimal place prior to publication, and the impact of such a small reduction in inflation would depend on its effect on the recorded inflation index rounded to this level. Moreover, for social security benefits and some tax allowances the actual benefit and allowance levels are also affected by statutory rules on rounding. Therefore it is not possible to give accurate estimates for the effect of a 0.05 per cent. reduction in the rate of inflation. It might not have any effect at all.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints, broken down by category, he has received following the introduction of new tax credit arrangements. [169330]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of child tax credit awards that will be reduced following the finalisation of 2003–04 awards. [169391]

  Ruth Kelly
  Chapter 4 of "The Child and Working Tax Credits. Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System. Number 10", April 2002, provided estimates of the number of families whose Child and Working tax credit awards may need to be reassessed due to rises in income. This is available at www.hm-treasurv.qov.uk/Documents/Taxation Work and Welfare. No reliable estimates are available of the number of awards which will be reduced at finalisation.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of families currently receiving a manual top-up payment in respect of a child tax credit award which has been reduced because of overpayment; who will see those payments(a) terminated and (b) reduced following the finalisation of their 2003–04 awards; and if he will make a statement. [169400]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since the start of the new tax year, families expected to have continuing entitlement to tax credits are receiving provisional payments based on the latest information held about their circumstances and income, while their claim for 2004–05 is renewed. Those payments may reflect the recovery of an overpayment from 2003–04, following the approach set out in Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26, "What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?". Families who had been receiving additional tax credit payments in 2003–04 are receiving provisional payments in the usual way, so that there is no need for continuing additional payments to them.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of recipients of(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit have received payments above the level to which they are entitled; and what the average overpayment for each tax credit was. [170048]
  1486W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 22 March 2004,Official Report, columns 663-664W).

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether tax credit helpline advisors inform claimants about(a) the recovery of overpayments and (b) the availability of top up payments when they report a change of circumstances. [165414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If after having reported a change in their circumstances claimants receive a revised award notice and require further information about their award, the helpline will be happy to advise them.

  UK Aid Budget
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the UK aid budget to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP spent on overseas aid. [170217]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 869W).

  Unclaimed Assets
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's latest estimate is of the total sum of money lying dormant and unclaimed in United Kingdom bank accounts. [167602]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is currently no official estimate of the number of unclaimed deposits in UK banks or their total value.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the initiative announced by his Department to reunite unclaimed assets with their rightful owners; and if he will make a statement. [167603]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government announced in the Budget that we support the efforts of the British Bankers' Association, the Building Societies' Association and National Savings and Investments in trying to reunite unclaimed assets with their owners. As we have said in the Budget, it is right that more should be done in principle.

  The Government will assess and report on progress on unclaimed assets at the time of the PBR.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hamer Report
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the final report of the "Independent Review of the Selection and Appointments Process of Independent Members of Police Authorities", undertaken on behalf of the Home Secretary by Mr. Kenneth Hamer.

  This report makes a range of recommendations to improve the selection and appointments process to key posts in police authorities, highlighting the need to engage local people and the importance of police authorities continuing to develop effective links with other community groups.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Temporary Accommodation (Homeless Households)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  I am pleased to announce today the significant achievement against the Government's bed-and-breakfast reduction target that, by March 2004, local authorities should ensure that no homeless family with children should have to live in a bed-and-breakfast hotel except in an emergency, and even then for no longer than six weeks.

  Numbers of families with children in B&B accommodation on 31 March 2004

  Local Authority

  Region

  No. of FWC in B&amp;B

  No. in B&amp;B>6 weeks

  Comments

  1.

  Waveney

  Eastern

  17

  7

  It is disappointing that Waveney predicted a lower number of FWC in B&B for longer than six weeks but was then unable to match the success of other authorities facing similar conditions. 5 FWC moved out of B&B by 19 April 1 FWC moved out of B&B on 29 April 1 FWC due to move out of B&B on 5 May

  2.

  Gloucester

  South West

  10

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 5 April 1 FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&amp;B on 26 April

  3.

  Arun

  South East

  5

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 7 April 1 FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 28 April

  4.

  South Somerset

  South West

  6

  2

  Both FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April

  5.

  Erewash

  East Midlands

  10

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April 1 FWC moved out of B&B on 2 April

  6.

  Crawley

  South East

  11

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April

  7.

  Swale

  South East

  7

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 22 April

  8.

  North Dorset

  South West

  1

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 16 April

  9.

  North Wiltshire

  South West

  3

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 22 April

  70WS
  Figures collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister show a 99.3 per cent. reduction in the number of homeless families with children living in bed-and-breakfast hotels for longer than six weeks, and who were placed there by a local housing authority as a discharge of a homelessness duty, over the two years since March 2002 when the target was set. Local authorities reported a total of only 26 families with children in bed-and-breakfast in excess of six weeks as of 31 March compared with an estimated 3,500–4,000 homeless families with children placed long-term in bed-and-breakfast hotels in March 2002. This reduction reflects the excellent achievement of local authorities working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A total of 328, or 95 per cent., of local authorities met the bed-and-breakfast target.

  In London, where the highest concentrations of homelessness exist and where the highest number of families had been accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels, there were no homeless families who have been in bed-and-breakfast for longer than six weeks on 31 March.

  Figures collected also show that the total number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast was reduced by 88 per cent. from an estimated 6,730 in March 2002 to 780 in March 2004. This is the first sustained reduction in total use of bed-and-breakfast to house homeless families for over a decade.

  Tabled below shows the breakdown of bed-and-breakfast figures for March 2004 for the 16 local authorities that failed to meet the target. A table showing the breakdown for all local authorities is available in the Libraries of both Houses. Further information is also available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site www.odpm.gov.uk.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to work with local authorities, voluntary sector organisations and other stakeholders to sustain this target and our successful reductions in rough sleeping. We will also continue to work with stakeholders on tackling and preventing wider homelessness problems more effectively.
  71WS

  Local Authority

  Region

  No. of FWC in B&B

  No. in B&B>6 weeks

  Comments

  10.

  Purbeck

  South West

  1

  1

  Large FWC, identifying suitable large property has delayed re-housing. Provisional date of 7 May for move out of B&B

  11.

  Rushcliffe

  East Midlands

  2

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 8 April

  12.

  Harrogate

  Yorkshire & Humber

  1

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 2 April

  13.

  North Shropshire

  West Midlands

  3

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 5 April

  14.

  Surrey Heath

  South East

  2

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 8 April

  15.

  Torridge

  South West

  1

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome, re-housing plan depends on review decision. FWC still in B&B

  16.

  Vale Royal

  North West

  3

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 12 April

  The table shows the 31 March 2004 monthly monitoring figures for homeless families with children (FWC) in B and B accommodation for the 16 authorities that failed to meet the target.

  All local authorities that failed to meet the target provided details of the families concerned. A number of families are described as "housed pending review outcome". In these cases the families have submitted an appeal against the authority's decision on their homelessness application. In such instances the local authority can choose to continue to house the family under discretionary powers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Businesslink.gov Website
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The Department of Trade and Industry has transformed its services to businesses by listening to the needs and priorities of business people.

  I am today launching a one-stop website for business. Businesslink.gov.uk will act as a gateway for information and support from across Government.

  The new DTI-sponsored site removes the confusing array of advice about Government services that up to now has confronted businesses—particularly small businesses. Businesslink.gov is the result of a successful collaboration involving a wide range of Government Departments and Agencies: DTI, HM Treasury, Office of the e-Envoy, Small Business Service, Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise, Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Education and Skills, Environment Agency, ACAS and Companies House.

  For the first time ever one site provides quick and easy on-line access for firms needing information about funding and services provided by Departments and Agencies, including advice on starting up a business, taxation, employing people and health and safety.
  72WS
  Services include opportunities for businesses to register for e-filing with Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and Companies House in one go as well as a filter to help users identify which licences they need to trade.

  Advice is provided in clear language on issues which businesses have identified as important and relevant to their needs. It is supported by practical tools to achieve results and therefore reduce the time that businesses have to spend on regulations and other matters.

  Work has now largely been completed on the radical restructuring of the DTIs business support to create products that promote enterprise innovation and best practice to meet customer need for a streamlined range of products that are easy to access.

  Four of these new products were released in 2003: Grant for Research and Development, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee.

  Five new support products became available to businesses during April this year. These are: Collaborative Research and Development, Knowledge Transfer Networks, Access to Best Business Practice, Support to Implement Best Business Practice and Selective Finance for Investment in England.

  Small and medium sized businesses will be able to access these products through Business Link. Larger corporates and business organisations can access them through the DTI while the Regional Development Agencies will deliver products which deal with specific regional issues. Detailed information about all these products are available to businesses through the Business Support Directory available on Businesslink.gov.

  In the development of these products I have been advised by an expert Investment Committee that includes and is chaired by independent business members. The Committee will ensure that the impact of DTI products is thoroughly evaluated and that there is a clear economic rationale for the support we provide.

  The closure of business support schemes the DTI has funded in the past is progressing as quickly as possible but at a pace which meets outstanding commitments.

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

Export of Live Horses for Slaughter
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in preventing the export of live horses for slaughter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, following the failure to agree new rules for live animal transport at the Agriculture Council on 26 April, the UK will continue to operate its existing legislation, including the minimum-value rules, although, as is well known by horse welfare organisations, those rules do not actually ban the export of horses for slaughter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing us up to date on these matters. Of course, it is disappointing that it has not been possible so far to continue the minimum-value legislation, which is surely the best way of ensuring the prevention of the provision of live horses for slaughter. What objections are being made in the course of the negotiations with regard to the continuation of the minimum-value legislation? Does he agree that, although the improved conditions for the transportation of animals should be welcomed, horses are a special case and are unlikely to be looked after as well as they should be if their owners know that the horses will be slaughtered at the end of their journey?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the negotiations were on animal welfare and transportation legislation generally rather than on horses. The negotiations did not break down on the issue of horses, but related to hours of transportation, space, stalls and other issues on which there was no consensus in the Agriculture Council. The minimum-value regulations are British, not European, but they could have been modified by the provisions, which would have brought great animal welfare benefits.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the plight of Welsh mountain ponies, which are quite used to the weather that is beating on the roof here at the moment? They are declining because they are of very little value off the hill. One of the problems is the cost of horse passports, which is often more than the value of the pony. The ponies are sold at markets. Unscrupulous dealers buy and export them, and they are slaughtered on the Continent. Many of us feel that that is totally unacceptable. Not only that, these ponies do not qualify for single farm
982
payments. Will his department do something about the cost of these passports or even abolish them, or ensure that these ponies qualify for single farm payments?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad that as I stood up the Welsh weather declined. The noble Lord has brought his weather with him. The passport system for Welsh mountain ponies is a matter for the devolved administration. Within England, we have made special provision with regard to passports for those responsible for Dartmoor and New Forest ponies. I suspect that the Welsh authorities will look at that. Again, the administration of single farm payments in Wales is not a matter for me.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is not much point in us being goody-goodies when the rest of Europe is exporting its horses under extremely cruel conditions, together with an export market of horses for the meat trade in South America? Does he agree that we need a uniform effort on behalf of all the nations involved in this disgusting trade to get together and have one law for everybody?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly, as far as Europe is concerned, that was our intention and that of the Commission when we proposed these regulations. It is greatly to our regret that the Agriculture Council failed to agree the legislation, which would have improved the welfare conditions of horses and other animals throughout Europe.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, rightly referred to "this disgusting trade". Does the Minister agree that it is equally disgusting whether it involves the export o Clive horses or any other mature animal? The objection is to the cruelty inflicted on animals of any kind if they are transported in this way.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. There are two different aspects to consider. The first is welfare at the point of slaughter. When animals, including horses, are slaughtered within the UK, we try to enforce the very best welfare standards, which is not always the case if they are exported. There is also the manner of transportation, on which we were trying to tighten legislation for all animals in the discussions that failed last week.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the derogation has been allowed to continue. Will he tell the House exactly where the negotiations broke down? In the light of the breakdown, will more stringent rules on policing the transport of animals within the European Union be put into place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, because of the Agriculture Council's failure to agree the provisions, neither the tighter rules nor their enforcement will be put into place. The issues on which there was disagreement included maximum transportation hours, the space

983
assigned to animals, and, of particular relevance to horses, the detailed regulations on stalls. So a number of items could not be accepted by some member states and the negotiations broke down.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us which member states those were?
Lord Whitty: Broadly speaking, my Lords, the further south you go, the more likely they are to object. Of course, that will be complicated after last weekend—probably, the further east you go, the more likely they are to object as well.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that even the heavens are crying because of the fate of the poor horses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, previously I blamed the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for bringing his weather with him, but maybe it was an intervention by the Almighty. Certainly, a lot of cruelty is involved in the horse trade across Europe. However, that applies also to other animals. It has to be recognised that the UK does permit the slaughter of horses for human consumption and there is an industry here. The important point is that the welfare provisions are of the best at the point of slaughter and the point of transportation.

Council Homes: Refurbishment
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest. This is an issue that has arisen very sharply in Camden, where I am a resident although not a council tenant.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are refusing extra money for refurbishment of council homes in cases where tenants have voted against transferring housing management to an arm's length management organisation; and whether they object to direct council management.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the funding available for social housing, although greatly increased under this Government, is inevitably limited. We must therefore use it in ways that will most improve the lives of tenants. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they will provide additional funding only to councils that separate their landlord and strategic functions. We believe that this provides a strong incentive to better performance, ensures a sharper focus on the two distinct housing functions, and guarantees tenants a greater role in the future management of their homes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, which I find rather disappointing. How is his statement to be reconciled
984
with the Government's desire to ensure wider choice in the provision of public services? After all, this is a case in which the tenants themselves have voted and have therefore expressed a choice. For that choice they are apparently to be penalised.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it could be argued that they had a vote. We have made it clear that there are three options: local voluntary stock transfer, private finance initiative, and an arm's length management organisation. Under the latter two, the homes remain in the ownership of the council. We have also made it clear that we will make additional funding available only under those three options. There is no fourth way. Camden and every other council have been told that. Camden made its decision in the light of that information. The money is limited and we are directing the extra funds to one of the three options, for the reasons that I gave in my original Answer. Just in case anyone thinks that no money has gone into the decent homes standard in recent years, I should point out that, since 1997, no less than £18 billion has been spent on the decent homes standard covering the social sector.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I listened with interest to the Minister's Answer, but he has not really answered the Question. When local tenants choose to stay with their local council, what is the justification for penalising them? Of the local councils that have voted to stay or have not had a vote, how many have been inspected and found to be bad in their housing management?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, you cannot rig the ballot. When the ballots take place, it is known that one of the three options will bring in extra resources. If any or all of those options are voted down, the extra resources will not be available. That does not mean that nothing will happen; as I said, money has gone in. Indeed, about 100 authorities can meet the decent homes standard without selecting any of the three options. The fact is that tenants sometimes choose to stay with the council on the basis of false evidence from campaigners. Ministers are not allowed to campaign in favour of a "yes" vote because of ludicrous legal arrangements and straitjackets, and that applies even to policy enunciated and agreed by the Government.
The fact is that the consequence is known: there is no fourth way to extra money. That message has not quite got across. As I understand it, however, Camden has now accepted that that is the case. It is looking at another options appraisal and has started work on the process.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the former chairman of a housing committee and leader of a first-class local authority, I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that many people cannot understand why there has been a change in status. Good local authorities have always been able to manage their housing and their housing policy without any privatisation or assistance from outside bodies. If they had been granted sufficient resources by all governments to do

985
exactly that, they would be providing, and able to provide, a much better service than the present split-personality service.
Lord Rooker: Look, my Lords, for years some local councils have operated on the basis, "Vote for us and we will keep your rents down". However, they never say that the consequence is that there will be no repairs and no modernisation. It is a con. We are doing it differently. As I said, £18 billion has gone into social housing since 1997.
I give my noble friend one example. He is a noble Lord; he was my noble friend. He still is my noble friend; I am not arguing that point. I give my noble friend one example of how the separation of landlord and strategic functions works. Today we announced the reaching of the target that was set two years ago to get all families with children out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Two years ago 4,000 families with 6,000 children were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That has been a highly targeted, highly managed process. It has been achieved with input from the public sector, the private sector and registered social landlords. Not all those families have gone into council housing. The point is that councils which have achieved that success rate of 99.3 per cent have dealt with their major strategic housing function of making sure that people are decently housed, not necessarily operating their narrow landlord function when some of them, of course, could not even collect their rents.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent result in Waltham Forest council? Does that result not rather challenge his assertion that housing services are inevitably better managed by an arm's length operation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not know the details of Waltham Forest. All I can say is that there has been success on this matter across the country. The largest stock transfer took place in Sunderland where 37,000 dwellings were successfully transferred. New organisations have been built up based on housing that are creating jobs and training enterprises going beyond the normal narrow range of the landlord function.

Government Departments: Public Spendingm Rounds
2.51 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will lay a duty on other departments entering future public spending rounds to consider the implications of their decisions for the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, in past spending rounds, and in the current one, the Treasury expects government departments to consider
986
the implications of their spending and delivery proposals for all other government departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions.
The 2004 spending review guidance sets out the requirement for departments to discuss proposals with financial implications for other departments with the department in question and secure its agreement before including such proposals in their submission.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He has indicated that the issue is not a dead letter, but is it a very live letter? When a large regional employer is closed, or when a decision is taken depriving old people of their weekly walk to the post office at a time when we are more concerned with the financial implications of fitness, the Government are passing to the Department of Social Security or the Department for Work and Pensions a cost that it cannot avoid. Should not that be considered always and carefully before the decision is taken?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that I do not need to introduce the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of all people to the delights of DEL and AME. DEL stands for departmental expenditure limits and AME stands for annual managed expenditure, and is that part of expenditure which is demand led. The expenditure about which we are talking here is demand led. If additional expenditure is incurred by the Department for Work and Pensions as a result of decisions by other departments, that expenditure will be met. That is not to say that I condone any particular examples to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may refer of which I have no notice and of which I have no particular knowledge.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as demand-led expenditure is concerned, there is an obvious knock-on effect between activities of the Department of Health and of the Department for Work and Pensions. Is the Minister aware that Norwich Union Healthcare's ongoing survey has estimated that 9 million of the annual 22 million sick notes are suspect? Its survey of 255 GPs also found that those GPs believed that at least a third of sick notes are invalid. Surely this has a knock-on effect on sickness benefit which, of course, calls into question at the very least the Government's statistic on the number of employed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have no notice of that question, I have no basis on which to challenge the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, puts forward, although they indeed sound extremely suspect to me. However, I repeat that if, as a result of the policies of any other government department, additional burden is put upon the Department for Work and Pensions, that expenditure is protected because it is annually managed expenditure and it is demand led. I very much doubt the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, offers to the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, why has my noble friend accepted the premise of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which is that one department's activities place a burden on another? Surely it frequently happens, not least

987
as regards the Treasury, that good economic policies actually lower the burdens on other departments. For example, the great increase in employment and decrease in unemployment has made life very much easier rather than harder for the Department for Work and Pensions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords. That is why the expenditure on unemployment benefit in particular is so much less under this Government than it was under previous governments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to read more carefully the implications of the Question. It refers to the "implications of their decisions". That was intended for good or ill. It is more often for ill, but I do not think that anyone disputes what the noble Lord says; namely, that implications can be good. I just think that people ought to know.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that I have to be grateful for that although the supplementary question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, certainly went in the opposite direction.

Group 4 Falck: Sale of Global Solutions Limited
2.56p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any influence over the proposed sale by Group 4 Falck of its subsidiary Global Solutions Limited, which operates HM Prisons Wolds, Altcourse and Rye Hill, and the Immigration Detention Centres Oakington, Campsfield House and Yarl's Wood.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, all the contracts for prisons and immigration detention centres require the contractor to obtain the Home Secretary's consent to a change in the ownership of the contractor. We are currently considering Group 4 Falck's request for consent to the sale of Global Solutions to Bridgepoint Capital Limited.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how was it that the Home Office appeared to know nothing about the proposed sale of GSL when Beverley Hughes answered a Question on the matter on 18 March, considering that the chief executive of Group 4 Falck had made an announcement that it was proposing to sell the company 12 days earlier? Will the noble Lord also say whether in this transfer the Government will make it a condition that the successor company implements the 29 recommendations made by Stephen Shaw in his inquiry into racism and other matters at Yarl's Wood, and that the recommendations of that report and of the Chief Inspector of Prisons are applied not only in Yarl's Wood but throughout the detention estate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I explained at the outset, the Home Secretary is currently considering the request for consent regarding Global Solutions. No final decision has been made on that, although my understanding is that a decision will be made shortly. As regards Stephen Shaw's very excellent investigation and report into allegations of racism and abuse at Yarl's Wood, given the importance of those recommendations I have no doubt that they will be studied very closely and that the important and salient conclusions which Stephen Shaw reached will find their way into improving the quality of practice across the detention centre and prison estate.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help us by telling us what are the criteria that operate in the mind of the Home Secretary when deciding whether to grant permission for a change of ownership or not. In particular, does he bear in mind the need to sustain patterns of regime and delivery of crime reduction objectives, or is it simply a financial consideration of viability that is in his mind?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Home Secretary will have to pay very careful regard to the financial standing of the company and the way in which it responds to change in the marketplace. For that reason the Home Secretary takes very careful account of legal and financial advice that is given. Of course, the Home Secretary will have regard to other matters as it is very important that contracts which specify particular issues of importance in terms of policy are understood by the operating company and those who own the contract.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, can the Minister clarify slightly his response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with regard to last week's report on Yarl's Wood, which is run by GSL? No doubt the Minister has, like me, read the report. The earlier remarks appeared to imply that the charges of racism had been proved correct. So far as I understand it, the initial allegations were not found to be proved by the ombudsman, and the recommendations involve additional training in race relations and cultural awareness but do not as such find an allegation of racism proved against those running the facility.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is right to focus on the particular, because that is exactly what Stephen Shaw, the ombudsman, did. It is important that he specifically did not find that there was a general culture of racism, abuse or violence, an allegation that has been made on a number of occasions. That is not to say that the events recorded by the Daily Mirror were not deeply shocking. I am satisfied, as I am sure other noble Lords are, that those involved in the incidents no longer work in the Prison Service. One

989
of them resigned and the other was sacked. I hope that that draws a line under the matter. All the recommendations made by Stephen Shaw have been accepted, and it is the Home Secretary's intention to put an action plan in place to ensure that they are very carefully followed through.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's assurance that government consent has to be given for change of ownership, did the Government consent to Capita subcontracting part of its work on the Criminal Records Bureau to Hays PLC in India?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is extremely wide of the Question, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer it this afternoon.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, can the Home Secretary insist on a change of terms of the contract when a sale or transfer takes place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that when it is the desire of the contractor to change ownership, the Home Secretary has to take all such points carefully into consideration. As a consequence of a change of the holding of the contract, there may well be some changes, but I suspect that those would be carefully negotiated and the subject of very careful advice.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the changes have to be carefully considered by the Home Secretary, but does he have the power to alter a contract on a transfer?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we should deal with matters that relate to the detail of contracts carefully. I am happy to provide the detail that the noble Earl requires in writing, because that is a better way of dealing with it. He will get more precision from me. I believe in giving noble Lords the best, most truthful and most direct answer.

HMS "Trafalgar": Seaworthiness
3.3p.m.
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recent reports on the seaworthiness of HMS "Trafalgar" are justified, particularly in the light of three or four safety specialists refusing to sail in her.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, HMS "Trafalgar" recently completed a major repair at Devonport. Rigorous checks were undertaken to validate all aspects of her seaworthiness prior to sailing. Recent press reports alleging that the vessel was in an unfit condition to proceed to sea were completely unfounded. Further claims that safety
990
specialists were among those crew members left ashore for medical assessment were also untrue; none of those personnel can be described as safety experts.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he confirm: that the ship sailed with more than 250 defects; that the nose cone, which had to be replaced after the ship was grounded, was not replaced correctly; and that the radiation limits in the reactor compartment exceeded those permissible?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot confirm what the noble Lord says. However, I insist that no Royal Navy ship or submarine would sail after a maintenance period without satisfactory completion of rigorous safety checks, a process that is always fully documented. Of course it is not unexpected for there to be minor defects following a period of maintenance. It is the purpose of the testing and training phase to ensure that all the equipment is functioning correctly, but I cannot agree with the noble Lord that there were that number of defects or that they were of the kind to which he referred.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that HMS "Trafalgar" has been in Portsmouth Harbour for nearly 200 years, and is a magnificent memorial of a great victory and a fine museum? Why should it be exposed to the peril of going to sea when there is no need for that to happen?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not aware of the ship that the noble Lord mentioned, with its distinguished history. For the moment, I do not see its relevance to the Question.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following the Minister's point about minor defects, can he confirm that the crew members were specifically concerned about the safety of the nuclear reactor and the safety-hatch covers?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, I cannot confirm that. The 12 of the crew who went to see the commanding officer were concerned about a number of issues. He thought that, in most cases, they could be suffering from some sort of stress and wanted them properly medically examined. One of the 12 stayed on board. The rest were medically examined, and five are now back on board, four have been medically downgraded for a month, and the remaining two are under investigation for disobedience to orders. However, they are not under investigation for mutiny.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister does not seem to be answering many questions about some of the problems with the submarine "Trafalgar"—I do not believe that HMS "Victory" had a nuclear reactor on board—so will he say whether there was a problem with one of the control rods in the nuclear reactor?

991
How minor was that? It has caused a great deal of concern. Are the numerous faults that my noble friend highlighted so minor? Last week, three crew members were treated after diesel fumes entered the sub's ventilation system during an exercise at Devonport. Also, breathing masks had to be worn when Freon, a refrigeration gas, escaped in another incident.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there was a minor problem with the single control rod. That is a minor defect, and the design authority that originally designed the reactor plant—Rolls-Royce, which I am sure that the House agrees is a fairly respectable UK company—agreed that the submarine was safe to sail. That decision has been agreed by the Ministry of Defence experts and, to put the cherry on the cake, independently assessed by the MoD's independent nuclear auditors. No country in the world takes more care to make sure that, when its ships sail, they sail safely.

Business
3.9p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, we shall have a repeated Statement later this afternoon. It will come after the proceedings on the asylum and immigration Bill, will be made by my noble friend Lord Bach and will be on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Child Trust Funds Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Unification of appeal system]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 13, line 22, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
"(6) Before section 104 of that Act (pending appeal) insert—
"103A REVIEW OF TRIBUNAL'S DECISION
(1) A party to an appeal under section 82 or 83 may apply to the appropriate court, on the grounds that the Tribunal made an error of law, for an order requiring the Tribunal to reconsider its decision on the appeal.
(2) The appropriate court may make an order under subsection (1)—

(a) only if it thinks that the Tribunal made an error of law, and

(b) only once in relation to an appeal.

(3) An application under subsection (1) must be made—

(a) in the case of an application by the appellant made while he is in the United Kingdom, within the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which he is treated, in accordance with rules under section 106, as receiving notice of the Tribunal's decision, and

(b) in the case of an application by the appellant made while he is outside the United Kingdom, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he is treated, in accordance with rules under section 106, as receiving notice of the Tribunal's decision, and

(c) in the case of an application brought by a party to the appeal other than the appellant, within the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which he is treated, in accordance with rules under section 106, as receiving notice of the Tribunal's decision.

(4) But—

(a) rules of court may specify days to be disregarded in applying subsection (3)(a), (b) or (c), and

(b) the appropriate court may permit an application under subsection (1) to be made outside the period specified in subsection (3) where it thinks that the application could not reasonably practicably have been made within that period.

(5) An application under subsection (I) shall be determined by reference only to written submissions of the applicant.
(6) A decision of the appropriate court on an application under subsection (1) shall be final.
(7) In this section a reference to the Tribunal's decision on an appeal does not include a reference to—

(a) a procedural, ancillary or preliminary decision, or

(b) a decision following remittal under section 103B, 103C or 103E.

(8) This section does not apply to a decision of the Tribunal where its jurisdiction is exercised by three or more members.
(9) In this section "the appropriate court" means—

(a) in relation to an appeal decided in England or Wales, the High Court,

(b) in relation to an appeal decided in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in relation to an appeal decided in Northern Ireland, the High Court in Northern Ireland.

(10) An application under subsection (1) to the Court of Session shall be to the Outer House.

103B APPEAL FROM TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING RECONSIDERATION
(1) Where an appeal to the Tribunal has been reconsidered, a party to the appeal may bring a further appeal on a point of law to the appropriate appellate court.

993
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to reconsideration is to reconsideration pursuant to—

(a) an order under section 103A(1), or

(b) remittal to the Tribunal under this section or under section 103C or 103E.

(3) An appeal under subsection (1) may be brought only with the permission of—

(a) the Tribunal, or

(b) if' the Tribunal refuses permission, the appropriate appellate court.

(4) On an appeal under subsection (1) the appropriate appellate court may—

(a) affirm the Tribunal's decision;

(b) make any decision which the Tribunal could have made:

(c) remit the case to the Tribunal;

(d) affirm a direction under section 87;

(e) vary a direction under section 87;

(f) give a direction which the Tribunal could have given under section 87.

(5) In this section "the appropriate appellate court" means—

(a) in relation to an appeal decided in England or Wales, the Court of Appeal,

(b) in relation to an appeal decided in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in relation to an appeal decided in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

(6) An appeal under subsection (1) to the Court of Session shall be to the Inner House.
103C APPEAL FROM TRIBUNAL INSTEAD OF RECONSIDERATION
(1) On an application under section 103A in respect of an appeal the appropriate court, if it thinks the appeal raises a question of law of such importance that it should be decided by the appropriate appellate court, may refer the appeal to that court.
(2) On a reference under subsection (1) the appropriate appellate court may—

(a) affirm the Tribunal's decision;

(b) make any decision which the Tribunal could have made;

(c) remit the case to the Tribunal;

(d) affirm a direction under section 87;

(e) vary a direction under section 87;

(f) give a direction which the Tribunal could have given under section 87;

(g) restore the application under section 103A to the appropriate court.

(3) In this section—

"the appropriate court" has the same meaning as in section 103A, and

"the appropriate appellate court" has the same meaning as in section 1038.

(4) A reference under subsection (1) to the Court of Session shall be to the Inner House.
103D COSTS ON RECONSIDERATION: LEGAL AID
(1) This section applies where the Tribunal has decided an appeal following reconsideration pursuant to an order made—

(a) under section 103A(1), and

(b) on the application of the appellant.

(2) The Tribunal may order that the appellant's costs—

(a) in respect of the application for reconsideration, and

(b) in respect of the reconsideration,

shall be paid out of the Community Legal Service Fund established under section 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22).
994
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the exercise of the power in subsection (2).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision —

(a) specifying or providing for the determination of the amount of payments (which may, in particular, vary according to whether the Tribunal changed its decision on the appeal as a result of the reconsideration);

(b) about the persons to whom the payments are to be made;

(c) restricting the exercise of the power (whether by reference to the outcome of the appeal, the circumstances of the appellant, the nature of the appellant's legal representatives, or otherwise).

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) may make provision—

(a) conferring a function on the Legal Services Commission;

(b) modifying a duty or power of the Legal Services Commission in respect of compliance with orders under subsection (2);

(c) applying (with or without modifications), modifying or disapplying a provision of, or of anything done under, an enactment relating to the funding of legal services.

(6) Before making regulations under subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks appropriate.
(7) This section has effect only in relation to an appeal decided in—

(a) England,

(b) Wales, or

(c) Northern Ireland.

(8) In relation to an appeal decided in Northern Ireland this section shall have effect—

(a) as if the reference to the Community Legal Service Fund were to the fund established under paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)), and

(b) with any other necessary modifications.

103E APPEAL FROM TRIBUNAL SITTING AS PANEL
(1) This section applies to a decision of the Tribunal on an appeal where its jurisdiction is exercised by three or more members.
(2) A party to the appeal may bring a further appeal on a point of law to the appropriate appellate court.
(3) An appeal under subsection (2) may be brought only with the permission of—

(a) the Tribunal, or

(b) if the Tribunal refuses permission, the appropriate appellate court.

(4) On an appeal under subsection (2) the appropriate appellate court may—

(a) affirm the Tribunal's decision;

(b) make any decision which the Tribunal could have macle;

(c) remit the case to the Tribunal;

(d) affirm a direction under section 87;

(e) vary a direction under section 87;

(f) give a direction which the Tribunal could have given under section 87.

(5) In this section "the appropriate appellate court" means—

(a) in relation to an appeal decided in England or Wales, the Court of Appeal,

(b) in relation to an appeal decided in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in relation to an appeal decided in Northern Ireland. the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

(6) A further appeal under subsection (2) to the Court of Session shall be to the Inner House.

995
(7) In this section a reference to the Tribunal's decision on an appeal does not include a reference to—

(a) a procedural, ancillary or preliminary decision, or

(b) a decision following remittal under section 103B or 103C."

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47A, 50A and 52 to 59.
I am grateful to Members opposite for agreeing broadly to the procedure whereby I should move my amendments, which, in effect, put forward the structure in relation to the replacement of the existing judicial review ouster. Noble Lords have indicated that they do not intend to move their amendments so that there is a proper opportunity to consider my amendments, which is sensible.
Clause 14 is the central part of the Bill and it has provoked considerable interest and discussion. Clause 14 will create a unified appellate structure for asylum and immigration appeals but, as I said at Second Reading, we need to ensure that we have proper and appropriate judicial oversight of the system so that it is independent, thorough and fair. I agreed at Second Reading that we did not have that correct just yet, but I made it clear that any new system of judicial oversight must also ensure an increase in speed and a reduction in abuse.
For this reason I have brought forward these amendments to replace the judicial review ouster with a new system allowing oversight by the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal. Although I shall be referring to the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal, I want to be clear that the arrangements for higher court oversight involve the higher and appellate courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The amendments have been brought forward in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. He is not here for this debate, but he has sent me a letter about the amendments, from which he has kindly said that I can quote in the debate. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
It may be helpful if I set out how we intend the new system to work. Amendment No. 46A replaces subsections (6) and (7) in Clause 14 with the new system of judicial oversight of tribunal decisions set out in new Sections 103A to 103E that will be inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
New Section 103A will allow a party to an appeal to the tribunal to apply to the High Court, for an order requiring the tribunal to reconsider its decision on appeal, on the grounds that the tribunal made an error of law. If the High Court judge thinks the tribunal made an error of law, the case will be sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration. We would expect cases to be sent back to the tribunal only if the judge thinks the error of law may have made a difference to the outcome of the case and we will ask the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to make this clear in the civil procedure rules.
The application must be made by an appellant within five working days from receipt of the tribunal determination, unless the appellant is appealing from abroad and then the application must be made in 28 days. If the Home Office decides to make an application, it must always lodge an application within five working days. An application will be determined by reference only to written submissions from the applicant. The decision of the High Court will be final. A person will not be able to use this review procedure to review procedural, ancillary or preliminary decisions. The review process is there to allow review of the substantive appeal determination made by the tribunal. Neither will a person be able to make more than one application to the High Court for a review. Where a case is remitted back for reconsideration, any further oversight of the tribunal's decision would be by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
We expect this system to operate much more efficiently than at present so that appeals in future will take a maximum of around 15 weeks—at present. although many appeals are decided quickly, those that go through every stage of the process can take a year or longer. In future, we anticipate it will take eight weeks from when the appeal is lodged until the appeal is promulgated by the tribunal. This is shorter than the time it takes for most appeals to be determined at the adjudicator stage at present and will be the result of concurrent working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the tribunal—and better case management in the tribunal so the eventual hearing is better focused on the key issues. These changes will allow cases to be listed and determined quicker than at present.
We expect most appeals to be concluded after eight weeks, but for the minority of appellants who wish to challenge the tribunal decision, it may take a further seven weeks to have the review carried out and, if necessary, any reconsideration of the case by the tribunal. I should also add that during the transitional period, when the filter is operating, which I will explain later, another two weeks will be added to the later stages.
New Section 103B provides that where an appeal to the tribunal has been reconsidered, a party to the appeal may bring a further appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal. They will not be able to seek a further review by the High Court. If they wish to dispute the decision, the only recourse is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. An appeal may be brought only with the permission of the tribunal or, if the tribunal refuses permission, the Court of Appeal.
New Section 103C allows the High Court to refer a case straight to the Court of Appeal if the judge thinks the case raises a question of law of such importance that it should be decided by the Court of Appeal. This could be described as a "leapfrog" procedure, as in such cases they would leapfrog straight from the High Court to the Court of Appeal without a reconsideration in the tribunal.
New Section 103D provides an enabling power to make regulations for a new legal aid scheme for both the High Court review process and reconsideration of

997
cases by the tribunal. We wish to take such an order-making power because we intend to make specific legal aid provision for those applying to the High Court for a review. The amendment provides for the order to be introduced by negative resolution, but I understand that earlier today the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked that we change this to affirmative resolution. I am willing to make this change and will bring forward an amendment at Report.
I am concerned that the new system has been overwhelmed by too many weak applications being made. For example, in 2003 there were 32,000 decisions taken on applications for permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Just 12,000 were allowed to pursue the case to a further level—not necessarily having the decision overturned. That means that 20,000 applications did not even have an arguable case and had no real prospect of success. We are therefore taking a new power in the Bill to introduce a new way of funding cases making a review application to the High Court and in any subsequent reconsideration proceedings. This will ensure that we arc targeting the most meritorious cases. Instead of the Legal Services Commission taking the funding decision, we will provide the judiciary with the power to order that legal aid is paid in these proceedings.
In his letter, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"I am sure the Government will consult fully before the regulations are made, but in principle I welcome legal aid arrangements which allow meritorious cases to proceed but discourage applications without merit overwhelming the High Court".
I share the concern of the Lord Chief Justice, and I believe that the power we are taking in this Bill will enable us to achieve this aim. I should make it clear that we are not changing the initial funding arrangements for the appeal before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The new arrangements, which we will bring forward in regulations, will affect the review application and any reconsideration proceedings that follow the review.
We are asking lawyers to share the risk with the taxpayer when deciding whether there is an arguable case against the tribunal determination and if it should be challenged. We believe that will lead to lawyers giving a more rigorous examination to the prospects of the case succeeding. Good lawyers will already be doing this, but we want to encourage this throughout the profession. It will enable us to focus ever more sharply on the deserving cases that merit legal aid funding. As your Lordships will understand, the legal aid budget is limited and we have to balance priorities carefully across jurisdictions.
The regulations will set out the detail of the scheme and these will be the subject of full consultation. The scheme will form part of the legal aid scheme and payments would come from the legal aid fund. We are not removing these cases from the scope of legal aid, but are proposing a new approach to evaluating the merits of seeking review and reconsideration proceedings. One could say that we are asking the legal representative to share the risk of bringing a case.
998
However, to help mitigate the risk they are taking, we will pay a success fee to those cases that are successful on reconsideration of the case.
I would call the scheme "no win, no fee", but subject to exceptions. We envisage that a judge in the tribunal would order legal aid to be paid in circumstances where cases have been successful in reversing the earlier appeal decision, and cases that I characterise as "near misses". I think we all know what we arc talking about when we speak of near misses, but we have to think carefully how this is captured in the regulations.
We also anticipate that the High Court judge would be able to order legal aid to be paid if they consider there are exceptional circumstances for the review application and payment is required now—for example, a case of real general importance to the system that they are forwarding to the Court of Appeal. As for cases that have been brought to defend an appeal decision after it has been successfully challenged at the review by the Home Office, the applicant for status shall receive funding.
I am not taking this power as part of some anti-lawyer agenda. There are many good immigration lawyers, but a serious consequence of widespread bad practice is that specialist immigration lawyers are all tarred with the same brush. I wish to make it clear that I am wholly committed to keeping good lawyers within the legal aid scheme. There are a number of dedicated, highly skilled immigration solicitors and counsel. We recognise that these lawyers provide value for money to the Government and the taxpayer. They help us to process cases efficiently and to get the results right first time. They deal with difficult cases, often in difficult conditions. They enable us to be sure we fulfil our international obligations, and so perform a valuable public service. There are many good lawyers active in the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. ILPA works with my department, and with the Immigration Appeal Authority, in a way that benefits the appeals process as a whole. We are grateful for their hard work and contribution to the policy process.
New Section 103E provides that, where an appeal decision has been made by the tribunal sitting as a panel of three or more members, a party to the appeal could bring a further appeal on a point of law with permission to the Court of Appeal. Such cases would not be subject to review in the High Court; instead, they could leapfrog the High Court and go straight from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal.
If the tribunal sits as a panel with three or more members, this will usually mean the tribunal has identified the appeal as giving rise to a question of law of such general importance that it may result in a starred determination being promulgated by the tribunal. Such panels may include the president of the tribunal, who of course will be a High Court judge. In such circumstances, we think it right that the right of appeal should lie to the Court of Appeal, and it will ensure the Court of Appeal will receive the appeal more quickly than would otherwise be the case.
Amendment No. 47A introduces new subsections (9) to (11) to Clause 14. These new subsections set out a new order-making power that can be exercised by the Lord

999
Chancellor after consultation with the senior judiciary. That will allow the Lord Chancellor to vary the time limits on the face of the primary legislation for lodging review applications to the High Court or Court of Session, or vary the time limits for specific categories of cases or circumstances. This is a sensible measure to take so that we can extend or reduce the time limits, depending on how the process works in practice, or enable us to vary it for particular types of cases if circumstances require it—for example, in relation to the fast-track cases, where the applicants are in detention.
Amendments Nos. 50A and 52 to 59 make changes to Schedule 2, which provides for consequential amendments and transitional provision. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendment No. 59. It introduces the transitional measure of a filter mechanism for cases applying for a review to the High Court. This is to ensure that we do not put more cases to the High Court than it is able to deal with. The filter mechanism will operate for a limited period, until cases likely to come before it are at a manageable level. Under the filter mechanism, if a party applies to the High Court for a review under Section 103A, his application will initially be reviewed by a senior member of the asylum and immigration tribunal, who will either make an order requiring the tribunal to reconsider its decision, or refer the application to a High Court judge with his reasons for not ordering the tribunal to reconsider its decision, and notify the applicant.
For those unsuccessful review cases that are referred to the High Court, the appellant is required to write within five days to confirm they want the High Court to review the case as well, otherwise the application is considered to have lapsed. However, this opting in is not a further appeal right. There is only one review application under consideration. The appellant will not be able to introduce new grounds at that point.
The transitional provision will apply for an indefinite period until an order is made by the Lord Chancellor to bring it to an end. The Lord Chancellor will consult the Lord Chief Justice—and I will make a commitment to publish the Lord Chief Justice's advice—before making the order. If an order is made, the Lord Chancellor will also have the power later to restore the filter provision by order, if circumstances require it to be put back in place.
It is important that the appeals system is fair, but it must also provide speed and finality. A swift and final decision is in the interest of both genuine refugees and the British taxpayer, who should not have to fund those seeking to play the multiple tiers of appeal of judicial review and the costs that they incur.
I apologise for the detail of these opening remarks, but I think it is helpful in the consideration of these amendments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble and learned friend finishes, would he like to say how and in what capacity he considers the advice given by the Select
1000
Committee on Home Affairs, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and Asylum International? All of those bodies have a major role to play.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: All of the points that they put in relation to the original Clause 14 were taken into account, and all of them had a significant part to play in the amendments we are now putting forward. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches give a qualified welcome to these new amendments. They are indeed a great improvement over the original version of Clause 14, which was highly objectionable and should never have been brought before Parliament. That does not mean that the new Clause 14 is perfect— we have a number of queries, and some criticisms of it.
Let me start with one point that is not in fact covered by the new amendment, as it is outside its scope, but it deserves to be. Under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, neither adjudicators nor members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal were required to be legally qualified. Section 81(2)(d) of the 2002 Act authorises the appointment of someone who,
"has legal or other experience which in the Lord Chancellors opinion makes him suitable for appointment",
but under new Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act, which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Bill, all members of the asylum and immigration tribunal must have legal qualifications or experience, and I would like to know the reason for that change.
I turn to the new government amendments. In new Section 103A, what is meant by "error of law", and, therefore, what are going to be the grounds on which the tribunal can be asked to reconsider its earlier decision? Does "error of law" extend to all the grounds on which a decision might be quashed by judicial review, for example irrationality, or the absence of evidence to support a conclusion of fact? If not, since judicial review is not excluded by the new Clause 14. we could end up with a situation where a decision could not be sent for reconsideration under new Section 103A(2), but could be quashed by a judicial review. That, it seems to me, would be a waste of time, and I hope the Government make it clear that reconsideration can be ordered on any grounds that would justify judicial review if there were no provision for reconsideration of the tribunal's original decision.
Perhaps the most objectionable provision of the new clause is the time limit under new Section 103A(3), to be inserted into the 2002 Act. In-country applications must be made within five days of the communication of the original decision to the appellant. While we agree that speed is important, five days seems to be seriously overdoing it. An application will require the applicant's legal adviser to receive a copy of the decision, to read and consider it and to draft and file an application to the High Court. It may well also require a meeting with the applicant at which the presence of an interpreter is needed. Any one adviser may be handling several cases at the same time, which will make his availability that much more limited. In all those circumstances, five days is wholly inadequate.

1001
We believe that two weeks would be the minimum in which to set the proper balance between speed of decision and justice to the applicant.
I note Section 103A(4)(b), which gives power to extend the time, but this should not be used as an excuse to make the original time unduly short. I note that Amendment No. 47A creates a power for the Lord Chancellor to vary the period specified in new Section 103A(3) by order. That order is presently under the negative resolution procedure. Such procedure is permissible for an extension of time or, once it has been extended, perhaps for bringing it back to what was originally specified in the Bill. However, given the tight time limits imposed in the Bill, I believe that any order which reduces them should require an affirmative resolution. I do not know whether the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has considered that.
Next, where reconsideration is ordered, there should be a requirement on the face of the Bill that it should be conducted by a panel of at least three members. If a decision has gone wrong the first time it comes to the tribunal, it is particularly important that it is corrected on the second occasion. The decision of one member of a tribunal should not be affirmed or overruled on reconsideration by a single member of equal status. I believe that reconsideration should therefore be carried out by a panel of three members.
I turn to the new Section 103D on costs. It is planned to convert the cost regime for applications to reconsider and reconsideration itself into a no-win, no-fee system. I can see some justification for that in principle. It is obviously not desirable to pay for representation in hopeless cases which should never have been brought, but many cases which do not succeed are not hopeless. In civil cases, where there is a no-win, no-fee system, that is allowed for by giving lawyers a mark-up on their normal fees in successful cases. I do not imagine that that is what is intended here, but if not, it is then surely necessary that lawyers should be paid where they have reasonable grounds for appealing but were not successful and not just in those cases described as "near misses".
3.30p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In all the cases he has mentioned, the Law Society, or whichever body, can consider what is appropriate initially. Therefore, the solicitor making the application automatically has grounds if legal aid is granted. In those circumstances, is it not right that legal aid costs should be awarded to the applicant?
Lord Goodhart: Yes, I accept that in general it is the principle that the Legal Services Commission will provide a system in which there is initial vetting of the validity of the case. I am aware of the problem here; that that is a source of considerable delay in the system. While I would welcome an arrangement by which the justification for the application was vetted by the Legal Services Commission in the ordinary way before it was made, I am not wholly unsympathetic to the Government's view, which I assume is behind the provision, that that would delay the proceedings
1002
beyond what is reasonable. If that is the Government's view, they should accept the corollary that cases which are not demonstrably unreasonable should be given, ex post facto, legal aid by the decision of the tribunal.
It therefore seems to me that if the exclusion of the normal procedure for legal aid is to be applied in this case, it should be on the face of the Bill that legal aid under new Section 103D should be refused only where it should have been apparent to the applicant's legal advisers that there were no reasonable grounds for the application. If not, the consequence will be that some applications which would have succeeded and would have led to a successful reconsideration will never be brought. That may have disastrous consequences to those who are returned to their countries of origin as a result.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I apologise for intervening again. Is not the remedy the noble Lord wishes to pursue something of a gamble? Certain tribunals may not like legal aid and will therefore be averse to it. Would it not be more acceptable if the committee considering legal aid applications were to speed up its consideration?
Lord Goodhart: That would be a highly desirable conclusion, but whether it is practicable is another matter. That is a decision for the Government and if they are not prepared to do so, they must put on the face of the Bill a provision making it clear that wherever there are reasonable grounds for making an application, legal aid will be provided ex post facto.
Amendment No. 58 provides that some decisions of the tribunal are to be treated, under the direction of the president of the tribunal, as authoritative. What is the purpose of that provision? If a decision of law is treated as authoritative, the normal rule is that only a decision of the High Court, or a court at a higher level, is binding on inferior courts and tribunals. The decision, for example, of one judge of the circuit court is not binding on another. I can see no reason to change that rule. There is no justification for making the tribunal's decision on a question of law binding on some other subsequent proceedings before the tribunal when in fact there is a procedure by which questions of law can be decided at the level of the Court of Appeal. It seems appropriate that only those decisions made by the Court of Appeal should be regarded as binding on the tribunal.
If Amendment No. 58 is also intended to provide that a decision of fact can become authoritative—for example, that a particular country is safe for particular groups of applicants—that decision should not be authoritative in other cases because it should always be open to an applicant either to give evidence of a change in circumstances in that country or to introduce new evidence, which was not provided for reasons good or bad at the earlier hearing and was therefore not available to the tribunal in making the decision now said to be authoritative.
The Government are trying to have it both ways: to have a single-tier asylum and immigration tribunal but making one decision binding on another decision

1003
maker at the same level. In other words, all decisions in the tribunal are equal, but some are to be more equal than others. That seems inappropriate.
Finally, the Bill does not deal with the most serious problem, which is made clear by almost all organisations dealing with immigration and asylum cases. That is the -unsatisfactory quality of the first-stage decisions taken by immigration officers before the matter reaches the tribunal. If the quality of those decisions could be and improved, that would do more than anything to speed up and improve the quality of decision taking in immigration and asylum cases. Although the new clause is a substantial improvement on the original Clause 14, it is still capable of considerable improvement. We shall return with the necessary amendments on Report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In following the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may I say that I agree with his conclusions about the inadequacy of the five-day rule? It is not practicably possible in five days to assume that all those practitioners can come to a proper decision. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will conclude from the submissions made to him that that period should be extended.
As I said in my intervention, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee and Amnesty International have all made valuable contributions, acknowledged by my noble and learned friend. But to imply that they are without criticisms of the present proposals is not accurate. All have concluded that there are factors attached to the present amendment that are unsatisfactory in certain material respects, among them —I can see no difference of view expressed by any of the bodies I have mentioned—that the five-day rule is utterly inadequate. I hope that my noble and learned friend will come to a different conclusion on that matter when he considers what has been said in the debate.
Certainly I share the view advanced by the Law Society that it is possible to have a swift conclusion of the representations made but that a five-day rule does not have to be applied. I agree with what my noble and learned friend said. Where I depart from him is his profession that he is prepared, initially at least, to leave the matter of legal aid to the tribunal. I consider that to be a gamble. If the procedures can be speeded up with regard to asylum, why should the Legal Services Commission not be able to speed up its own procedures? It has to conclude that there is a prima facie case that the representations that are to be made to the tribunal are adequate. It is perfectly possible for it to come to the conclusion that, prima facie, it is desirable that legal aid should be extended for that purpose.
I am also worried about a matter that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The initial decision making by the Home Office is itself seriously flawed regarding the information about the countries of origin from which the asylum seeker has fled, the credibility of applicants and their allegations about torture where such allegations are made. I should like to know what has been the response of my noble and learned friend's department to those concerns.
1004
The second tier of appeal is supposed to provide significant protections. It does not, as my noble and learned friend suggested earlier, represent an abuse of the system. But I would like to know whether he sticks to that point of view. Is that the view of the Government about all similar systems; for example, the employment tribunal and so on? Where is the Government's evidence to justify what amounts to a radical departure from what, up until now, has been the norm?
I turn to the suggestion of legal aid in relation to immigration and asylum cases. In asylum cases there is to be a system whereby the legal representatives can provide up to five hours' advice regarding the initial decision. That can be departed from if the case is "genuine and complex". Are there to be special guidelines regarding that? What does "genuine and complex" mean? I think that there is a certain ambiguity about that. In immigration cases, the initial advice is to be undertaken in three hours. But no legal aid is available for Home Office interviews, save for unaccompanied minors, people suffering from mental incapacity and those going through the fast-track decision process. I wonder whether that is altogether fair.
Provision is also made for legal aid for immigration and asylum seekers' appeals to be diminished. Is that right? In what way is that fair? Does my noble and learned friend agree that there may be further restrictions under proposed new Clause 103D regarding legal aid?
The other matter to which I want to refer—this is my last point—is the Leggatt committee, which made certain recommendations concerning the second tier. The committee formed the view, with which I am wholly sympathetic, that there should be a right of appeal on a point of law. Will my noble and learned friend say something about that?
Finally, I entirely agree that what my noble and learned friend has put forward today is rather better than what was put forward in the past—something that I wholly rejected. On the other hand, I believe that some vital matters still require the consideration of this House and of another place.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, but perhaps I may also focus on the decision by the High Court judge to return the matter to the tribunal. Subsection (6) of proposed new Clause 103A states that a decision of the High Court judge,
"on an application under subsection (1) shall be final".
Subsection (5) states:
"An application under subsection (1) shall be determined by reference only to written submissions of the applicant".
Therefore, the respondent—presumably the Home Office—will not be represented and will not make written submissions.
However, the High Court may make an order to return the matter to the tribunal only if it thinks that the tribunal made an error of law. In the field of judicial review, the customary position is that the High Court judge who is considering an application for leave will grant leave if he believes there to be an arguable case—not if he makes a subjective decision that the particular tribunal with which he is concerned made an error. That provision requires the

1005
High Court judge, without any representations from the respondent, to come at least to a provisional conclusion, which must have some influence on the tribunal to which the matter is returned.
When the word "tribunal" is used in subsections (1) and (2), is the thinking that the High Court judge will order the matter to be reconsidered by the member of the tribunal who heard it in the first place? In other words, does the application go to the High Court and, if the judge thinks on written representations only from the applicant that the original decision was wrong, does he then send it hack to that person telling him that, in his view, he has made an error? If that is the case, it is hardly an appeal to any degree at all. I want to underline the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart that, if the matter goes back to the tribunal, it should be heard by a different member of a different panel of three members of the tribunal.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: At the end of the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, set out three conditions that any replacement of Clause 14 should fulfil. They were: the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and onwards; the reinstating of the supervisory powers of the higher courts; and improving quality so that any new system is better than the present one.
I, like other noble Lords, very much welcome the reinstatement of the right of appeal. It is important for refugees, whose causes may throw up very complex cases of law, fair procedure and, indeed, the interpretation of the convention relating to the status of refugees, that the right of appeal should be reinstated.
However, I also share the concerns of other noble Lords about the practicality of the five-day time limit. It seems to me to be far too short. No one knows when the decision will come through. The decision must be read, instructions must be taken from the appellant, interpreters must be found and an application to the High Court prepared. I fear that submissions will be very hastily prepared, and that is a recipe for neither good quality nor efficiency. In any case, children's charities and those working with refugee children already report difficulties in finding good legal aid representatives. The demand far outstrips the supply, and many hours are already spent trying to find a good lawyer who is willing to take on the case. This very tight time limit will simply make things even more difficult, and I hope that the measure will be reconsidered.
I also worry about the no-win, no-fee scheme of payment, if that is how it is to be described. Or is it a no-win, no-fee but near misses will be funded as well scheme? Surely making people ineligible for the funds to pay for an appeal when they are already destitute could have the simple effect of preventing them appealing altogether.
Of course, I acknowledge that the whole asylum system is difficult. and we have many concerns about its present quality. At a recent tribunal hearing, the then Dean of Newcastle, who was there in support of
1006
a regular worshipper at the cathedral, was asked by the chairman of the tribunal, "Tell me, is the cathedral mainstream religion or is it some kind of way-out sect?". Such incidents do not fill me with much confidence in the quality of the system that we have at present.
I have real concerns about the five-day limit. I have concerns about the no-win, no-fee arrangements, which will make immigration and asylum an even less attractive area for lawyers to practise in. We know that the best protection against bad representatives is a sufficiency of good representatives. Of course, the Government are working very hard to ensure proper regulation in this field. That seems to me to be the best way to go rather than using conditional fee arrangements.
I want to make one last comment on the subject of supervision. Why is it necessary for the application for review to be by written submission only? Why not allow the court to determine whether it wishes in exceptional cases to hear oral arguments? Surely we can trust our judges to exercise such a power both wisely and well.
4p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: It is necessary to consider the Government's amendments both for their own merits and because this is a very important occasion when an ouster clause was taken far beyond any limit that anybody in the past had considered. That clause has now been reconsidered by the Government and we have these amendments. I want to underline the fact that this is not a trifling change; it is something almost and possibly actually historic.
I shall deal with three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. First, I shall comment on error of law. I hope that there will be no attempt to define an error of law, cynically perhaps because I have always thought that the ability of the judiciary was to regard what others might ignorantly regard as an error of fact as being an error of law. Such a definition would deny a degree of flexibility which is highly desirable.
The second aspect is that I have never understood it to be suggested that any of the grounds upon which the Administrative Court—as it is now called—has acted in the past was other than an error of law. I served for quite a time in that court and I never thought that there was any doubt about that. Wednesbury springs to mind. In the early days of Wednesbury, and comments about it, the logical basis for Wednesbury was that the Minister concerned was of course a very reasonable man. All Ministers of the Crown are irrebuttably reasonable men. So if he reached an unreasonable conclusion it must be because he failed to take account of something which was relevant, or took account of something that was irrelevant, and that was necessarily an error of law. Subsequent cases have said that you do not need to go through that rigmarole—it is sufficient that unreasonable decisions can be set aside or omitted. I hope therefore that that will be left like that.

1007
The question of reconsideration has caused me some surprise because I had assumed that any remission to the "tribunal" would be a remission to the same tribunal—whatever kind of tribunal it is: whether three men, one man, or whatever. While I can see the advantages or merits of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the appeal should go back to a different tribunal, that would be a very different proceeding because the new tribunal would have to start again. In a typical situation, if the reviewing body sent the decision back for reconsideration, it would be on the basis that the tribunal has omitted to look at something or failed in some other respect. That could well be a Wednesbury situation. But the man who made the original decision would be in the best position to correct it, in the light of direction and advice from the reviewing body. If the appeal goes to an entirely different tribunal then that is a different animal. There would have to be rules or procedural arrangements to enable that new body to start again, with the awful possibility that, having started again, there might be entirely fresh grounds for objection or asking for review. It would be quite impossible to say that there could not be a second review or anything of that sort.
The other point concerns Amendment No. 58. I agree with the objections and criticisms of the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, that you cannot have a tribunal deciding at its own level that decisions shall be authoritative, short of the much higher level of the Court of Appeal, where that does apply—although there are devices for distinguishing earlier decisions on the grounds that perhaps it was a two-judge court. I once had the privilege of sitting with Lord Denning in just such a case, who said, "I have decided that, on an interlocutory matter, in this particular appeal, but I do not think I was right. We will therefore ignore it". It seemed to me, as a junior member of the court, to have a lot of merit on those particular facts. I assumed that it was not going to become part of the jurisprudence of the court.
Amendment No. 58 has a point, obviously, that where you have multiple tribunals—which will inevitably be the case—and parallel courts, as far as possible they should sing from the same hymn sheet. I assume that Amendment No. 58 is intended to produce that result. The amendment could produce that result if it had a persuasive rather than a binding provision so that it would be open to other tribunals to depart from it to some greater or lesser extent.
There is a lot to be said against matters of fact being even of persuasive authority, although it is not as objectionable as a binding authority would be. But that could be ameliorated to some extent if one considers what question of fact will be of binding authority. It cannot be a fact peculiar to the applicant, because it would never be the same. On the other hand, it could be a matter of enormous importance, such as
1008
what is a safe country. I do not know the answer to that dilemma. I merely support the suggestion that there is a dilemma.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I certainly warmly welcome the fundamental change of stance which the amendment, moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, signals in respect of Clause 14. Nothing that I will say hereafter is intended in any way to detract from that. These amendments are a huge improvement on what went before, but perhaps they are capable of some further improvement.
I will look first at Amendment No. 46A and Clause 103A, which it is proposed to put into the Act. I do not intend to raise the question of the time limit—that will have to be the subject of an amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated that he will table such an amendment at a later stage. However, I can see arguments that are important in that connection.
Subsection (5) of the amendment states:
"An application under subsection (1) shall be determined by reference only to written submissions of the applicant".
Obviously, a decision under review would require to be referred; it cannot just be a matter of the submissions of the applicant. When it states,
"reference only to written submissions of the applicant",
that is a slightly over-emphatic way of saying what is intended. It must be right to allow written submissions from the respondent; otherwise, a court may overlook a fundamental point. It is exceptional to hear only one side in a judicial process. I know that it happens in relation to leave in the ordinary case. But I would have thought that the court should have power to have, if it wanted, written submissions from the respondent.
That brings me to mention the very moderate statement made recently about judicial decisions by the Home Secretary. I was wondering whether he was aware that the difficulty that he had was because the Home Office, or whoever in government was responsible for these matters, was seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the court to deal with interim matters such as bail. That was so successful that apparently no appeal was left unless judicial review was opened. I just wondered whether the Home Secretary was aware that that is how the situation was brought about.
I assume also that the application under subsection (1), referred to in subsection (5), may well be dealt with by a reasoned decision, so that the judge's reasons for sending the case back will be before the tribunal. I hope that it would be within the power of the judge to decide whether the case should go back to the same or a different tribunal. For example, if the error in law concerned the bias of the tribunal member who decided the case, it would be unsatisfactory for the matter to go back to him or her. So, I think that it would be right to leave the judge the power to decide the issue in relation to the circumstances of the case.
I also welcome in principle the filter mechanism in Amendment No. 59, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke. If I heard him right, he said that the review would be entrusted to a senior

1009
member of the tribunal. I do not notice that in the clause, but it may be that seniority is to be inferred without reference in this situation, as in some others.
So far as concerns treating a decision of the tribunal as authoritative in respective of a particular matter, I am not clear what is intended by that. Is it authority for the tribunal itself? If so, it must be only so long as it stands because it is open to be set aside by the Court of Appeal. I cannot remember a previous example of that. The noble and learned Lord may have some examples in mind, but there are none in my mind at the present moment. That may be due to lack of recollection rather than to absence of fact.
I should like to say a word or two about the legal aid provisions, which are supposed to be a no-win no-fee type of arrangement. My understanding of the no-win no-fee type of arrangement is that where it applies and there is no win, there is in fact no fee. In other words, in that situation the lawyer is not in a position to charge his client. This arrangement is not of that kind. So far as I can understand it, it is a legal aid arrangement. Therefore, even if the lawyer loses, he may still be entitled to charge his client. What the right reverend Prelate said about that must be relevant.
The other point about the lack of uplift, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is of course relevant. One purpose of the uplift is to enable genuinely borderline cases to be taken, so that the lawyer would not refuse to take a case simply because the chances of success were not greater than 50:50.
Incidentally, the legal aid position, as far as I can understand the section, does not apply to Scotland. There must be some extremely good reason for that. I expect that legal aid is a devolved matter. I am not certain what the reason is, but the section does not apply to an appeal decided in Scotland. One can envisage certain types of appeal in which there might be some pressure to go to that beneficial jurisdiction to have the case decided.
The provision that troubles me, although I can see the reason for it, is that there can be only one application to the High Court in any appeal. As a result of the decision to refer the case back to the tribunal, one can see that a different line might be taken than was taken on the first occasion. The judge's reasoned decision might well aid that, or help to cause that to happen. If that happened—in other words if the grounds of the decision of the tribunal were very substantially different from the grounds of the first decision—I think that it would be unfair to prevent a second application. I can see the trouble that would be caused by a number of applications being taken in the same appeal. I can see the desire to stop that. I can also see occasions in which restricting the number of applications to one might create a manifest injustice. I hope that it would be possible to leave the court to deal with that. The review mechanism—that is the filter mechanism—so long as it lasts might produce one way to handle that.
As l said, this provision is a great improvement on what we have had before, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to improve it further. I
1010
am particularly glad that the amendment confers powers on the Lord Chancellor rather than on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: When Sir Henry Slingsby, MP for Knaresborough in the Long Parliament. sat down to write his memoirs, the rudest thing he could think of to say about the time he had lived through was:
"These be times for historians to write".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, when he said that the original version of this amendment was "almost historic", I think could safely have cut out the qualification. If it had gone ahead it would have been. I am immensely grateful to all those concerned who have put a great effort, both public and private—and I suspect the private in some cases is more important than the public—into ensuring that we did not have a historic battle. I welcome the body of these amendments in that spirit. However, that does not mean that we are not subject to the ordinary disagreements of parliamentary life as this needs to be considered, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart suggested, very much in the spirit in which we consider any new legislative proposal.
I always enjoy listening to my noble friend. I do not think I have ever heard him speak quite as well as he has today. The five days is a point on which practically the whole House seems to be agreed. Two recent developments have made the five-day limitation a great deal more unreasonable than it would otherwise be. The first is the relic of the policy of dispersal. We have all heard my noble friend Lord Greaves talking about the difficulties of attending at Croydon at 9.30 when one has to travel down from Lancashire and one has no money for fares.
The other reason why five days has become more unreasonable is the rapid decline of the postal service. We do not have to believe the "Despatches" programme for that. According to Sunday's business section of the Observer, the Post Office is liable to face fines of £80 million for having missed almost every one of its performance targets. My own record is the time when my whip took 16 days to travel from Westminster to Kilburn. Under these circumstances, requiring the lodging of an appeal within five days does in many cases fall foul of the maxim that the law does not compel the impossible. We really are going to have to think again about that.
I will say just a little bit about what was wrong with the initial amendment, not in any critical spirit, but because I am sure that all of us, including the Home Secretary, do not want to end up here again. In fact, it is important that we should not. The original amendment, in words that reversed the judgment in Anisminic, said that one could not condemn a decision of a tribunal by reason of lack of jurisdiction, irregularity, error of law, breach of natural justice, or any other matter. It is the definition of a sovereign power that it can do what it likes, and it cannot be corrected but by itself. Those words conferred something similar to the powers of a sovereign power on the court in that particular matter. It is by claiming powers

1011
like this, in what used to be described as lex parliamenti, that parliaments in the past have found the power to condemn judges, Ministers, Privy Counsellors and even Lord Chancellors for offences as severe as treason.
Sir Thomas Wentworth had a point when he said, "they say God deliver us from his arbitrary government; I say God deliver us from their arbitrary treason". It is not in the Minister's interests to encourage courts to think that they are capable of taking powers as arbitrary as this. Purely in their own interest, I hope that they will never do it again.
I was interested in some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The difference between believing a case is probably right and believing that it is arguable is like the watershed between the St Lawrence and the Mississippi. It is very flat ground; it may be almost invisible; but it makes a difference of many thousand miles to where the water ultimately flows. I hope that the remarks made by my noble friend will be taken with the seriousness that they probably deserve.
I was also taken by his point about whether the case is to be referred back to the same person. When one is asked to review one's own decision, one inevitably bears the appearance of being judge and party in one's own cause. Purely casually, I happened to find in the course of reading, rather late last night, a case where that was roundly condemned from as early as 1220, and it was stated as a long-established principle that it was assumed everyone already knew. The reflexive character of that was one of the things that was wrong with the original Bill. I do not want it coming into the amended version by the back door. James Bond once turned to swear at Goldfinger, and got the reply, "Even I am incapable of that, Mr Bond". We do not want to get into that situation either.
I share the anxiety that has been expressed about conditional fees, but I will not develop it any further. I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said on the question of what is authoritative. I remember a story that Jeremy Thorpe used to tell about a counsel who had a case that had been before that judge before, some 20 years earlier, on the basis of which counsel, most unwisely, had assured his clients that victory was certain. The judge judged the other way. Counsel, white as a sheet, said, "But these facts have been before you before, my Lord". "I know, but they do not appear to me now as they appeared to appear to me then". Statutory provision that a decision shall be authoritative will cause very great difficulties to our present judges' successors. We should be wary how we do it.
With those reservations, I should like to join the universal gratitude to Ministers, intermediaries, senior persons, Members of the Opposition Front Benches— in fact to everyone—for showing the spirit of moderation and compromise for which this House is justly famous and for which I am extremely proud to have the privilege of belonging to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wonder whether, as a complete amateur in these matters, I might ask the noble and learned Lord a question concerning
1012
Amendment No. 47A, and how the five-day period might be varied. As I understand it, it would be done by an order subject to annulment, after consultation by the Lord Chancellor with the head of the judiciary of the part of the country concerned.
I was not able to be at the meeting of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee this morning, but looking at the manuscript report, it seems that the committee accepted that this order should be subject to annulment, not after agreement by both Houses. I wonder what the problem is with this. Is it the case that the Lord Chancellor intends that the variation of, say, the five days might be different in different parts of the country in different circumstances? In his letter to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, he pointed out that this order will interact with the rules of court. I am not sure whether the rules of court are different in Scotland and England. Perhaps I should know that.
Is the problem that, say, for Parliament discussing this matter, different periods might relate to different circumstances—for example, whether the asylum seeker was in detention or not, but also for different parts of the country, and how the courts were working? I can see that the head of the judiciary would know whether there is a problem about five days in one part of the country, whereas another head of judiciary might not know about that particular problem. I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, when he replies, could clarify that point. I hope that I have explained it properly. It is slightly difficult for me to do it concisely.
Lord Ackner: One should not overlook, in the congratulations that have been referred to, congratulating the former Lord Chancellor. It was, after all, his initiative to put his name down to fight the ouster clause that caused this Government to think again.
I know no more powerful argument for the retention of the Lord Chancellor than what happened in relation to the ouster clause. The existing Lord Chancellor was prepared to back it. It was only a former Lord Chancellor who decided to break his vow of silence and speak against it that caused this Government to repent. The previous Lord Chancellor did not even have to open his mouth. He merely indicated that he would open his mouth unless the Government thought again. That shows how essential it is that there is some power concentrated somewhere in order to make the appropriate resistance to what was a perfectly monstrous proposal to deny the public a right of access to the courts.
I make a number of points. As regards the reference throughout to "the Lord Chancellor", what happens if and when there ceases to be a Lord Chancellor? Is all decided by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs when it is accepted that he could well not be a lawyer and that he ought to be in another place? Where is the independence which is assumed to exist here? The Lord Chancellor is the person who makes the serious decisions. What happens when he goes?
I turn to a point of law. Do the Government accept that, for instance, a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice is a point of law? The rules of natural

1013
justice have been defined as being merely the elementary rules of fair play in action. Technically, that does not sound like a point of law although I appreciate that it has often been so treated. If the Government accept that it should continue to be so treated it ought to be said clearly.
I fully appreciate and support the speeding up of the processes. That is best achieved through the filter system. We in this country do not realise how fortunate we are with the degree of tolerance which has been shown as regards filters. It does not exist on the Continent. Some time ago, Italy was aghast at the time it took for appeals to be heard. It decided that it would bring in a very moderate filter system. It was thrown out with indignation. It was said that everybody who wants to appeal should have the right to do so. But our system is rightly shot through with filter systems. I do not object to them in any way, as long as they are fair.
On that subject, I do not accept, as others have said, that the court must think that the tribunal made an error of law. That really requires the "court of appeal", to reach a firm decision when it is accepted that the respondent has not entered any material on his behalf and when at that stage it has always been accepted that a good, arguable case is wholly sufficient. There is a distinct difference between saying, "I consider that there has been an error of law" and saying, "It is fairly arguable that there has been an error of law". It may not be workable, but there should be situations where, for example, the "appeal court" could say that, as the suggested error in a case is lack of jurisdiction, it would like to hear what the respondent says. On that kind of point, having heard the applicant and respondent, the court should decide that there has been an error of law; the matter should not be sent back to the tribunal for it to reconsider what is a pure point of law that should be easily definable in those circumstances.
I do not repeat what has been said about five days being too short. But, for my own education, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us a short snapshot of where legal aid begins and what are the earlier decisions when it is refused so that the prospect of getting forensic help is unlikely to have been achieved. That is all I have to say at this stage.
4.30p.m.
Lord Kingsland: It is not often that a Member of the Opposition Front Bench congratulates the noble and learned Lord on one of his amendments—but that I do.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out to the Committee, we did not move our amendment for a very simple reason. The three fundamental criticisms that we had of the Government's original Bill are met by the noble and learned Lord's own amendment. First, the Government have rightly and thankfully expunged the ouster clause. Secondly, they have restored the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and then on to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. Thirdly, and perhaps more controversially for some Members of the Committee, they have taken the two stages of adjudicator and tribunal and reduced
1014
them to one. We support all those components of the Government's amendment. But we do have things to say about it.
I start with a point which has troubled a number of Committee Members and that is the distinction between an error of law and a point of law on which normal appeals are based.
I do not know whether it is true, but there may have been an element of confusion in translating the old Section 101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 into the new Bill.
The new Section 103A states,
"A party to an appeal under section 82 or 83 may apply to the appropriate court, on the grounds that the Tribunal made an error of law, for an order requiring the Tribunal to reconsider its decision on the appear".
Under the 2002 Act there was an additional stage of appeal. It was not just an appeal from the tribunal; hut, first, from the adjudicator to the tribunal and then an appeal further from the tribunal. The former appeal was dealt with in Section 101 of the 2002 Act. I make no apologies to the Committee for quoting from it. Subsection (1) states,
"A party to an appeal to an adjudicator under section 82 or 83 may, with the permission of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, appeal to the Tribunal against the adjudicator's determination on a point of law".
Subsection (2) states,
"A party to an application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal under subsection (1) may apply to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session for a review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law".
So in the 2002 Act the issue of error of law arose only if the tribunal, itself, refused an appeal to itself from the adjudicator on a point of law. The issue is whether the Government have now deliberately substituted "error of law" for "point of law"; or whether there is some other reason, which I have not yet fathomed, to explain why the translation of the first two subsections in Section 101 has not taken place in the way in which the Committee would have wished.
I turn now to the second question that I wish to raise, which is about the transitional provisions. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been under a certain amount of pressure from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the Administrative Division of the High Court to introduce into the Bill a filter stage. The reason for this is that the judges, in my view rightly, discern that, without this filter, the administrative court would be engulfed with applications from the tribunal now that there is only a single stage.
My concerns are not about the principle but about two aspects of the way in which the noble and learned Lord intends to implement the filter. The first aspect has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and a number of other Members of the Committee—that is, exactly what are the arrangements internal to the tribunal which will ensure that the principles, to which the Committee rightly adheres in matters of appeal, are properly respected'? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was quite right to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give as much detail as is necessary to reassure the Committee that these principles will be respected.

1015
On the issue of reconsideration, I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. In normal circumstances—for example, where the tribunal has misdirected itself in law—I see no reason why the matter should not be remitted by the High Court to the same tribunal to reconsider it. However, there may be circumstances in which, for example, a member of the tribunal had certain characteristics which ought to have led to his or her standing down rather than hearing the case. In those circumstances, clearly the tribunal that rehears the case would have to be a different one. In sum, in my submission, the Committee will need to see more on the face of the Bill about the way in which the process of reconsideration will operate in practice.
My second concern about the filter is its open endedness. In my view, it is very important that pressure is brought to bear on the system to improve the quality of decision making at lower levels. If the filter is there indefinitely, in my submission, that pressure on the system will not be there.
We all know that the reason why there is such a high volume of appeals throughout the system is because of the poor quality decision making at the Home Office interview stage and at the adjudicator stage. If no changes are made in those areas, the filter will be there permanently. So I think it is desirable that the House should have the opportunity, every two or three years, to look at how the system works to ensure that the filter is not simply used as an excuse for not committing appropriate resources at the interview and tribunal stages to get better quality decision making.
The Committee is familiar with the issues and I do not intend to go into them in detail today. I simply propose to remind the Committee that at the interview stage we believe it important that not only is a tape-recording made of the interview but also that a transcript of what is said is subsequently produced and that the legal aid provisions are a great deal more generous than those recently implemented by the Government.
I have equal concerns about what is likely to happen at the new single tribunal level. I hope that I am wrong—but I cannot resist the temptation to say it— in suggesting that I fear that the new single tier tribunal will simply mimic the existing adjudicator system; in other words, the Government are saying that they are merging the adjudicator into the tribunal but what they are really doing is merging the tribunal into the adjudicator system. In my submission that would be unacceptable.
It is especially unacceptable to have in any future tribunal a single legally-qualified person taking the tribunal decision. Such a decision will be the only occasion in the immigration and tribunal system when the credibility of an asylum applicant is examined objectively. There is to be no appeal on the facts. There is clearly not an objective analysis at the Home Office stage because the Home Office has a particular view about the way in which the system should operate. So the tribunal stage is the only moment when the facts are objectively considered.
1016
In my submission, it is essential that the Government ensure that each tribunal has at least two, and normally three, members to consider all the factual aspects of an asylum seeker's application. The issue of credibility, more than any other issue, determines the outcome of tribunal decisions. In this regard, I support what I take to be the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that at least one, and preferably two, lay members should always sit when a tribunal decision is taken. Lay members are at least as well qualified as judicially qualified members to assess issues of credibility and it is unacceptable that only one adjudicator should undertake that responsibility.
My third concern is the lack of anything in Clause 14—or, indeed, in other parts of the Bill—to deal with matters of expedition outside the tribunal process. The biggest delays in the immigration and asylum system are those that occur between the time that an asylum seeker makes his application and the time it is determined by the Home Office. There is nothing in the Bill to impose time limits on this phase. It would be, in my submission, an enormous improvement to the operation of the system if such a provision were made.
Equally, there is no time limit imposed between the moment when the tribunal phase, and any appeals from it, is finally terminated and the moment of deportation, if, indeed, the result of the judicial process is adverse to the asylum seeker.
I sought, in my amendment, to provide a solution to this problem. I had at the time some doubts about the degree to which it fitted the Bill, and so I was not surprised to be criticised by the noble and learned Lord for it. He kindly sent me a letter on 27 April and I cannot resist quoting part of the final paragraph to the Committee. The noble and learned Lord stated:
"In particular, it is meaningless for the tribunal to set a date—
I say, parenthetically, that I sought in my amendment to set a fixed date after the tribunal decision was made for a person to be deported if the tribunal decision was adverse. I repeat:
"In particular, it is meaningless for the tribunal to set a date, as a person may assert there is new evidence that has come to light and needs to be considered, otherwise their removal is unlawful. The claim of new evidence can be made by way of judicial review against the removal directions or in further representations to the IND who have to make a decision on new evidence".
I accept that my amendment was imperfect; but I do not accept that it is beyond our joint abilities and imagination to find a statutory solution to this problem. We opposed the ouster clause; but we support a general approach to these matters that sets in place a statutory regime which covers all eventualities in the immigration and asylum system.
I understand what the Government are saying to me—that judicial review is inevitable at the deportation stage and there is nothing we can do about it. The Government have certainly said nothing about the deportation stage in the Bill. It is almost inevitable that every decision by the statutory system which results in deportation will, in a very high number of cases, lead to a further judicial review when the moment for deportation arrives. Surely it is much better to devise a scheme within the Bill which covers all the issues likely to arise on deportation by 1017 Asylum and

1017
statutory measures. In that way, judicial review will become otiose. Otherwise, all the problems that all political parties have been concerned with, over all these years, will re-emerge in the old way.
I shall be most interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the Government, having thought further about the matter, propose to introduce an amendment on Report which would draw all these deportation issues into the mainstream of their statutory approach. Perhaps the statistics exist and I have negligently overlooked them; but I would be interested to know whether there are any which establish the ratio between the number of orders made for deportation and the number of individuals who have actually been deported. I do not know whether those statistics exist, but if they do, it is important that your Lordships are made aware of them.
I find myself in some difficulty over the question of five days. In my amendment I recommended that the time period should be seven days, which is not a great deal longer than five. I understand the arguments about a longer period; perhaps the matter ought to be further canvassed on Report. But I, for my part, think the period should be short—whether it is five, seven or 10 days can be a matter for further investigation.
As to the point about legal aid, I respectfully share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which I seek to summarise—I hope not incorrectly, but, I am sure, inadequately—by saying that if an advocate were reasonably satisfied that there were reasonably arguable grounds for believing that an error of law had been made, then that, in principle, ought to be enough to ensure a grant of legal aid.
While I support the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to remove wholly inappropriate cases from the scene by limiting legal aid, nevertheless it is, in my submission, important for your Lordships to bear it in mind that at the end of the day, for some of these individuals, the decision whether or not they go home is a matter of life and death. Given that that is the background, I think that the Government ought, on balance, to err on the side of generosity in dealing with legal aid. However, we shall return to that on Report.
In the mean time, I should like to say, once again, that in broad terms the Opposition support the Government's amendment.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he help me on one point which he has made? I take his point that there should not be a tribunal of one; I accept that the tribunal should consist of three people. However, he also said that the tribunal might consist of two. Does he agree that that would open up a new danger?
I have always taken the view that a tribunal of two is very unsatisfactory. The risk of a compromise decision. which is an undesirable decision, is always on the cards. If you sit as a tribunal of two and are the more senior of the two, you go through a period of anxiety wondering whether your colleague might
1018
suddenly roar off on a frolic of his own and how on earth to get him back. I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his choice of two as appropriate.
Lord Kingsland: I have, on occasions, appeared in front of tribunals of two, both at the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal level. In most cases, since both judges were against me, the addition of a third person would have been academic.
I, of course, agree with the noble and learned Lord about the desirability of a tribunal of three. The only reason that I suggested a tribunal of two was to try to help the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this issue. I understand that sometimes immigration and appeals tribunals sit as tribunals of two, with one legally qualified and one lay member. I know that one aspect of the Bill that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be bearing in mind is that of cost. I was trying to help him in coming to a view about what I regard as an extremely important matter by saying that it might, in certain circumstances, be acceptable to have a tribunal of two. I am trying to avoid a tribunal of one; but I of course, accept that in an ideal world, the number is three.
5p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am very grateful for the welcome from all sides of the Committee for our proposals to amend Clause 14. I am also very grateful for the many constructive points that have been made. Although this is similar to a Second Reading debate in some respects, I think it is right that I should reply in detail, without taking too much time on the individual points made.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why there was a difference between the legal qualifications required for the single-tier tribunal and that which was in place under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He rightly drew attention to the fact that the requirement for legal qualification was not there before, whereas it is now. However, the Bill provides that, for someone to be a member of the single-tier tribunal, the equivalent of seven years' legal qualification can also be sufficient. The reason is that we think in very many cases, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggests, some decisions made by the single-tier tribunal will be decided by a member of the tribunal sitting alone. We therefore think that the higher qualification level should be set.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked what is meant by an error of law for the purposes of the statutory review. It is the same as is meant by "error of law" in Section 101 of the 2002 Act—not point of law, but error of law. That is the approach that is currently taken in relation to statutory review. It allows the statutory reviewers in effect to apply the same approach in determining whether there is a relevant error of law, as would be applied in relation to judicial review.
I rather agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that it would be unwise to try to be too precise in the definition. However, could it include lack of jurisdiction? Could

1019
it include failing to apply the rules of natural justice? Could it include having no evidence at all on which the conclusion could have been reached? Yes, it plainly could—all those factors would be regarded as errors of law. The distinction that we have sought to draw is that statutory review is based on a legal error, not simply an attempt to re-hear the facts again a second time. That distinction is well understood.
On the five-day period, in the majority of cases, legal aid will have been available to the applicant in relation to the conclusion of the hearing before the single tier. That legal aid would include a determination of whether there were any grounds for appeal. Five days will mean five working days, so there will be a week within which lawyers can consider whether there has been an error that justifies an application for statutory review. We believe that that is sufficient, because there is specific provision in the amendment for extensions of time to be granted when it is not reasonably practicable to put in the notice.
The five-day period begins when the appellant or applicant receives notice of the determination. I take the point about the post, but all such matters can be dealt with in the tribunal's discretion. We think that a short time limit is very important because these matters should be dealt with with reasonable expedition. In effect, it will be for the High Court or the filter to determine whether the five-day limit proves to be adequate, but we think that it will.
Reconsideration by three members of the tribunal was mentioned by several of your Lordships. If statutory review is granted and remitted to be heard, who should hear it? Should it be heard by the same individual who heard it before, should it always be heard by a different tribunal, or should there always be more than one member on the rehearing tribunal? The answer will depend on the circumstances in each case.
The president of the single tier has the power to direct whether there should be a reconsideration. If the statutory review indicates that a hearing should be by a different tribunal, then so be it. If he or she indicates that it should be heard by a tribunal sitting with more than one member then, almost invariably, the president of the tribunal will comply or follow that recommendation. If the president thinks that something else should happen, he can determine that. I do not think it would be right to say that it must be one or the other, such as, "It must always be a different tribunal" or, "There must always be three members". That would not be appropriate. It would not lead to the most just or expeditious result.
What we are aiming for in relation to the costs regime is some appropriate measure that ensures that only meritorious cases get legal aid. If there is no win or no near-miss, then there is no fee. Who will determine whether that is the position? It will be determined by the person at the end of the process who sees all the material. In effect, it will not be the Legal Services Commission—some body that is in some way related to the Government—but independent judges who will determine where the line is to be drawn.
1020
I agree that we need to debate quite carefully how we define "near-miss". We are not that far apart in the House. The measure is intended to deal with those cases that have a sufficiently high degree of success to justify support being given. However, that support will be given at the end and I recognise that risks will be taken. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I take the view that we may well need to consider success fees for those who are successful because there must be enough good lawyers in the field to ensure that every meritorious claim will receive representation.
Lord Goodhart: Since the matter can go back to the tribunal for reconsideration only after a High Court judge has taken the view that he thinks—or, if the provision is amended as we have suggested, that there is at least a good arguable case—that there has been an error of law, is that not enough on its own to justify extending legal aid to the application when the case goes back to the tribunal for reconsideration?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept the implicit premise in the noble Lord's point. Plainly, in ordering reconsideration, the High Court is bound to be setting the test lower than one that it is bound to win and there must be some degree of arguability about it. However, that does not lead to the conclusion that the moment one gets past that point one immediately gets legal aid. It may often be apparent that, even though an error of law can be identified, if the facts are re-examined, the case still has little merit. I do not say for one moment that that would happen in every case. However, we could frequently be in possession of facts that broadly indicate that time has been wasted in relation to an application.
I am not saying that that is the position in every case. However, an error of law could be identified because the wrong test was applied. If one knew from all the facts available that, even if the right test were applied, there would be little prospect of the application being granted, should public money be spent on that sort of claim? I believe that it should not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Is what the noble and learned Lord advocates totally unprecedented, or can he point to some example of the provision being applied?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Several examples could be provided. The proposal was first put to the Government by the judges. It was their proposal because they were keen to ensure that there was a sufficient degree of filter on cases. The original example given was in relation to criminal appeals where the Court of Appeal Criminal Division makes decisions in relation to criminal legal aid. That is not a direct parallel because, although there are similarities,

1021
it is not completely the same. However, whether the scheme works depends on the judgments that have been made to ensure that enough people are in the field. I believe that the judges would be right. Sufficient discretion will be given to ensure that the flow of legal aid is focused on the winning cases and on those cases that do not win but were sufficiently meritorious to justify consideration at another level.
Amendment No. 58 relates to giving some tribunal decisions authoritative status—that they would be binding on other tribunal decisions. That is a sensible and right approach. It allows certain decisions to be binding in other tribunals to ensure consistency in relation to practice in law. If there is an issue about whether the decision is right, either new facts could be presented or there could be an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
I agree with all those who said that there should also be improvements to the way in which the original decisions are made. As noble Lords know, the Government are committed to much higher-quality asylum decisions at all stages. This is not the time to go through the list of provisions, but they include setting specific targets for decision quality, introducing quality assurance systems involving internal and external assessment, enhanced training and other such matters. We all accept the need for the highest possible decision-making at the IND stage. However, that is not t reason for not dealing with the appeal arrangements, or the relationships between the appeal arrangements and the High Court.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned the latest proposals. It is important to recognise that the Leggatt report did not propose a one-size-fits-all approach for asylum where there is incentive to delay. It is important to design a system for the needs of this particular jurisdiction. The arrangements that are now being put forward do precisely that.
I have considered the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He is concerned about the error of law, which I have dealt with. He believes that matters should always be dealt with by a different member of the single tier. I dealt with that by saying that everything will depend on the facts.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle mentioned the five-day appeal period, "no win, no fee" and good decision-making, with which I have already dealt. He also mentioned written submissions. He asked whether the statutory reviewer should have the opportunity to order an oral hearing. That issue also has been discussed with the judiciary. The statutory review process currently does not involve that. We believe that the most effective system to balance justice and reasonable expedition is that which allows for cases to be dealt with on the papers. If further submissions are required they can be dealt with by the body to which the matter is remitted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised the issue of errors of law. I have already addressed that. I have also addressed the issue of
1022
remission. He opposes the idea of Amendment No. 58, but I think that it is a good and sensible course. Consistency in these matters is quite important.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: On the question of remission, it is clear that I took one view and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, took another as to what was meant by reconsideration. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to give us some assurance that that will be looked at with a view to making it quite clear that his flexible approach will be open.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I certainly agree to make sure that that is made clear in the most appropriate way—which may be by including it in the rules rather than placing it on the face of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, raised the issue of the five-day time limit. I think I have addressed that issue. He also raised the issue of legal aid in Scotland. He is absolutely right that legal aid is a devolved matter. It is therefore not for your Lordships' House to determine what happens in relation to legal aid in Scotland. My understanding of the position of the Scottish Executive is that it would like as much as possible to follow the approach that England takes to legal aid and asylum cases, although, obviously, to do so consistently with the provisions of all their relevant legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred also to written submissions, reasons for remission, filter mechanisms and the authoritative decision of the tribunal. I think that I have dealt with each of those points. He made an additional point in noting that the amendments provide for only one remission. That is absolutely right. We believe that a balance has to be struck between ensuring that there is proper jurisdiction while not allowing an endless series of loops round and round the system.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I believe the amendment says that one application, not one remission, is allowed. However, the point is really the same. I can see the force of that, hut the situation could change on a rehearing. I just wonder whether that is completely fair and whether it might not be wise at least to consider that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will certainly consider it. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord can see the balance that we are seeking to strike by allowing only one application. He is right; I stand entirely corrected in that respect.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, our intention is not to say that a different time limit would apply in different parts of the United Kingdom. We recognise, however, that there is a very strong possibility that there could be certain categories of case where a different time limit might apply. The category we have in mind consists of cases where the applicants are detained, legal advice is effectively available to them round the clock and special fast-track procedures have been applied. The answer to the basic point is that we would not envisage different times for different parts of the country.

1023
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his welcome for the proposals. I have dealt with his points on errors of law and transition. I hope that I have made it clear that I do not agree that every tribunal hearing should be conducted by three people. I do not believe that that provides the right degree of flexibility or is the right approach to the tribunal. I do not accept the implication that it would be good to have laymen sitting on the tribunal. I think that our proposal will make for a fair but expeditious arrangement.
Lord Kingsland: I am astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that. The biggest single criticism of the way in which the system works at the moment is the unevenness of the adjudicator decision. If one has a single lawyer sitting at the tribunal level, all one is doing is replicating the adjudicator system.
The fundamental issue in most of these cases is that of credibility, which is an issue of fact; in my submission, the noble and learned Lords needs at least two people in order to make the system secure. There is no appeal from the decision of this tribunal excepting on the basis of an error of law. The issue of credibility is not covered by that. I am astonished at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's reaction, and dismayed that he intends to continue with the adjudicator system in the disguise of a tribunal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have complete confidence that judges sitting alone, which will include those in the single tier, are well able to form judgments on facts.
I think that that deals with every point that has been raised. I therefore commend Amendment No. 46A to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert—
"(9) The Lord Chancellor may by order vary a period specified in—

(a) section 103A(3)(a), (b) or (c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (review of Tribunal's decision) (as inserted by subsection (6) above), or

(b) paragraph 30(5)(6) of Schedule 2 to this Act.

(10) An order under subsection (9)—

(a) may make provision generally or only for specified cases or circumstances,

(b) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances,

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(d) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

1024
(11) Before making an order under subsection (9) the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

(a) the Lord Chief Justice, if the order affects proceedings in England and Wales,

(b) the Lord President of the Court of Session, if the order affects proceedings in Scotland, and

(c) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if the order affects proceedings in Northern Ireland."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [New Schedule 4 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002]:
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provision]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 34, leave out lines 6 to 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 59:
Page 35, leave out line 42 and insert—
"(b) for subsections (3) to (5) substitute—
"(3) The following provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) shall apply in relation to an appeal under this section as they apply in relation to an appeal under section 82 or 83 of that Act—

(a) section 103A (review),

(b) section 103B (further appeal),

(c) section 106 (rules), and

(d) section 107 (practice directions).", and.

(c) omit subsections (6) and (7)."
Page 38, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert "—

(a) an application under section 103A(1) (other than an application out of time with permission) could be made or is awaiting determination,

(b) reconsideration of an appeal has been ordered under section 103A(1) and has not been completed,

(c) an appeal has been remitted to the Tribunal and is awaiting determination,

(d) an application under section 103B or 103E for permission to appeal (other than an application out of time with permission) could be made or is awaiting determination,

(e) an appeal under section 103E or 103E is awaiting determination, or

(f) a reference under section 103C is awaiting determination.", and"

Page 38, line 27, leave out "105A"." and insert "103A"."

1025
Page 38, line 31, leave out "a review under section 105A has been requested and not completed."," and insert "—

(a) an application under section 103A(1) (other than an application out of time with permission) could be made or is awaiting determination,

(b) reconsideration of an appeal has been ordered under section 103A(1) and has not been completed,

(c) an appeal has been remitted to the Tribunal and is awaiting determination,

(d) an application under section 103B or 103E for permission to appeal (other than an application out of time with permission) could be made or is awaiting determination,

(e) an appeal under section 103B or 103E is awaiting determination, or

(f) a reference under section 103C is awaiting determination.","

Page 39, leave out lines 30 to 41 and insert—

"(w) may make provision about reconsideration of a decision pursuant to an order under section 103A(1) (which may, in particular, include provision about the action that may be taken on reconsideration and about the matters and evidence to which the Tribunal may have regard);

(x) shall provide that a party to an appeal is to be treated as having received notice of the Tribunal's decision, unless the contrary is shown, at such time as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules;

(y) may make provision about proceedings under paragraph 30 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (transitional filter of applications for reconsideration from High Court to Tribunal);"

Page 39, line 48, leave out "or a request for a review"
Page 40, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert "require the Tribunal to treat a specified decision of the Tribunal as authoritative in respect of a particular matter."
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
30 (1) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to applications under section 103A(1) or for permission under section 103A(4)(b) made'—

(a) during the period beginning with commencement and ending with such date as may be appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor, and

(b) during any such later period as may be appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor.

(2) An application in relation to which this paragraph has effect shall be considered by a member of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (in accordance with arrangements under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) (inserted by Schedule 1 above)).
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) references in section 103A to the appropriate court shall be taken as references to the member of the Tribunal who is considering the application or who is to consider the application,

(b) rules of court made for the purpose of section 103A(4)(a) in relation to the court to which an application is made shall have effect in relation to the application despite the fact that it is considered outside the appropriate court, and

(c) section 103A(6) shall be subject to sub-paragraph (5) below.

(4) Where a member of the Tribunal considers an application under section 103A(1) or 103A(4)(b) by virtue of this paragraph'—

(a) he may make an order under section 103A(1) or grant permission under section 103A(4)(b), and

(b) if he does not propose to make an order or grant permission, he shall notify the appropriate court and the applicant.

1026
(5) Where notice is given under sub-paragraph (4)(b)—

(a) the applicant may notify the appropriate court that he wishes the court to consider his application under section 103A(l) or 103A(4)(b),

(b) the notification must be given within the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which the applicant is treated, in accordance with rules under section 106 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (C. 41), as receiving the notice under sub-paragraph (4)(b) above, and

(c) the appropriate court shall consider the application under section 103A(1) or 103A(4)(b) if—

(i) the applicant has given notice in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above. or

(ii) the applicant has given notice under paragraph (a) above outside the period specified in paragraph (b) above, but the appropriate court concludes that the application should be considered on the grounds that the notice could not reasonably practicably have been given within that period.

(6) Rules of court may specify days to be disregarded in applying sub-paragraph (5)(b).
(7) A member of the Tribunal considering an application under section 103A(1) by virtue of this paragraph may not make a reference under section 103C.
(8) An order under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,

(b) shall not be made unless the Lord Chancellor has consulted such persons as he thinks appropriate, and

(c) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Iraq: Treatment of Prisoners
5.17p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in another place earlier this afternoon. The Statement is as follows:
"I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the House following the serious allegations that have been made in recent days about the conduct of some British soldiers in Iraq.
"Any decent thinking person will have been disturbed by photographs published in the Daily Mirror on Saturday which appear to show the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.
"From the outset, we have taken the allegations seriously and taken the photographs at face value and will continue to do so unless there is evidence to the contrary. The Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police was immediately informed, and an investigation was launched.
"The Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch teams are currently following up lines of inquiry in Iraq, in the UK and in Cyprus, where the

1027
1st Battalion, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, is currently based. Investigating officers are in touch with the Daily Mirror, to see what further information it has that might help get to the bottom of the incident. To date, the Daily Mirror has handed over a total of some 20 photographs.
"It would be wrong for me to speculate about the outcome of this investigation, which must be allowed to take its course. As right honourable and honourable Members will be aware, it is not appropriate for Ministers to intervene with police investigations. I can assure the House, however, that if British soldiers are found to have acted unlawfully, then appropriate action will be taken. But our immediate priority is to establish the truth as quickly as possible. That is why I would urge individuals with relevant information to come forward. We are determined to leave no stone unturned.
"The House will know that a number of other allegations have been made concerning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and Iraqi civilians, some of which have resulted in fatalities. These are also serious matters which, where necessary, are being thoroughly investigated. There have been suggestions that such investigations are not being pursued properly or are unduly slow. This is unfair to investigating personnel. Many of these investigations require detailed work to be undertaken in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. They cannot and should not be rushed. I am confident that they are being carried out properly. It is my intention to release as much further detail on all of these incidents as possible, bearing in mind the rights of all those involved. It would be quite wrong to prejudice this process by applying undue pressure for haste or, indeed, to point the finger of guilt outside the due process of law.
"The Daily Mirror article will have caused some people to question the integrity of British soldiers and the validity of their mission in Iraq. Thousands of service personnel have served in Iraq over the past 14 months. They have done an exceptional job in testing circumstances, and in turn have secured the support of the majority of Iraqis. I hope that right honourable and honourable Members will join me in paying tribute to the superb work that our Armed Forces are doing both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. While treating these allegations with full seriousness, we should not allow them to colour our judgment of the quality or integrity of our troops, or of the Army as a whole.
"Very grave allegations have been made. They challenge the reputation of the British Army here, in Iraq and elsewhere. We must ascertain the truth or otherwise. At best such allegations undermine the excellent work that our Armed Forces are doing under the most difficult conditions today in Iraq. They undermine the progress that we have made with our coalition partners in moving Iraq forward from the tyranny that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein. Our forces serve with distinction throughout the world, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Northern
1028
Ireland or elsewhere. Their achievements and professionalism are rightly praised worldwide. That is why we must establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.22p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The allegations in the Daily Mirror are extremely serious. This is a public relations catastrophe. The damage caused by the photographs continues to do untold damage to the coalition's image and will put the lives of British soldiers serving in Iraq at even greater risk.
These allegations must, of course, be thoroughly and very swiftly investigated, but they are the more shocking because of the outstanding reputation of the British Armed Forces not only for their remarkable war fighting capabilities but also for their abiding humanity and decency in peacekeeping operations. I have no hesitation in joining Her Majesty's Government in paying tribute to the superb work that our Armed Forces are doing in Iraq and elsewhere.
A very great deal is expected of our soldiers. They are required, sometimes, to deploy on operations that are extremely dangerous, to obey orders which may put their lives at risk, and to live and work for long periods under the most challenging conditions.
This House, the country and the media need to understand that military service is like no other in the demands that it places on individuals. Soldiers exist to engage in war, and war places unique demands on them. They overcome these challenges only if morale, discipline and training are of the highest order. From every soldier is demanded exceptional levels of commitment, self-sacrifice and mutual trust. We therefore support the most vigorous and detailed investigations to restore the good name of the British Army.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the following. What representation has his department received from Bertrand Ramcharan, the acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding the alleged abuses of Iraqi prisoners by British forces in Iraq? Has his department's investigation been able to confirm the authenticity of the photographs published by the Daily Mirror? Military analysts have expressed reservations. They do look very contrived, as does the timing of these allegations straight after reports of American ill-treatment of prisoners. Indeed, there is speculation that these images may be a dangerous hoax.
When were the specific incidents alleged to have taken place? How many alleged incidents of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers were reported to senior officers at that time? Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the training given to our troops for the handling of detainees prior to deployment and when they are in theatre?
The allegations centre around the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. This regiment is over 300 years old and carries more battle honours on its regimental

1029
colours than any other infantry regiment of the line. In the recent campaign in Iraq its commanding officer was awarded the DSO. The RSM was awarded the Military Cross and the regiment received several distinctions. If wrong has been done, then clearly it must immediately be dealt with. But let this House and the wider country keep in perspective 300 years of the most loyal and distinguished service to the Crown and the nation.
5.26p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is important that the veracity of the photographs is ascertained. However, the damage has already been done in publishing the photographs. They have been flashed round the world and the smear on the British Army's reputation—a reputation so hard won—has already occurred in the minds of many. In that respect the photographs have lost some of the hearts and minds that have been won over.
Although I speak only in my own right, I question the veracity of the photographs. The American photographs were taken as trophy photographs. The American soldiers were not scared to show their faces. Those photographs were taken to show those American soldiers committing horrendous acts. However, the soldiers in the photographs that we are discussing, despite the question marks regarding their uniforms, were photographed in such a pose that their identity was hidden, which is slightly strange. Many trophy photographs are taken by soldiers in the field, for example, in Basra, although obviously not in such a situation as the one that we are discussing. However, that is a question that has to be answered.
I refer to the pristine state of the uniforms in the photographs. Having served in such uniform, I know that it is incredibly difficult to keep it in such a pristine state. Anyone who had been involved in the activity in which it was alleged the British soldiers in the photographs had been involved could not have kept the uniform in such a pressed state.
The work of British soldiers abroad is of the highest standard. However, the MoD stated recently that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to soldiers in Iraq. Can that really be the case, and should it be the case, especially after the questions being asked about other outstanding cases, which I shall not raise today but which are obviously being processed under the due process of law? As the UK has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, is it not the case, as many courts believe, that the agents of the state are bound by the rules of the convention wherever they act for the state?
However these photographs are to be viewed, they have made the work of British soldiers in southern Iraq even more dangerous than it was previously. Noble Lords on these Benches support that work which is necessary. We hope very much that the consequences of the publication of these photographs will not be the loss of British life.
5.29p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their support. There is very little with which I could disagree in what they said, and the House would feel the same way. I told noble Lords that I was briefly in Iraq last week and in Basra last Wednesday. Like everyone else who has been there, including many Members of this House and the other place, I was immensely and immediately impressed by the conduct of the British troops whom I came across. They have an incredibly difficult task and, from what I saw, perform it with skill, humour and understanding, and are indeed a credit to this country.
I shall come to the questions in a moment, but I shall make a point that both noble Lords made without stating it obviously. The matter is serious either way. If the allegation made in the Daily Mirror is proved, it speaks for itself how serious that is for the reputation that the British Armed Forces enjoy—rightly, in my view. Of course I shall not comment on whether the photographs are authentic, but if it turns out that they are not, that is pretty serious for all kinds of reasons, not least that it will potentially have put British lives at risk.
I am not aware of any representations made from the relevant United Nations official, but I shall check that out for the noble Lord and let him know. I stress that the authenticity is absolutely a matter for the Special Investigations Branch, which along with others is looking into the issue at present.
I reassure the noble Lord and the House that all in the Armed Forces are given thorough mandatory training courses, which include specific guidance on handling prisoners of war. All personnel must attend refresher training every year. The House will not be surprised to hear that, before going to Iraq, all personnel are briefed on the rules of engagement and on procedures for dealing with prisoners of war and other detainees. It may not be so widely known that each combat unit is required to have eight senior noncommissioned officers trained in handling prisoners of war. Units responsible for the routine handling of detainees conduct further specialist training.
I was delighted by what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said about the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Indeed, it has a very proud history, as was well said in this House and earlier this afternoon in another place.
I hear with interest the view of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on authenticity. He will forgive me if I do not comment on it; he would not expect me to. The Ministry of Defence has given some attention to human rights legislation. It is our belief that. strictly speaking in law, it does not apply in Iraq. Whether it does or not may one day be tested. The important point to make is that the Armed Forces are fully aware of their obligations under international law, and training in the Geneva Convention is given to soldiers. The suggestion made in some quarters that our troops are not subject to the rule of law is not true; CPA order 17 sets out the jurisdiction that applies to the personnel of the multinational force and others. UK personnel are subject to UK law, as they would be in the United Kingdom.

1031
Even at this early stage, this episode tells us how important it is for there to be caution and good, sensible comment on all sides, rather than for anyone to rush to judgment.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the editor of the Daily Mirror must be either the stupidest or the most avaricious man alive to have published the photographs in question, whether they be real or fake? Will he tell me whether the soldiers who are alleged to have taken the photographs were paid? Bearing in mind the damage that the editor may have inflicted on allied captives in future, will the Minister tell me whether the law permits him to be charged with an offence?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand the strong feelings expressed in those questions, but I am afraid that I am not able to make any comment on them from the Dispatch Box. We very much hope that the Daily Mirror will give the investigators the fullest co-operation. Indeed, the leader in that newspaper last Saturday stated that,
"for the sake of the British Army's reputation and the integrity of every decent member of our forces, those who carried out this and other savage acts must be court-martialled".
Those are sentiments that we can all understand. However, the newspaper claims to know the identity of one of the attackers and says that he and a colleague provided the photographs. That information has been the basis for the allegations on which the noble Baroness commented.
Nevertheless, the Mirror appears intent on protecting the identities of its informants because the soldiers fear reprisals by the Army. That is not a concept that I understand very clearly in this context, or at all. I have every confidence, as I suspect that the House will, that anyone who has relevant information will be treated fairly and lawfully, and that his or her rights will be fully respected. We hope that the Mirror will reconsider its position on that matter and assist the investigating authorities in getting to the bottom of the allegations as quickly as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, those of us who served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, have had contact with them over the years and know the very high standards inculcated—standards that we have experienced ourselves—find the allegations extremely difficult to believe. Nevertheless, we live in a very wicked world and, as my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, reminded me, war brutalises. I very much welcome the Government's Statement that our immediate priority is to establish the truth as quickly as possible.
If, as I very much hope, the allegations are discovered to be unfounded, will Her Majesty's Government think seriously about what can be done to rehabilitate the reputation of the regiment concerned? If, very sadly, they are discovered to be well founded, will there be wider lessons to learn from them? It will not be enough simply
1032
to court-martial a few soldiers. Something fundamental will have gone wrong with the whole system of checking and training, and that will need to be looked into.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he said; no one could disagree with his comments. However, he will understand that I am not really in a position to answer his questions. If the allegations are proved, that will be a serious matter that of course goes beyond the regiment in question.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as one who has been very critical from the beginning of our decision to go to war in Iraq, I nevertheless endorse very warmly the tributes paid to the performance of our troops. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is right in saying that, whether the photographs are proved to be fakes or genuine, the damage has been done—very serious damage in the Middle East. I was originally going to ask precisely the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The House should be told whether the Daily Mirror paid for the photographs.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has vast experience in the Middle East. I was in Jordan before going to Iraq last week and learnt a lot. I dare say that if I had been there after the photographs had been shown, I would have learnt a lot more. The question of whether the Daily Mirror paid money to whoever provided it with the photographs is of equal fascination to me, but I am not in a position to be able to answer it.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, has it been drawn to my noble friend's attention that the wording used on the front page of this morning's Daily Mirror and the wording used in several BBC programmes over the weekend made it clear that in the eyes of the people responsible for those programmes the charges have already been proved? It is not a scandal that language of that sort should be used and will my noble friend make representations to the chairman of the BBC and the editor of the Daily Mirror to that effect? Will he tell us what response he receives?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it was for precisely that reason that I said at the end of my reply to my fellow Front Benchers opposite that we all need to approach this matter with considerable caution and care—and perhaps that includes particularly the press and the media. Of course I have seen the Daily Mirror headline today. I have not had the pleasure of listening to what the BBC has said about the matter today, although I listened to it over the weekend. What I can say to my noble friend is that I will take back his request and see what can be done.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister clarify matters regarding prisoners of war? In the articles in the Daily Mirror it was alleged that the individuals who had been ill-treated had been arrested on ordinary

1033
criminal charges and that they were not handed over to the Iraqi police because they knew that they would immediately be released. Can the noble Lord say what instructions have been given to the forces about people who have been arrested since the cessation of hostilities, who, presumably, he would not classify as prisoners of war?
Does the Minister not think that, irrespective of the outcome of the investigations that are now being conducted, there should be some independent authority to which Iraqi civilians could complain when there are allegations of ill-treatment by coalition forces? Will the Minister reply to the suggestion that I made on 20 April, before this matter blew up, that we should consult our allies on the possibility of inviting an independent authority, appointed under Article 90 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, to go to Iraq and conduct an independent international investigation of any allegations that have been made against either the British or the American coalition forces?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not sure that I did use the expression "prisoners of war".
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord did, my Lords.
Lord Bach: My Lords, if I did then I accept what the noble Lord is saying—that we are not talking just about prisoners of war but about Iraqi citizens who are in the custody of the coalition forces. I understand that. Regarding all of the questions and points raised by the noble Lord as to how we might progress, I shall take them back with me and give him an answer. All of those matters are now of distinct relevance.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, strictly speaking these are not prisoners of war because they can be referred to as such only if there has been a formal declaration of war between states. In such cases there is a protecting power, a neutral power who has access to the prisoners and where they are detained. That cannot be so in this case. All that can happen is, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there should be appointed—and appointed soon—an independent power that will have the same access as a protecting power under the Geneva Conventions. That is the only way that one can cope with a situation where there are armed hostilities between those seeking to occupy and pursue peacekeeping duties and the others seeking to oppose them by arms. There must be some diplomatic effort soon to establish an independent person, body, state or arbitrator.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am advised that we are entitled to arrest and hold people who are, in our view, a serious security threat. Internees are told of their right to have their status reviewed. An independent military body reviews the status of internees after 28 days. UK forces in turn inform the ICRC, which informs families, and a list of internees is held by the local police. As I have said, there is considerable
1034
training of the Armed Forces regarding their obligations under international law, not least the Geneva Conventions.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, during the Second World War the Daily Mirror published a cartoon drawn by the caricaturist "Zec" showing a sailor dying on an oil ship. The Prime Minister, Churchill, summoned the general manager and the editor of the Daily Mirror, Mr Cecil Thomas, who happened to be my uncle, and told them that if that sort of thing occurred again the Daily Mirror would be closed down. Can the Minister say whether, even with the present uncertain, illegal or undefined war, any consideration has been given to the possibility of some kind of censorship?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my understanding is that the answer to that question is "no". That is certainly true of the prospect of closing down the Daily Mirror or any similar newspaper. That would be a brave, indeed foolish, course for any Government even to consider. I have to say that however difficult we may find this— which we all do; and I find it difficult to stand here and understand why the articles appeared when they did—we have to recognise that what we and our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world stand for is a press that says things that we do not always like.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can we he assured that International Committee of the Red Cross personnel have total and unrestricted access at all times to all prisoners at the Basra detention centre? Can we impress upon our American coalition allies that they should allow precisely the same level of access to the ICRC at the Abu Graib prison in Baghdad?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the UK currently holds about 80 security internees in southern Iraq. Of course we have no interest in holding anyone unless they pose a serious threat to security. The noble Lord will know that the right to hold such people derives from the 4th Geneva Convention and, as I have tried to say this afternoon, we take our responsibilities very seriously under that convention. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that the International Committee of the Red Cross has full and unrestricted access at the detention facilities.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is that at all times and to all prisoners?
Lord Bach: My Lords, "full and unrestricted access" is the phrase that I have here. Whenever the ICRC asks for it, it has that access. Those are the words that I use. I would remind all noble Lords that the reason why we have to hold people at all is because our forces are so often in danger of lethal, deadly attacks. It is right and proper that we arrest those who pose such a threat. It is equally right that we allow the full access that we do.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, returning to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I wish to ask the Minister three questions which I think that he can answer without prejudicing the outcome of this inquiry. First, in view of the obvious sensitivity of the photographs, what information, if any, was given by the Daily Mirror to the Government of its intention to publish the photographs beforehand? Secondly, what attempts have been made by the Government to obtain from the Daily Mirror the evidence on which it bases its claim of the accuracy of the photographs? Thirdly, what has been the Daily Mirror's reply?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can certainly attempt to answer all three of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. First, as I understand it, the Daily Mirror informed the Ministry of Defence of the existence of the photographs before they were published, but not very long before. The noble Lord will recall they were published in Saturday morning's edition of the newspaper. I understand that it was some time on Friday afternoon, the day before, that we were first informed. If I am wrong about that, then of course I will let him and the House know in the usual way.
Secondly, as to the investigation taking place, I think I have already said that the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police, is "in touch"—the expression I used—with the Daily Mirror, and I have already expressed our hope that the newspaper will give the fullest co-operation. As to the third question, I am afraid that it is too early to be able to tell the House whether it has given the fullest cooperation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that many of us were deeply impressed by his words when he said that the outcome of this issue either way would be a grave and serious matter? Does he agree that ultimately stability, peace and the future of Iraq depend upon the battle for hearts and minds, and that therefore, in any security operations, only the highest exemplary standards are acceptable? Does he further agree that the message that should go out from this House today is: first, that we have nothing but unqualified respect and admiration for all those in the armed services who are determined at all times that the highest standards will be maintained; and, secondly, that anything of the kind alleged ever happening within the British services simply will not be tolerated?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can agree with what my noble friend says. The "highest exemplary standards", to use his expression, is exactly what we expect and look for from our British Armed Forces, and that is what we receive. Of course, it would be a sad blow if these allegations were proved to be correct.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in endorsing the warm tributes that have been paid to the general conduct of British forces in Basra and in Iraq in recent times, is not the least of their achievements that they seem to have opened up the opportunity for freedom
1036
of the press in Iraq, something quite unknown under Saddam Hussein? Each one of the editors of those media organisations that are now able to communicate in Iraq will learn that with such freedom comes responsibility as well. In this exceptionally dangerous and volatile situation, that responsibility clearly rests also with the editor of the Daily Mirror, to ensure that whatever information can help to reach the truth of this matter is made available, not just after prolonged legal proceedings or prolonged applications by the Government but immediately to those responsible for this investigation. The fact of these revelations has undoubtedly made the life of other British troops in that region and elsewhere more dangerous, and the editor of the Daily Mirror now has a duty to give every co-operation to that investigation.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with huge experience on these matters. I agree with every word he said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that atrocity in war is as old as war itself? We have no reason for believing that sin is more original in this century than in others, though the means of publicising it are more ready to hand. Does he also agree that one of the things that distinguishes the great armies from the good ones is expedition and authority in dealing with this sort of thing, and that therefore, should these charges turn out to be proved, reprimands would be insufficient? Does the Minister further agree that when General Sir Michael Jackson said that anyone found guilty of such action is unfit to wear the Queen's uniform he was looking in the right direction?
Lord Bach: My Lords, again I agree exactly with what the noble Earl has said. The British Armed Forces have the respect of the world, and if these matters are proved they will be dealt with extremely seriously.

Children Bill [H.L.]
5.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): 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.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"Qualifications for Commissioner

(1) The Commissioner shall have had ten years practice as either—

(a) a residential social worker;

(b) a child psychotherapist;

(c) a health visitor;

(d) a youth worker; or

(e) a child care worker;

or equivalent professional practice in direct work with children.

(2) The Commissioner shall have had experience of professional practice in direct work with children not less than one year prior to his appointment."

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to probe the Government on the qualification and selection of the Children's Commissioner. It has been my concern, and that of some social workers I have spoken with, as well as the Royal College of Nursing, that the commissioner should have some substantial first-hand experience of professional work directly with children. This is the assurance I am seeking from the Government in this particular amendment.
I also feel it important that the commissioner has this experience of being part of the childcare workforce, broadly speaking, over many years, and that that experience is relatively current, because we recognise—and the Government most definitely recognise—that it is in the area of the childcare workforce that we have so much to do to improve outcomes for children. Perhaps this is the point to say that, when we think about children, it is good to have the focus on children; but we must recognise that most children exist within a family, or within a caring context, where they are more or less dependent and it is essential that the carers are well-supported. Regrettably, this has not been the case so often in the past.
I am very glad, if I may say so, that my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Howe, among other Peers, have put down amendments to the Bill concerning the inclusion of parents and families. In previous and recent discussions, the noble Baroness has implied—and I hope I am not misquoting her—that she regrets the fact that parents were not included more in the deliberations and consultation on this Bill, and that this is a matter she is now seeking to address.
We are short of 6,000 foster carers in England. They have not been supported in the past as they should have been. Until recently, 80 per cent of residential workers had no relevant qualification for working with perhaps the most vulnerable children in our society. In the secure estate only last week, a 15 year-old boy was killed following control and restraint intervention at the Rainsbrook secure unit. There are steps forward within the secure estate and I do welcome them, but if we compare our practice in this country with that followed on the Continent we see that in most cases such a boy would not be placed in a prison in the first place, and might well find himself in a children's home where most of the practitioners would have three years' relevant qualification and training to work with such troubled young people.
When I listened to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in the Chamber last week to a Question on the boy's death, he said the officers working at that establishment are licensed. I thought he meant that they are licensed in childcare, but what he was actually saying was that they are licensed in the application of restraint on children. That, of course, is very important. However, prison officers dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds can be trained for nine weeks. They may then do two or three days' further training, after which the only mandatory training is in control and restraint: yet they can work with these vulnerable children. I understand that the training at Rainsbrook is similar. These examples illustrate the huge mountain we must climb as regards the childcare workforce and its neglect. There should be an assurance that whoever is charged with the post has real experience in the subject.
Perhaps I may give an example of someone who exemplifies that experience. I refer to Peter Wilson, recently retired, who for the past 10 years nurtured the YoungMinds charity dealing with the mental health of children. He trained and practised for many years as a child psychotherapist and his wife is a psychotherapist. He is totally imbued in the work. I have taken his invaluable advice on many occasions and he has instructed me on how to prioritise and choose the most important project where the interests of children are most in danger.
The commissioner needs to have that kind of experience in order to select from a range of projects presented to him those which are the most important for children. I look forward to the Minister's response and I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 7. Amendment No. 2 seeks to involve children in the appointment of the commissioner. If the commissioner is to be someone who feels sympathetic towards children, who they will feel confident to speak to in confidence, who is able to speak to them and be understood, who uses their language and yet has credibility in their sight, children must be involved in his appointment. Experiments have been carried out by various organisations involved with children in the selection of professionals. For instance, many teachers have been appointed with the involvement of children. The NSPCC, in which I express an interest as parliamentary ambassador, has often used children to assist it in the appointment of staff. The children take the task extremely seriously and often show maturity beyond their years. Their input can be extremely valuable because sometimes they can be more perceptive than adults in getting beneath the surface that we all show at interview.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 relate to the appointment and terms and conditions of the commissioner. The Bill proposes that the children's commissioner is to be appointed and discharged by the Minister of State; that he will report to the Secretary of State rather than to Parliament; and that he will have his subject set by the Secretary of State. Concern has been raised that being

1039
answerable to Ministers will affect the independence of the children's commissioner. The Minister will know that the independence of the commissioner exercises many noble Lords.
Perhaps I may quote from the ninth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It states:
"existing arrangements are insufficiently independent from Government to ensure that the rights and interests of all children in England are fully protected … independence is the key value that a Children's Commissioner would add to existing mechanisms … We favour [a commissioner] independent from but working closely with central government and other agencies".
The Government may contend, and the Minister may be about to tell us, that the Nolan principles address this concern. However, these amendments have been tabled with the aim of probing whether there is an alternative model of selection which would retain parliamentary accountability but increase independence from the Executive.
I do not propose to go into a great deal of detail about how the model might work in practice because these are probing amendments. Briefly, Amendment No. 3 proposes that the children's commissioner will be appointed not by the Secretary of State but by Her Majesty on the nomination of Parliament. Amendment No. 4 proposes that Parliament will set the terms and conditions of the commissioner. Amendment No. 5 proposes that if he resigns, he must do so in writing to Her Majesty. Amendment No. 6 proposes that he would not be removed from office by the Secretary of State but by Her Majesty after addresses from both Houses of Parliament. That would ensure that he could be dismissed only with parliamentary approval. Of course, although I have said "he", I mean "he or she".
Amendment No. 7 would mean that the Secretary of State would not control remuneration and funding. It would be done by Parliament to such an extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury. Therefore, the system of funding would also be independent from direct ministerial control.
We have not just invented this model; it is drawn from other successful models of appointment used, for example, for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the National Audit Office and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is appointed by the Crown under Letters Patent on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Scottish Commissioner is appointed by the Crown on the nomination of Parliament.
The method by which Parliament would select the Children's Commissioner could be as follows, based on the National Audit Office model. That is the purest example of parliamentary accountability almost fully separated from the Executive. The chief executive of the NAO is appointed by a resolution of the Commons on a Motion which must be moved jointly by the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The chief executive is answerable to a non-statutory board—the Public Accounts Commission.
1040
This comprises the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Leader of the House of Commons and seven Back-Benchers appointed by the House.
Therefore, a model such as this—I do not intend to be too prescriptive—would ensure that the appointment and the terms and conditions of the commissioner would be as independent as possible from the Executive. I hope that the amendments receive a fair wind from the Minister.
Lord Rix: In supporting Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others, I must first declare an interest as president of the Royal Mencap Society. Furthermore, I am not certain that the amendment as currently drafted goes quite far enough. Amendment No. 2 suggests that:
"The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve—(a) children".
I would have liked that to have read,
"(a) all groups of children, including those with disabilities".
Later in Schedule 1, the appointment of staff is dwelt upon. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be effective equality and disability training before such staff are allotted their various tasks?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support Amendment No. 2 in particular. It is important that children are involved in what is, after all, their Bill. They should be involved in every aspect of it and certainly in the selection of the English commissioner.
Many years ago, when working for the principal of the Architectural Association School of Architecture, I discovered that students were part of the governing body and that they took part in selecting the principal of the school. In those days, that was an unusual occurrence.
Over time, there has been much more involvement of the individuals concerned with an organisation in the selection of people appointed to it. However, from the point of view of independence and its verification and the crucial need to involve children from an early age in citizenship issues, I support the amendments and that one in particular.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I add my voice to those who have supported the idea of children being involved in the appointment of the commissioner. However, I am aware of the difficulties and nuances which exist in appointment to any office. What do the Government have in mind in terms of guidance and training for the children who are to undertake the task?
Lord Hylton: While I understand some of the enthusiasms of noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments, I hope that the Minister will take into account the extraordinary range of ability—mental and other—and the general capacity of children to make responsible choices in such matters. We do not want to be carried away by great currents of enthusiasm; we need to consider the matter coolly and objectively.
Lord Northbourne: I agree with those who have spoken about the importance of consulting children,

1041
although we must not get the matter out of proportion. However, if the Government were to accept the amendment it seems to me odd that the only people to be consulted would be, on the one hand, children, and on the other, organisations; not, for example, any individual or parents who have parental responsibility and therefore frontline knowledge in relation to the child.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I apologise for being a few minutes late and therefore having to gather where I am in the debate and which clauses are being addressed. Perhaps someone will put me right if I find myself in the wrong place.
I have some concerns about the suggested amendment in relation to the appointment of the commissioner, possibly by Her Majesty the Queen. One of the things that has always concerned me about the existing commissioners and the present suggestions is the accountability of commissioners. I have not been able to work out to whom the Welsh commissioner is accountable. I have always thought that it might be more appropriate that commissioners worked to perhaps a non-departmental public body or a board of some kind.
I have concerns about placing so much emphasis—and faith, if you like—in one individual. I have had experience recently—and much in the past—where people appointed to very senior positions have not always turned out to be what one expected. Therefore I believe that the accountability needs to be to the Secretary of State, which may be unpopular with some of my voluntary colleagues. Such accountability will ensure that, should there be difficulties, that person can quickly be held to account; whereas in other circumstances if it comes through a parliamentary discussion, if the matter has to come back to Parliament twice as the amendment appears to imply—I may have misunderstood—it could take a length of time that could bring the institution into disrepute.
I have seen another organisation where that happened; where the whole organisation was brought into disrepute. While I am on my feet I add that I hope we will find a proper way of consulting children and young people. Can we also say "young people"? Adolescents perpetually find themselves out of the loop, not receiving the general concern and emphasis, and on the whole they do not like to be called children; they like to be called young people. On the whole we are likely to be consulting young people rather than small children, because they are likely to be able to make an assessment and take part in such an appointment system.
I am sure that we will find a way in which that can happen properly and proportionately, but I have reservations about accountability.
Lord Puttnam: I rise on behalf of these Benches. I added my name to Amendment No. 2 and I declare an interest as president of UNICEF UK, one of the organisations that will undoubtedly be involved in any such discussions with the commissioner.
1042
I want to make a more general point. The creation of a Children's Commissioner is a welcome move, for which people have lobbied for a long time. It is the second time in my brief career in your Lordships' House that I have been involved in such a situation. The previous time was over the formation of the General Teaching Council, for which I drew the long or short straw—depending on one's point of view—as the inaugural chair.
I chaired that organisation for two years and discovered the hard way that if one does not get the detail right in the creation of an organisation, no matter how welcome and acclaimed it might be, it can create impossible problems later. The General Teaching Council has suffered immeasurably from the poor legislation that was allowed to slip through the House six years ago. I shall be on my feet frequently during the next couple of sittings of the Committee to make that point. There are a number of ways in which this legislation could be improved. I welcome it enormously and I hope that I do not make a nuisance of myself. I am extremely keen that the same mistakes are not made twice.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Like other noble Lords who have spoken I welcome the creation of a commissioner for England and the extension of the concept of the Children's Commissioner. As noble Lords are aware, a Children's Commissioner has already been in place in Wales for some time, so there is an experience to be drawn on. It is based on that that I wish to support Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, to ensure that the England/UK commissioner functions beyond the political arena and to make the commissioner as independent as possible.
The experience in Wales has demonstrated that the Children's Commissioner needs to be independent. He has challenged the Assembly over its implementation of the Assembly's strategy on child and adolescent mental health. Such strategies are by their nature in large part political because they are often driven by the political background behind their development. The challenge laid was informed by the views of children and young people. That kind of challenge impacts on local and central government and on other agencies for the benefit of children. It is only with independence that such a challenge can be placed.
Lord Elton: May I chime in at this point with an apology for arriving three minutes late and missing the introduction to the debate by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? I feel a passionate enthusiasm for giving the commissioner security of tenure. By all means let him be responsible or answerable to a Secretary of State or whomever, but let him not be dismissible thereby under any ordinary procedure.
I have sadly just come from the memorial service for the late Stephen Tumin, who was a great example of what a thorn in the flesh of officialdom an official in such a position can be. Were he not protected by statute I suspect that the commissioner would not long survive confrontation with a government with whom

1043
he disagreed about some fundamental right of children. Therefore I am in support of the principle behind the amendments that give him such security.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the principle of Amendment No. 2. To the best of my knowledge it is not without precedent. Children were involved in the appointment of the Welsh commissioner—no doubt my noble friend can consult with the commissioner for Wales. I believe that the amendment should be supported.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has already been an interesting debate that has ranged across a number of issues that will be tackled in greater depth as we proceed through the Committee stage. The group of amendments is about the appointment of the Children's Commissioner. Amendment No. 1, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, so ably set out, specifies the particular experience the commissioner should have. Amendment No. 2, supported across the Committee, will provide for the involvement of children and young people and children's organisations in the appointment of the commissioner. Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will provide for the commissioner to be appointed by and accountable to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying thrust of Amendment No. 1. I believe that the noble Earl is looking for a commissioner who has a real feel for, and understanding of, the position of children and young people—indeed, the noble Earl and I discussed this point earlier today
—including, I surmise, those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds; hence, the list that appears in the amendment.
In principle, I support the idea that the commissioner must win the confidence of young people and children in many different circumstances and convince them that he or she is able to reflect fairly their views and to work on their behalf. For me, the watchword in relation to the individual and the office is "confidence". That means that the officeholder must have a certain set of skills, but I am not convinced that a list of professional skills is required—hence, I do not support the amendment. I have met charismatic psychotherapists, social workers, youth workers and many others who work with children, and I have met many other people who I believe understand how to talk to children who have different knowledge, who come from different backgrounds and who react to adults very differently.
Therefore, the premise upon which we wish to appoint the commissioner is that that individual will have the ability to win the confidence of children and will know how to listen to them and when to seek advice on how to listen to them and will ensure that children's views, ideas and best interests are taken to the heart of the work of the office. On that basis, and with an assurance that we shall be seeking credibility and approachability together with experience, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
1044
As for the appointment process, which is raised in Amendment No. 2, it is nice to be able to say "yes". I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others who are concerned about this issue that it is our intention to involve all children and young people directly in the appointment of the commissioner. That point was made to us by children and young people during the consultation process. The selection process will be in keeping with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
We shall also be looking to address the point made by the right reverend Prelate based on the experience of colleagues elsewhere—particularly those in Northern Ireland and in other commissions. Noble Lords may know that we have already sought the views of children's organisations in establishing a children and young people's board within the Department for Education and Skills. We would expect that board to play a role in the appointment of the commissioner and, in that way, the matter of taking into account the views of organisations would be addressed.
I do not envisage that children's organisations will participate in the selection process of the commissioner for children and young people. As I have already indicated, the commission must take its authenticity, and indeed authority, from children and young people. Therefore, young people—rather than adults, however well meaning, who speak on their behalf—need to be involved in the appointment. I hope that noble Lords will feel content that I have answered that point appropriately and that they will not wish to press Amendment No. 2.
I know that Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, to which a number of noble Lords, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke, are inspired by the wish to see a commissioner who is independent of government. I can assure noble Lords that that is also the Government's intention, and we believe that that can be properly ensured in this part of the Bill. I know that we shall have many discussions on the issue of independence at other stages of our deliberations in Committee. However, we believe that independence will be achieved through the normal procedure of the appointment being made by Her Majesty's Government through the Secretary of State.
As noble Lords will be aware, the commissioner will be accountable to the Secretary of State, who is, in turn, ultimately answerable to Parliament for the actions and responsibilities that he undertakes. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that the Children's Commissioner will head a non-departmental public body. The office will be set up through the normal democratic process. We believe that propriety will be assured by the rules governing public appointments and that that is the right way to approach the appointment. Notwithstanding that, as I have already indicated, during the course of our debates there will be other opportunities to consider properly and fully the extent to which we have ensured that the theme of independence runs throughout the Bill.
I turn to the suggestion that the appointment be made by Her Majesty the Queen. In practice, the Government will be expected to carry out the

1045
appointment and to operate on Her Majesty's behalf. Therefore, in any event, I am not sure that the amendment would have the effect that the noble Baroness seeks. With the proviso that we are reflecting on the whole issue of independence and shall deliberate and discuss that further during the course of the Bill's proceedings, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her helpful reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Children's Commissioner]
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 33, line 31, leave out "and on such conditions (if any)"
The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief. This is yet another amendment which seeks to ensure that the Children's Commissioner is independent. Its intention is to probe what the Government mean by the words,
"and on such conditions (if any)",
in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1. Those of us who are exercised about the independence, and thereby the credibility, of the Children's Commissioner believe that if the Secretary of State were to impose conditions on the funding of the commissioner, that would prejudice the independence of the office holder. As all politicians know, the power follows the money. Therefore, I am most anxious to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I support the amendment, which highlights what, to me, is an unacceptable and unnecessary fetter on the independence of the commissioner. It seems to me to be one thing for the Secretary of State to decide what the commissioner's annual budget should be but quite another for him to dole out the budget with strings attached to it.
As expressed, the provision in paragraph 7 amounts to a blanket power of direction. One can imagine the Secretary of State wanting to ring-fence money intended to fund, let us say, a formal inquiry, but allowing him to impose conditions on the use of any or all of the commissioner's budget is, I think, over the top. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point and, even if she does so, I hope that she will also agree to have another look at the wording.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, have added my name to the amendment. On the issue of independence, I believe it is particularly important that nothing in the Bill seems to limit that independence. The matter of security of tenure was raised. These are all aspects which could be used to impose conditions one way or another on the work of the commissioner.
Obviously this is a probing amendment and it would be interesting if the Minister could tell us the thinking behind inserting into the Bill the phrase that we are
1046
seeking to remove. It seems to go a little too far. A budget for a body or quango such as will be led by the commissioner is set in general terms and, in my view—and certainly from my experience—it should be left to the organisation to spend in the most useful way that it considers appropriate.
Lord Puttnam: I added my name to the amendment because I am fearful of our old enemy "unintended consequences". While I accept that the Bill has been brought before the House by a Government who wish to have a Children's Commissioner, I am very concerned that, 10 or 15 years from now, we may well find ourselves with a government who do not want a Children's Commissioner and who would find this rather open-ended invitation to get rid of the commissioner almost too good to resist. I should very much appreciate it if the Minister could find a way to lose the words in precisely the manner that we have indicated.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful for the opportunity to explain precisely what is in our minds in the wording of the Bill. As noble Lords are aware, the Secretary of State will make regular grant payments for the commissioner, in order for the commissioner to discharge the functions conferred on him or her by the legislation.
It is a standard condition of payment that the money is spent on functions within the scope of the commissioner's legislative powers. Another example might be that reimbursement of travelling costs would be within agreed rates, which is standard practice. The reason that this wording exists is that it mirrors Schedule 2 paragraph 14 of the Care Standards Act, under which the National Assembly for Wales funds the Welsh commissioner. We have indeed thought to look very carefully at how that works.
But let me be absolutely clear and stress that there is no intention for the Secretary of State to stipulate how the commissioner should spend the annual grant paid to him, beyond the basic condition that it should be spent on the functions that have been conferred on the commissioner. It will be for the commissioner and not the Secretary of State to determine the priorities, and how the commissioner spends their time and money on different issues.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, a condition which it might be reasonable to attach to a particular payment would be if there was a supplementary payment, in order for the commissioner to undertake an inquiry under Clause 4. In that case, of course the Secretary of State would wish the additional money given for that inquiry to be spent on that inquiry. We are taking this power only in order to ensure the appropriate use of public funds. The money must be spent on the functions conferred by Parliament, not at all to limit the commissioner's independence. I hope with that assurance that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment, particularly as I have

1047
indicated that it mirrors what happened with the Care Standards Act in order to set up the functions of the Welsh commissioner.
Lord Elton: I do not know that I am entirely reassured by what the noble Baroness said, for the reasons which have already been given—that the intentions of the present Government may not be the intentions of a successor government.
If the main or only purpose of these words is to see that the commissioner spends his money only on his functions, it would be perfectly possible to put that on the face of the Bill rather than giving an open-ended cheque—an open-ended power to limit his expenditure to anything that the Secretary of State thinks his expenditure should be limited to. Equally there may be other formulae to deal with the other difficulties that the noble Baroness sees. I hope that this is not a point that we shall lose sight of at a later stage. Indeed, if noble Lords have been thinking about the ways in which that could be dealt with now, they might like to join in at this moment, because that is a matter of some importance.
Lord Lucas: If I wish to give a sum of money to someone to do something, I have a contract, and that seems to be the right way in which the Secretary of State should deal with this commissioner if they want them to do some extra work. They would say, "Here, you can have £50,000 if you will do this work. Sign here. All done. Tick. Off you go". To have this wording in the Bill merely to substitute for that, in a rather inadequate way—because after all it hardly specifies anything—opens up all the dangers which have been specified by my noble friend and others who proposed this amendment. The wording is so wide, it could be used for anything. It has no function. The noble Baroness has not outlined a function that cannot be easily replaced in other and safer ways. It really should go.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I too am rather concerned by the points that have been raised. I would like to know what there is to prevent the Secretary of State giving money for a particular purpose without putting anything about it on the face of the Bill. The point that has been raised about unintended consequences is very important. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it a little more thought.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will try to give noble Lords more information if I have it, but my understanding—which has clearly been challenged, and if it is wrong then rightly so—is that that is a standard process to ensure that public money is used for the purposes in which it is taken forward, and in this case given to the new commissioner. But if there is strength of feeling in the Committee, I shall look again to see whether that wording does reflect what has happened in previous legislation and have appropriate
1048
correspondence or conversations with noble Lords for whom that is clearly an important issue, to see if we might resolve that.
Lord Elton: Before the Minister finishes, could I clarify something? It seems that we are agreed that the commissioner should spend public money on the commissioner's functions and no other. The noble Baroness suggests that common form requires that the Secretary of State should be able to say, "You shall spend it on this function and not on that function". In other words, the Secretary of State can prioritise the work of the commissioner. That would be the effect of what she is saying. I hope that it is not her intention.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is certainly not my intention and I apologise if that was the effect. I was trying to say that the way in which one would expect public money to be used would be that it is conferred upon the commissioner within the commissioner's defined role, and not to be spent on something outside that role. Within that, it is for the commissioner to determine the priorities and the way in which the money is spent.
The only additional point I made was that if there were additional resources given for a particular inquiry, noble Lords would expect the Secretary of State to say that money is for the purpose of that inquiry. That would be the only other stipulation. However, as always, if my clarity is less than it should be, I will ensure that I correct that by correspondence and pursue that with noble Lords.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the Minister for her efforts to clarify the situation, and particularly for her promise to have a look at whether the concerns of noble Lords can be addressed. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made a very good point about the possibility of a future government using something like that to squeeze out a commissioner that they may not want. I particularly echo the first intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He reflected exactly what was going through my mind as the Minister spoke; he was quicker to his feet than I was.
However, I am particularly heartened to hear the Minister rely on the wording of the Care Standards Act, which created the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I hope that later in our discussions she will be relying in a similar way on the Act that gave the Commissioner for Wales his powers and independence. Perhaps I may threaten the noble Baroness that those words may come back to haunt her later in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General function of Commissioner]:
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No.9:
Page 1, line 8, leave out "awareness of the views" and insert "and safeguarding the rights"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17, 20, 22 and 39.
We now come to a very important principle that is close to the hearts of many noble Lords. The principle that holds this whole group of amendments together is that children's rights should be enshrined in the powers of the Children's Commissioner. I will briefly go through what these various amendments do.
Amendment No. 9 is arguably the most critical of all this group. It would change the functions of the commissioner to one of promoting the rights and interests of children. As the Bill currently stands, the general function is so weak that it violates the Paris principles and the whole purpose of a children's commissioner as defined by the United Nations. In addition, the fact that the English commissioner would have a different remit from the commissioner in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would create a major inequality in the protection afforded to children in England compared to the rest of the UK, and make seamless collaboration between the commissioners and the jurisdictions rather problematic.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 ensure that anyone exercising functions that affect children have regard to their rights as well as their views and interests. In Amendment No. 17, rather than merely "consider" matters relating to the interests of children, the commissioner could review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children, which is a much more robust approach.
Amendment No. 20 means that the commissioner should indeed be able to make representations to the Secretary of State, but also any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children, and challenge government policy, or solicit government intervention where necessary. We believe that that is part and parcel of being a really powerful champion for children.
Amendment No. 22 removes any restrictions on the range of things that the Children's Commissioner may consider in relation to children.
Amendment No. 39 would ensure the Children's Corn missioner "must" rather than "may" have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This absolutely essential change is needed to ensure the proper focus on children's human rights as enshrined in the convention, including the right to freely enjoy those rights without discrimination. We are, after all, supposed to be creating a human rights institution to give life to the rights set out in the convention.
I very much regret that the Government did not decide to use the UNCRC as their blueprint for a happy, safe and fulfilled childhood. The convention signed by the UK in 1991—and by all but two countries—provides a common vision and language for securing a good childhood for everyone. It gives a detailed strategy for meeting all of children's needs. The fact that it is so widely supported is part of its strength. It does not depend on race, creed, gender or economic circumstances. It is not aspirational. It is a convention to which the UK Government are a party.
1050
I should have thought that this Bill, which establishes a children's champion and a new framework of duties and responsibilities in the provision of children's services, would have been an ideal vehicle to enshrine the convention in UK law.'
Many of us working on the Bill have wondered why the Government have proposed such a weak model. At Second Reading the plans for England's commissioner were criticised by noble Lords as "discriminatory". The commissioner was described as "castrated". "a government listening post" and "a public relations consultant". As a former public relations consultant I think that I should take exception to that criticism.
In an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children seminar on the commissioners on 20 April. the Government's conception of the Children's Commissioner was characterised by one contributor as "big ears and no teeth". The proposals have been strongly criticised by existing commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The president of the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children has written to the Joint Committee on Human Rights explaining that with such limited powers and questionable independence it is unlikely that England's commissioner will be eligible to join the European network. I am sure the Minister would not wish such an indictment.
Why have the Government put forward such an idiosyncratic and weak model of a Children's Commissioner? I understand the Government's belief is that this is what children have asked for. But do children in England want a commissioner with no powers? The Government's decision to establish a commissioner was announced in the Green Paper Every Child Matters. The document contained little detail on the commissioner—just three paragraphs. There was no reference to children's rights or to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nevertheless, the promise of a children's champion, independent of government, was widely welcomed.
The Green Paper did not include any questions about the commissioner. There have been no specialist briefings or consultation events for children in England dedicated to exploring the children's role as, for example, there were in Northern Ireland. It is not surprising, therefore, that children have not expressed too much by way of opinion about the commissioner's powers.
During consultations children asked for a commissioner with similar aptitudes to the commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That did not stop those jurisdictions getting a commissioner with strong powers and independent of government. Children in England have not rejected a commissioner with strong powers. It is simply that discussions with children have so far focused on the commissioner's personal qualities and the issues that children hope the commissioner will work on.
If presented with the information on other UK commissioners and international standards, it is hard to imagine why children in England would choose the Government's "big ears and no teeth" model. Children in England have everything to gain and nothing to lose

1051
from having a commissioner who listens to them, understands them and has the necessary powers to change the way they are treated and protect their rights.
The Government seek to justify the commissioner's extremely weak powers by stressing differences in the child population size between England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I agree that the size of England's child population presents a risk of the children's commissioner becoming swamped with formal investigations without safeguards. The potential is there for the commissioner to lose his or her strategic role.
However, instead of handing over to Ministers the power to determine when and how they can use their legal powers, strict criteria should be written into the legislation for the commissioner to follow. The current proposals suggest that the Government do not believe that the commissioner will act in the children's best interests without close ministerial supervision. That is a fundamental flaw and denies children the independent champion they were promised in the Green Paper.
All these amendments require children's rights to be enshrined in the powers of the commissioner. I and many of your Lordships believe very strongly that the Government should accept the amendments if they are really determined to give children in England the powerful and independent champion we all want. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer one simple question. Why in Amendment No. 17 is the word "all" before "children" omitted, and yet in her Amendment No. 23 the word "all" is inserted, which is two lines later?
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the question. I agree with him that the word "all" would be an improvement to the amendment. However, I think that my amendment that inserts "all" would be a catch-all and would refer to all the powers and functions of the commissioner. I hope that that would cover the matter.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness to clarify a matter for me on Amendment No. 9. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children. As such, I am of course sympathetic to much of what the noble Baroness has said about children's rights.
However, I wonder why she wishes to take out "the awareness of the views" of children. A survey by the Children and Young People Unit a couple of years ago sought views on issues such as leisure and enjoyment. I do not have a copy of it here, but there was a fairly wide-ranging seeking of views. If you do not seek views, I wonder how you define what those
1052
rights should be. In other words, who defines the rights if you do not have the views of children to hand? I am just puzzled.
Lord Hylton: At Second Reading I tried to draw attention to the fact that in the Bill the Government appear at least—I hope it is no worse than that—to be setting up a commissioner for England with considerably fewer powers, duties and responsibilities than the comparable commissioners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why I support the general thrust of the amendments.
I should just like to point out that the wording in Clause 2(2) is really quite feeble, although I agree that it is somewhat balanced by subsection (3). In passing, I would welcome subsection (3)(b), which concerns protection from harm, because I think that gives scope for covering the very great difficulties and problems surrounding children who have been trafficked into this country for purposes of exploitation.
Given the very real problems and difficulties that have arisen and still arise in England, which were well covered and extremely well brought to light by my noble friend Lord Listowel when he moved Amendment No. 1, I hope that the Government will be able to explain why a less strong measure is appropriate for England compared with the other jurisdictions.
Baroness Walmsley: May I, with the Committee's permission, answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, before we have all forgotten what she asked? Is that in order? She asked why I wanted to delete "awareness of the views" and put in "and safeguarding the rights". That is in the introductory subsection of Clause 2, which talks about the general functions of the commissioner. My intention in laying this amendment was to strengthen the general functions, and to put rights at the heart of it.
Of course, I agree with her that in doing so the commissioner must gather the views of children. That is absolutely crucial. However, if the noble Baroness looks at my Amendment No. 17, she will see that it covers getting the views of children, as does subsection (4), which involves consulting children and ensuring that they are made aware of his functions. Getting the views of children is covered, and removing it from that bit provides no detriment at all to the view that children's views must be gathered.
Lord Elton: Going back to questioning the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the apparently weaker powers for the English commissioner compared with the other commissioners. Could she explain that issue in the context of the situation as I understand it, where the English commissioner will be answerable not only for all English issues, but for those Welsh and Scots issues that

1053
have not been devolved? Therefore, he has even bigger responsibilities, and one would have thought that he would need larger powers.
Baroness Whitaker: In speaking to an aspect of Amendment No. 17, much of what I say also relates to the other amendments in the group, which I also support.
This Government like presiding over improvements. They have already notched up many, particularly in matters to do with the lives of children, which has much to do with the part played by my noble friend the Minister. This amendment, which safeguards the independence in action of the Children's Commissioner, should commend itself to the Government as a critical improvement in this part of the Bill.
When I was responsible for the official oversight of the Health and Safety Commission and then the Equal Opportunities Commission, their freedom of action was fundamental to their usefulness to society and hence to the Government. I say "hence to the Government" because the immediate instinct of those who make the first draft of such statutes is to think how much more convenient it would be to have departmental control over the activities of the commission or commissioner in question. I have been there. However, it is necessary to take a longer view.
The really useful commissioner is the one who can go where the Government, with all their constraints, cannot so easily go; who can bring to bear a narrow and intense focus on a particular issue; who can expose or add together what the machinery of the state has not seen or added together. We are not short of issues that merit that kind of scrutiny.
Why is it, for instance that the children of Northern Irish Travellers have 10 times the mortality rate of their settled counterparts? There are many other examples. A Children's Commissioner needs a free rein to look into things like this if he or she sees fit. Our society will be the beneficiary, and so, ultimately, will the Government, if they have the courage and the self-respect to do so —I am sure that they have. It is not such a big step, after all.
I draw my noble friend's attention to the forthcoming report on the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will not read out into the record the evidence that is already on the website from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish commissioners. I will just say that the evidence of all three commissioners casts serious doubt on the feasibility of having a UK commissioner with such markedly less independence and fewer powers than they have. Between now and Report stage, I urge my noble friend to take account of their evidence in redrafting the UK commissioner's powers.
It is normal for the commissioners set up by statute in this country to have the independence to choose what in their appointed field they will concentrate on. I urge the Government to overcome the timidity of the Bill's concept of a commissioner, and create a real children's champion through adopting this amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I ask the Minister whether she can help me to tease out what I am finding
1054
to be an intellectual conundrum. It seems that rights must be central to a Children's Commissioner. Therefore, I strongly support Amendment No. 17, and the other points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about including rights in the Bill.
I do not really understand the timidity of the Government about including that. I do understand, as I said on Second Reading and earlier today, that there are some issues about a commissioner in England. There are real issues about 11 million children being represented, and how those children are represented by the commissioner. That makes me believe that this person should take—let us not keep saying "he", it might be a woman—a strategic view of the issues. Only then could the kind of issues that concern me, which I want someone like this to be able to intervene in, be dealt with.
I am concerned about issues such as ensuring that children in the criminal justice system somehow get noticed; that asylum children get noticed; that trafficked children get noticed; that children lost in hospitals, particularly disabled children, get noticed. If this person is taking an individual view of children's issues, not a strategic view, they will drown in casework. It might well be that they can look at some individual issues, and of course they will have to talk to children to be a real commissioner. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about having some criteria whereby that can take place. However, it needs to be restricted. The English commissioner is different. The countries in Europe that have commissioners are small countries with small populations. This is a new departure in England. I want this person to be truly powerful, and truly powerful means being able to look across the whole piece.
I also want them to be able to work with others. I have said before that we place too much emphasis on one individual; they must be able to work with all the other children's rights workers in the local authorities, the children's rights director in the Commission for Social Care Inspection, social workers and rights workers in CAFCASS and other organisations. That will be a huge task in itself, pulling together the views and issues that those people will raise with the commissioner on behalf of children. They will be talking to hundreds of children, and the "big ears" need to reflect the hearing of all of that. You can only talk to five children at once, and I do a lot of it. These people can talk to hundreds of children, and presumably the commissioner can gather that.
In all that, I fail to understand why we are so loath to include the word "rights" in the Bill, which seems so important, in a way that includes that strategic view. I do not think that the two things are necessarily intellectually separated.
7 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support these amendments, and I am signatory to at least one of them. The debate emphasises the concern that we all have about the weakness of this commissioner. Eleven million children will be represented, but is there any

1055
reason why the powers of the commissioner should be less strong than that of the commissioners of smaller countries? The word "rights" appearing throughout the amendments must show the right way of going about the matter.
A very valid point was raised about whether we should removed the words "awareness of the views". I signed the amendment myself. It is probably right that those words should remain. The views and rights of children are important for how effectively the role is carried out.
The most important change I seek is from "may" to "must" concerning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is crucial.
The briefings have been marvellous and detailed. We all give considerable thanks to the noble Baroness and her assistants for the attention we have received. I do not believe that any of us have had a satisfactory answer to the point I raised.
Lord Northbourne: I give notice that if the rights of children are to be included in this Bill I shall be minded to add the words "and responsibilities".
Lord Puttnam: I am one of the signatories to Amendments Nos. 9, 13, 14 and 39, the latter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I grab the high ground again as the President of UNICEF UK. In the past 18 months I have visited Bosnia, Cambodia and Nigeria, looking into the issue of child trafficking, which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to just now. I cannot imagine that UNICEF would be effective in those countries were we merely to have regard to the interests of children. It is the ability to talk to governments based on the UNCRC document and the rights of children which allows one to put pressure on governments.
It is sad to say that a number of the children end up in this country. The notion that we should have less ability to tackle the issues in the United Kingdom than we have in other countries is quite ludicrous.
I am very proud of the fact that the United Kingdom was one of the drafters of the UNCRC. It is quite absurd that we would not incorporate that on the face of our own legislation. I urge the Minister most strongly to do that. As he is aware, I have had a significant amount of correspondence with the Minister of State in another place. I have received an enormous amount of sympathy and understanding on the issue from the Minister. The issue will not go away. If the Bill becomes law without the provision it will be weak legislation. I do not think it would bring much credit to this country or this House were we to allow it to happen.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Amendment No. 9 is very important. It is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the important role that children's commissioners play
1056
worldwide in the promotion and monitoring of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child at national level.
Amendment No. 17 would ensure that the views and interests of children are represented. It has been said that the Children's Commissioner in England and the United Kingdom is "outcomes based" whereas those already in place in the United Kingdom are "rights based".
Human rights, as defined in the UN convention, would strengthen the England-UK commissioner, particularly as the Bill itself proposes, that he or she would be working on non-devolved issues as regards the areas already covered by the three commissioners now in place. I fear that without the champion having to work to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the real role will not be achieved in practice.
Like others, I ask the Minister why the Children's Commissioner could not have an effective strategic role if these amendments were accepted. While the wording of the amendments before us today may not be perfect, the underlying principle is of fundamental importance. Like others, I do not understand why it is not on the face of the Bill.
Earl Howe: One matter was quite clear from our Second Reading and that was that most people's idea of what the role and functions of the Children's Commissioner should be was completely at odds with what the Government thought they should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, very ably pointed out the inherent contradiction in the Government's position. In one breath they talk about having a children's champion independent of government. That was a phrase which everyone was delighted to read and hear. Yet in creating this champion they are not giving him any of the tools to do the job.
A great deal is said these days about children's rights. I believe that they most definitely do have rights and that in most situations and for most of the time those rights are defended perfectly satisfactorily by parents. But sometimes that cannot happen. Some children have no parents; others are let down or betrayed by them. Others are detained in custody. There are some children's rights which even good and loving parents are incapable of defending, which are the rights of children as reflected in legislation passing through Parliament.
In these contexts it is up to public authorities and Parliament to protect the rights of children. That principle has been recognised in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the form of a Children's Commissioner. Why on earth cannot we also recognise it in England?
Listening to what children want is obviously an important part of the equation, as the Bill suggests, but it surely cannot be the whole equation. Neither are children's interests the whole story. To be worthy of the name, a children's champion has to look beyond the fulfilment of children's wishes to defending their rights. Children need a champion because very often they are not in a position to defend those rights themselves.

1057
The UN convention is not about the wishes and interests of children, but about rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, pointed out, the UK signed up to it because, not to sound too pompous about it, we believed that it was important for us as a society to make public and binding promises to our children. A Children's Commissioner is perfectly placed to be the guardian of those promises provided of course that he or she is independent. Then if ever the convention's promises appeared to becoming politically inconvenient for a government, a commissioner could ensure that they were adhered to.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, having an independent person to undertake the process of monitoring, promoting and protecting children's rights is what the convention urges, if not obliges us, to do, backed up by the Paris principles.
Like other Members of the Committee, I find it baffling that the Government have opted to ignore children's rights in the context of Clause 2. The Minister may be tempted to point us in the direction of the ombudsman. He is concerned with rights, but his job is sorting out specific cases of alleged injustice. I do not believe that he has a general duty towards protecting children's rights; neither is he the guardian of the UN convention. He cannot do what Amendment No. 17 proposes, which is to,
"review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children".
I said at Second Reading that it is as though the Government were adopting a "tick-in-a-box" approach to the issue. Once there is someone in place called a Children's Commissioner for the UK or England, no matter how anodyne his powers and duties may be, Ministers will be able to say that they have done what was asked of them. But they are not doing what was asked of them. Bearing in mind that the Government make much of having a listening commissioner, I hope that the Minister will be in listening mode as regards the amendments, which are, in my view, of fundamental importance.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an important debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated. I recognise the strength of feeling involved in our discussions. I understand entirely the desire of noble Lords to see a strong commissioner working for children, with children, acting in their best interests and rooted firmly in their views. The Government support that ambition. The debate, in a sense, is about how we can arrive at that outcome.
At this point, I wish to express my thanks to the All-Party Group for Children and to my noble friend Lady Massey for arranging what felt like daily meetings—I believe they were at one point—and for giving me the opportunity to meet other commissioners and their representatives, to hear their views and to discuss with them, formally and informally, some of the issues. We should be proud of our other commissioners. I hope that when there is a commissioner in England he or she will join that august group of people.
1058
I should say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that we will of course take account of what she said about the Committee for Human Rights. I shall of course look at the evidence that has been submitted. I have not yet done so, mainly because of the opportunity I had to talk with the other commissioners.
We start from the principle that we want to focus the commissioner's work on the outcomes that have been identified in our consultations; the issues that children and young people have said for themselves are important to them. That is the principle behind our beginning to think through the role of our Children's Commissioner. In a sense, we want the Children's Commissioner to face children; to be responsible and responsive to them. As I have indicated, I believe that the commissioner must draw his or her power from the fact that he or she speaks for children, for their aspirations and for their best interests, but on the basis of that knowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the consultation and how we discussed this matter with children. We ranged across a whole set of issues. I am not saying that we asked specific questions on the role of the commissioner, but we discussed the commissioner with children. It may surprise the Committee to learn that the children had a particular interest in being involved in the process of selection of the commissioner. The noble Baroness made an important point about continuing the dialogue on the role of the commissioner. I shall reflect on that and discuss it with my colleagues.
It is because we started from that principle that we have taken a slightly different direction. We understand and recognise the importance that noble Lords give to this issue and I wish to explore a little further the background. When we carried out our consultations for the Children and Young People's Unit we were keen to set the framework around which we would deliberate and discuss the way in which Every Child Matters would take forward the issues that were presented to it. The Committee will know that the genesis of that came from both the work of the Children and Young People's Unit and the Victoria Climbié inquiry led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who is not in his place today.
We want to make sure that this principle is at the heart of the work of the commissioner, as it should be at the heart of this legislation and at the heart of the work that we do. The outcomes are, in a sense, enshrined in this legislation and represent, as best we can in parliamentary language, what it is we are trying to achieve for children. They are of children, they were designed by children and they are critically important. The Committee will not be surprised that I find it unacceptable to delete those outcomes and that I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 22.
I am very concerned that we do not dilute the focus on the outcomes that children themselves have addressed. From the way in which it is framed. we believe that Amendment No. 9 would do that.
I do not want to play down the importance of the UN convention. We have signed up to it—albeit with the reservations that noble Lords know about—and we believe that no commissioner could take sensible

1059
decisions on what constitutes the interests of children without being aware of its principles and applying them to his work. That is why the Bill ensures that the Children's Commissioner can have regard to the convention when doing so.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 20 all seek to add a specific reference to "rights". Amendment No. 20 also seeks to add "welfare" to other parts of the commissioner's remit. I have great sympathy with what noble Lords are seeking to achieve but I do not believe the amendments are necessary because, under subsection (7), we expect the commissioner to have regard to the convention in considering what constitutes children's interests. We believe that "rights" are already encompassed within "interests". Noble Lords may disagree but, as far as we are concerned, "rights" are encompassed within "interests". The Committee will also be aware that "welfare" is covered by the five outcomes. So, in that context, we do not believe that we need to refer to it specifically.
As regards Amendment No. 17, as I have confirmed, the commissioner will have the ability to review any issue that relates to the views and interests of children. Nothing in Clause 2 will prevent the commissioner from issuing ad hoc reports and taking other action. We are trying not to circumscribe the functions under the clause by being too prescriptive in the way in which we design and list the responsibilities of the commissioner. I have already made it clear that he or she may take into account the UNCRC. So our thinking is that children's rights are part of the views and interests that the Children's Commissioner may want to pursue. I am, however, sympathetic to the concerns that underlie the amendment.
I have made the point that we start from a different principle. I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, that there are differences in the way in which we have approached this matter from the other commissioners; it is what makes our debates with them of great interest. We expect the commissioners to work closely together. We believe that by focusing on the outcomes for children we have the correct balance for children's interest. In terms of Amendment No. 17, I said that I have some sympathy for the direction in which noble Lords wish to go, but other amendments, in my view, change the focus of the work of the commissioner in a way that I do not wish to see. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn, although I appreciate that noble Lords may wish to reflect on them further at later stages of our deliberations.
I said at Second Reading that I would reflect on the issues in regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I wish to focus on Amendment No. 39. I am a listening Minister. I wish to be clear that I have reflected on the way in which noble Lords have—today and at other times in our debate—powerfully discussed the issue of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and I shall therefore accept Amendment No. 39.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I quite understand that my noble friend cannot accept an amendment that would delete the words "promoting awareness of the views and interests of children", but would she accept an amendment which added the words "safeguarding the rights" but did not delete that wording?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In accepting Amendment No. 39 I may have slightly changed the focus of our deliberations. I am trying to signal to the Committee our concern to ensure that rights are a fundamental part of the legislation. I believe I have achieved that. Between now and the next stage of the Bill there will be opportunities to discuss this matter. We believe that the issue of "rights" is covered within the wording of the Bill. I hope that by accepting Amendment No. 39 I have allayed some of the concerns of noble Lords.
As always, my door is open. I shall be at the beck and call of noble Lords to give further clarification and to discuss ways in which we can work together to achieve my desire. I hope I have made that clear by accepting the amendment.
Lord Puttnam: I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 39. She is not only a listening Minister; she must be an extremely persuasive one. It is very difficult for my colleagues and I on these Benches to table what must appear at times to be hostile amendments. It is enormously encouraging that we are listened to and that we are not treated as either renegades or disloyal for raising what seem to many of us to be extremely obvious points.
Lord Neill of Bladen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she address this point? As I understood her argument, the Children's Commissioner would, in any event, have in mind and be aware of the convention and the rights of children. If that is the case, it totally destroys any argument against including on the face of the Bill, in a most prominent position—Clause 2—this reference to the rights of children. When she rethinks this, will she be good enough to think about the logic of what she has said? Inherent in that logic is that rights are part of the remit of the commissioner and therefore—if she will follow my thinking—ought to be in the forefront, in Clause 2.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Lord will know, I am always willing to rethink. I hope that I have signalled very clearly our position as regards the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any noble Lord who wants to know what persuaded me has only to read the words of my noble friend Lady David on Second Reading in describing very clearly that a government who signed up to and ratified such a document with all-party support must have regard to it. None the less, it is critical to ensure that when we design legislation we are clear about what we are seeking to achieve in terms of outcomes for children and the role of the commissioner. It is partly a question of balance and partly one of focus. In certain of these

1061
amendments, it is our view that the focus of the work of the commissioner could change. I began by saying that we had begun our exploration of the role of a commissioner for England from the point where children had indicated they wanted us to be, and that is a focus we would not wish to lose. That would be my starting point for any further discussions and, as I have already indicated, I am always open to discussion.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she mentioned the possibility that the work of the commissioner might change. Is it also possible that the United Nations convention might be changed? If so, how would we be affected if we had signed up to it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Neill. suggested?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is my understanding that the convention was signed in 1991, and I know of no particular changes. Many in your Lordships' House are more expert than I on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If I am incorrect I shall of course make sure that noble Lords are aware of any new information. As far as I understand it, the convention is signed and ratified, and remains as is. I know of no other moves or ability for the convention to be altered; if there is, I will of course notify your Lordships.
Lord Lucas: Could the noble Baroness enlarge a little on her reaction to Amendment No. 17? It is pretty standard to have a clause which gives a commissioner the right to publish reports. If, under Clause 2(2)(b), he requires permission to talk to the Secretary of State, surely we need something which gives him permission to talk to the rest of us.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: There is nothing to stop the commissioner making reports in an ad hoc way in any event. Indeed, the commissioner will have the ability to look systemically at different aspects of what happens with children; we would expect him or her to report on that and to make those reports available.
I was trying to make the point that I could see within that amendment perhaps more clearly where noble Lords were seeking to develop the argument. However, I thought that we needed to be careful about how we interpreted the way in which the commissioner does his or her work in order to ensure that we do not prescribe it. We are all, in a sense, searching for the same goal—a commissioner who is flexible and able to respond but has a clear remit. What divides us is how we achieve that goal. It is our view that we need to be clear about that flexibility and not prescribe in areas where we think that might constrain the commissioner or deflect him or her from functions which we think are critical. Again, I am very happy to discuss this with noble Lords.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to add one more point about why I am so keen that "rights" is firmly on the face of the Bill. It is connected with the point that
1062
the noble Baroness has made on several occasions about where the Government are coming from in listening to children and young people.
As a generic group, children and young people are about as generic as any group in the population. I talk to a lot of young people; they are as prejudiced or unprejudiced as any other group of people. Many young people have quite a punitive attitude regarding what should happen to others who have confronted the law—until they confront it themselves, of course. They have quite a punitive attitude towards people who come in from the outside. It is terribly important that the commissioner is able to stand up for the rights of minority groups of children. That is why I think the word "rights" is so central to what we are trying to do. Listening to children is as complex as the noble Baroness listening to noble Lords in the House.
Lord Elton: May I follow on from that description of children with a comment that is not, I hope, facile, but quite relevant? I remember that as a child, I was acutely aware of my wrongs; I had no idea of what my rights were at all, and I depended on my parents for seeing that I got them. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, we are concerned with the children who have no effective parents or no parents at all to see that they get their rights. That is why the word should be in the Bill and that is why the children have not asked for them.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both referred to particular groups of children. As the Committee goes through its deliberations, there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about particular groups of children whom noble Lords are, rightly, particularly concerned about, as expressed in various amendments and discussions.
My ambition was that by accepting Amendment No. 39 I stated a principle which noble Lords would greet with, I hope, delight. In a sense it sets the framework for the deliberations of the commissioner.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who knows a great deal about talking to children. I agree entirely with what she says about children being representative of the rest of us. However, it is important that the UN convention plays its role within that, and I believe that by changing a very simple word, noble Lords have achieved what they wanted.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to this group of amendments. In particular, I thank her very much for accepting Amendment No. 39. We are all absolutely delighted that she has been able to accept it on behalf of the Government. It is an important principle; it is a step in the right direction. However, I think my nickname must be Oliver Twist, because we want more.
I am most grateful to all members of the Committee who have supported this group of amendments with such conviction and passion. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for pointing out the logic of the Government's refusal to include the "R" word in the other places in the Bill, as I have proposed in this group of amendments. While

1063
we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting Amendment No. 39, I hope that when we return to these issues on Report, as we inevitably will, she will continue to use her powers of persuasion, together with her listening ear, and will be able to accept further amendments on them.
I was most grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning that she felt that the Government did not want to circumscribe the powers of the commissioner. That was exactly why I tabled Amendment No. 22. Although I accept that the outcomes are a result of what children said they wanted, because they are set out in a list, they circumscribe the powers of the commissioner and that is why we tabled Amendment No. 22.
The problem is that if you ask a question, you get certain answers, and the answers you get depend on the questions you ask. The point I was making earlier about consulting children about the powers of the commissioner is that not enough questions have yet been asked of children. Whether there is an opportunity to ask more of those questions between Committee and Report, I do not know, but I think it would be extremely helpful if questions about the specific changes that we want to make to the Bill about children's rights could be run past a group of children and the Minister could hear their responses.
With gratitude, yet wanting more, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 8, after "and" insert "best"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 43. Amendments Nos. 10 and 40 relate to the meaning of the words "children's interests". As the Bill is drafted, Part 1 is unclear on the meaning of those two words. In the English language, the word "interests" can be used in two ways—to question what the child is interested in and to describe what is in the child's best interests. I am not being pedantic. Clause 2(2) includes the phrase:
"the views and interests of children".
Views and interests match very well—their views and what they are interested in. However, when we turn the page, we find in subsection (7) a reference to interests in the context of the UN convention, which does not relate to what children are interested in but to what is in the best interests of children.
This is an important matter because it defines what the Children's Commissioner is for. Is he just a pair of ears to hear what children are saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested, and to represent those views to the Government or to the world, or does he judge not only what different children are thinking—and there will be a great variety of children's views—but what is in their best interests? That is where my Amendment No. 43 comes in. Like the other two amendments, it is a probing
1064
amendment. If it is the job of the commissioner to ascertain the best interests of children as well as what they are interested in, he must also listen to other people who know about children and who are in touch with what is in their best interests in the modern world. I need not insult your Lordships by giving examples of how a child might find some things more interesting than others or that some of the things that he might find interesting might not be in his or her best interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches, I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on these three amendments, although my name is attached to Amendment No. 43 in particular. As he says, "best" is a very small word, but it makes a difference. It focuses on the specific interests of the children in the Bill, and there are great advantages in using a familiar term. "In the best interests of the child" is used regularly in Bills and it is a good idea to carry it forward into this Bill as well.
On Amendment No. 43, I also support the noble Lord in arguing that the Minister has herself said that it is vital that we listen to the voices of children. However, sometimes others are also there to help with those voices—the parents, teachers and doctors who work with them. Sometimes, children cannot express for themselves what they really want. It is therefore helpful if we can include in the Bill the need for the commissioner to take account of the views of other people who work closely with children.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has pointed out a genuine ambiguity and a simple remedy. If we are not to go to the interpretation clause that is fragmented in this Bill and difficult to find in several parts, I suggest that his remedy is much the best one.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Indeed, I am grateful that we had the opportunity earlier today to talk about this matter. "Interests" reflects two different things at the same time. Of course, it is our intention that the provision is about the best interests of children. On making judgments about this, the commissioner will be particularly informed by the UN convention and the rights that children can expect under that, which is very important. However, we do not want to lose sight of the interests of children. I know from consultation with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, that children are very keen for the commissioner to look at issues such as access to computers and pocket money. It is therefore important that we reflect both meanings. Children have interests that they wish to see reflected in the work of the commissioner.
Noble Lords can think of many examples, I am sure, of the way in which children reflect their interests—on school councils for example and in other ways. The interests that the teachers or adults believe that the children will take forward are not always the ones that children think are particularly important to them. Therefore, the provision, in a sense, includes both meanings. I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I suggest to the Committee that I take this matter away to see if more can be done. However, I do not want to lose what

1065
we believe is in the language and the policy intent. It should reflect the best interests of children and children's interests.
The noble Lord confounded me by adding his Amendment No. 43 which, according to my grouping, I am not yet taking.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: In her further deliberations, will the Minister consider that there is no such thing as absolute best interests? She and others will accept that there will be a variety of views about what constitutes children's best interests under the groupings in the Amendment No. 43.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, that is why the wording of the legislation is as it is—greater minds than mine have reflected on how to ensure that we capture what we are trying to do. As I have already indicated, the UN convention will form part of the backdrop that will enable the best interests of children to be realised. However. I have promised to reflect on the matter further.
Amendment No. 43 is specifically, as the noble Lord will know. to consider the accounts and views of others, such as parents, teachers, GPs, youth workers and so forth, who can represent younger children and those less able to represent themselves. There is nothing to stop the commissioner from doing that. Indeed, it would be generally understood that the commissioner would wish to consider the views of adults and organisations working with children. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the Minister and full of hope that we may be able to accommodate the problem to which I have drawn attention. Clearly, it is extremely unsatisfactory to use a word that has two meanings, to employ the word once and expect people to understand that both meanings are implicit in the text. I cannot help feeling that the skills of the department with the English language will enable a slightly clearer wording to be worked out. On the basis that I will also go away and think about the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "the United Kingdom" and insert "England"
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to a number of amendments that are grouped with it to which my name is variously attached.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, encapsulated what for many of us is one of the Bill's ultimate anomalies. In creating a Children's Commissioner for the United Kingdom rather than just England, the Government are entrenching the administrative divisions arising from devolution in an unnecessary and retrograde way. The devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and
1066
Northern Ireland, as we all know, defined those matters that were to be devolved and those that were reserved to Westminster.
As a consequence, the direct powers of the Welsh commissioner, for example, are, strictly speaking, confined to devolved matters such as health and social services. He lacks direct powers to act on matters falling under the remit of, say, the Home Office. But so that he can examine and address children's rights and interests in the round, he has the power to raise with the Welsh Assembly any matters of concern relating to non-devolved issues, leaving it to the Assembly to pass those concerns to the appropriate quarter as it wishes. These arrangements have worked quite satisfactorily, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, told us. Under the Bill, however, it is envisaged that, all of a sudden, a Children's Commissioner for the United Kingdom will muscle in and assume responsibility for those issues relating to children in Wales that are non-devolved. Welsh children will, therefore, find themselves with not one champion but two, working so to speak side by side.
In a Bill that purports to be child centred above all else, it is odd, to put it at its kindest, that the lines of accountability that the Government are proposing for these two commissioners appear to put legalistic considerations ahead of common sense. Children do not understand devolved and non-devolved powers; they want a simple system. They need to be able to access a single commissioner whom they regard as the champion of their interests across the board. They do not want to be confused by being told that if their complaint or concern relates to a Home Office matter they should talk to one person, and if it relates to a health matter they should talk to someone else. Apart from anything else, many complaints and concerns do not admit of such clear-cut divisions.
The position for children in the devolved administrations is even more unsatisfactory than that because of the completely differing roles and powers envisaged for the UK commissioner as compared with his three counterparts. If the Government get their way, the UK commissioner will not be taking up the cudgels for Welsh children in at all the same sense as the Welsh commissioner currently does. That is because he will be concerned only with promoting awareness of the views and interests of children. He will not be concerned with safeguarding and promoting their rights and interests, although one must acknowledge that the Government's acceptance of Amendment No. 39 does tilt the situation in the right direction. Nor will the UK commissioner be able to undertake an inquiry into an individual child without the say-so of the Secretary of State. This difference in powers and functions is unsatisfactory enough in relation to children in England; it is doubly unsatisfactory in relation to children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because in practice it represents a dilution of the protection they currently enjoy from their own respective commissions.
There is a simple enough answer to all of this, which is the one that I have proposed in my amendments. It is to say, "Let the three existing commissioners continue to fulfil their functions in their respective

1067
territories. Do not confuse lines of accountability by making the English commissioner responsible for some matters in those territories but not others; but instead make him responsible solely for English children, and alongside that create a duty for all four commissioners to co-operate with one another on matters that affect more than one country, such as child poverty". That way, children will have consistency and simplicity instead of the more confusing and complex arrangements envisaged here.
While we are about it, what exactly is meant by the phrases "children in Scotland" and "children in Northern Ireland" which occur in subsection (1) of Clause 5? Does "children in Scotland" mean children living in Scotland or children who happen to be in Scotland but who may in fact live in England or somewhere else? Supposing the Scottish commissioner has a concern about children who live in England but who attend a Scottish school, is that a matter for him to pursue or a matter for the English commissioner? Amendment No. 73 is intended as a means of probing the Minister for clarification on this issue. It is not clear to me where it is intended that the jurisdiction of the English commissioner should begin and end.
I hope that the Minister will be able to see that there are serious issues here emanating directly from the devolution settlements which must be clarified and resolved. I hope that she can be helpful on these matters. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In speaking to the amendments in this group I should like to add to some of the points so clearly made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The England/UK commissioner will be responsible for 11.5 million children in England and another 700,000 children in Wales. These amendments reflect the complex nature of the devolution settlements. I hope that the Minister will see that they aim to work in the spirit of current arrangements to improve things for children in Wales.
Today there was a debate in a plenary sitting of the Assembly and a Motion was passed unanimously—by 50 votes to nil—stating that the Assembly welcomes the additional powers that the Children Bill gives to the Assembly; rejects the proposal that the English Children's Commissioner should have statutory functions over non-devolved matters in Wales; and calls for the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Wales to be extended over non-devolved matters. That was in this afternoon's debate in the Assembly.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 63 define England's Children's Commissioner as responsible for England, and allows the other amendments to ensure that children ordinarily resident in Wales go to the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I ask the Minister how Welsh children and the National Assembly for Wales were consulted on the commissioner's change in role as outlined in the Bill. How were they consulted over the significant differences in roles between the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the England/UK counterpart? Perhaps I
1068
may remind the Committee that children in Wales and the National Assembly for Wales were involved in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, who is independent of Welsh Assembly government.
Amendment No. 65 ensures consistency across the UK. Amendments Nos. 71 and 71A have the effect of extending the commissioner's powers across Wales to allow the commissioner to make direct representations either to the Assembly or to the appropriate Minister of the Crown or government department where the matter is non-devolved. Amendment No. 72 provides consistency and fairness across the UK, ensuring communication and consultation on issues for the benefit of all children in the UK irrespective of where they ordinarily live. I appreciate the need for consistency and fairness across the UK. That is vital as the children concerned are moved around the UK and are often known to services by the very nature of their background. They often lack geographical or other security.
Children cannot be expected to understand the complexity of arrangements. For them, and indeed for staff on the ground, it is much safer to know that all matters pertaining to safeguarding of children ordinarily resident in Wales are the province of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Experience has shown that a child's issue or complaint frequently involves more than one agency and that it is not possible to separate devolved and non-devolved issues into neat compartments.
When the child moves to reside in England they should come within the remit of the English counterpart. A small number of Welsh children are in secure units in England. It should be for the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the counterpart in England to sort out their bureaucratic arrangements to ensure that no child is lost to the safeguarding functions of an effective commissioner.
Until now there has been no UK Children's Commissioner. So, the Children's Commissioner for Wales has developed informal working relationships with the Criminal Records Bureau; with the senior police, who are represented on area child protection committees and have a major role in safeguarding children in Wales; and with the governors of prisons in Wales over children in custody, because, sadly, there are still deaths in custody.
Great thanks are due to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn whose amendment to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, enacted in 2001, ensures that the Children's Commissioner for Wales can make representations to the Assembly on any matter, whether devolved or non-devolved, that affects the welfare and rights of children in Wales. If he deems it appropriate, he can apparently also make informal representations to UK government on these matters. Although the Wales Office has given reassurances that this can continue, it seems to be a courtesy that allows for his freedom of expression, rather than a formal route regarding issues that could be critically important.
The England/UK commissioner will be able to consider, research and report on non-devolved matters as they relate to views and interests of children in

1069
Wales. This means that she or he will need to know the views of Welsh children on any such matter, which will inevitably duplicate with the Children's Commissioner for Wales who will be drawing on the same group of the population for views.
From the perspective of a troubled 10 year-old, it would seem far simpler for the Children's Commissioner for Wales to ascertain the views of children in Wales on all matters. This is not about the powers of the individual post of Children's Commissioner for Wales; it is about the practical operational aspects of communication on non-devolved matters directly to Westminster. It seems inconceivable that an issue would come to the Home Office without the Children's Commissioner for Wales already knowing about it, especially if the child's language is Welsh. The England/UK Children's Commissioner would need to understand the context within which services are delivered in Wales and the way policies are determined and how they differ from those in England, although I do not see why the Children's Commissioner for Wales cannot report directly to the relevant Secretary of State on non-devolved matters arising in Wales.
This Bill is built on the fundamental principle of safeguarding children. Let me use a specific example to illustrate this. Take Hillside, the secure unit in Neath, where there could be twin boys from Ystradgynlais who are primarily Welsh-speaking. They come from a family with a history of drug abuse on the part of their mother and her partner. One has been placed there by social services on a care order precipitated by behavioural issues that constitute a potential danger to himself. The other has been sentenced by the magistrates' court for persistent offending and is under the auspices of the youth justice system. If a concern arises regarding their management by the court or regarding a failure of the complaint system within Hillside, child A contacts the Children's Commissioner for Wales Office and the latter may decide to visit or to request information about a perceived failure in the system. If child B, his twin brother, wished to make such contact, he would be told that he should contact the English/UK commissioner, or that the Children's Commissioner for Wales could make representations on his behalf to the Assembly which may or may not choose to refer that on to the Home Office. It does seem inordinately cumbersome and confusing, particularly when the two children are from the very same household.
If guidance is not co-ordinated, confusion arises and safeguarding fails. Most inquiries into child deaths over the years have repeatedly pointed to failed communication between agencies. In the aftermath of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, child protection committees in Wales, which comprise different agencies concerning devolved and non-devolved matters, received guidance. The police and probation service immediately received Home Office guidance in advance of the Assembly issuing guidance to the devolved agencies in relation to the delivery of Welsh services for children. One of the Children's Commissioner for Wales' roles is to ensure coherence
1070
in policy implementation. Clearly, any anomalies in timing or content between Home Office guidance and Assembly guidance leave children vulnerable.
The devolution settlement was made in 2001 with good intentions but it could not foresee every possible scenario that would arise. Children's services form a good example of where events have now moved beyond the situations then envisaged. The reporting arrangements for the Children's Commissioner for Wales do not undermine the devolution settlement if he can report directly on non-devolved matters to Whitehall. But if we are hamstrung by the terms of his appointment, meaning that he has no role beyond the Assembly remit, the devolution settlement acts as a strait-jacket for coherence in Wales, which is against the Government's intent to make improvements for all.
The role of the commissioner in Wales was debated in the Assembly in plenary. It was to avoid that confusion that the National Assembly for Wales voted on 5 November 2003 by 55 to nil to call for the strengthening of the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to enhance his role—a debate that was reinforced today. It also welcomed the intention of Westminster to introduce a Children Bill. So why, I ask the Minister, in the light of this unanimous view, have the Government decided to fragment rather than consolidate the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales on behalf of Welsh children?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am not sure that I have anything to add, except emphasis, to what has already been said. I shall endeavour to sharpen the issue, if, indeed, it is not sharp enough already.
There is no doubt that the UK scope of the Children's Commissioner begs the question of his relationship with the children's commissioners not only in Wales, which I am delighted to say we have heard a great deal about, but also with the children's commissioners in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
It is true that there is some definition of that relationship in Clause 5, but, as we have heard, some issues are still very unclear and there is substantial concern. For example, it is a major concern for Children in Wales, which spans a number of organisations concerned with children's rights and welfare.
We know that the commissioners in the devolved administrations are confined in the scope of their operations to devolved matters—that is their preserve. It is not altogether satisfactory because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, children's problems often involve non-devolved areas, notably the police and the Home Office as well as devolved areas such as social services, education and health.
When we established the office of Children's Commissioner for Wales, we were indeed assured that he would be able to make representations to the National Assembly on any matter in any area, devolved or not devolved, and that the Assembly could pursue it with the relevant Secretary of State at the UK level. As far as I am aware, that arrangement still

1071
holds. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that assurances have been given that it will continue.
Now we are to have a Children's Commissioner with a UK remit. He is debarred under Clause 5 from concerning himself with devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not reserved matters, and so there is some overlap of functions and certainly a great deal of potential for confusion. The key question for me is the following. In future will the Welsh commissioner, for example, refer a matter touching a non-devolved area in Wales to the UK commissioner rather than to the Assembly? That must obviously be one line of approach. I am sure that in practice all the commissioners will work fairly harmoniously together and it may be helpful to the existing commissioners in different parts of the UK to have a fellow commissioner who operates at UK level but does not interfere in their local concerns. There are two sides to that particular coin.
My noble friend's amendment proposes that the relevant commissioner should be confined to England. That might, indeed, clarify the situation but I am not absolutely certain that it would be wholly advantageous. I see potential benefit in the UK commissioner's umbrella role. After all, if the Welsh commissioner, the Scottish commissioner or the Northern Ireland commissioner see a problem in a non-devolved area, and if they talk about that problem to the UK commissioner, they will at least be talking the same language and I am sure that there will be a greater degree of understanding.
With regard to the suggestion that the Welsh commissioner should have the authority to examine non-devolved matters, on the same basis as he examines the devolved matters in the devolved areas, the difficulty is obvious. He is an appointee of the Assembly. He is not directly responsible to or appointed by the Secretary of State responsible for those non-devolved areas. However, I am sure that those who have spoken already and others who may speak will support me in saying that the Government should explain the new commissioner's UK role more fully, because there is clearly widespread dissatisfaction. The last thing we want is for children to be discriminated against one way or the other, or to have to suffer the consequence of this administrative mix-up.
8 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Bill has come about as a result of various cases where children have fallen between the care that should have been given to them by various authorities. One essential purpose of the Bill is to make sure that that does not happen again, and to clarify lines of responsibility.
The Welsh commissioner's Bill had its genesis in the Waterhouse report, which was concerned with what had gone on in various establishments in north Wales, some of them very close to where I live. Bryn Estyn comes to mind, but there were other institutions as well where abuse had gone on. For 18 months, Sir Ronald Waterhouse led an inquiry into those problems. One of
1072
his recommendations was that there should be a Children's Commissioner for Wales, to bring together the various agencies concerned with the welfare of children. That was done. It was the first Bill to come before your Lordships' House that was entirely devoted, following devolution, to Welsh matters.
We had not been debating that Bill very long when it became quite clear that there was an element on the Government's side that was pushing to divide the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, so that the Home Office would not be affected by anything that he did. The argument was that the devolution settlement had taken place, and that we should do nothing to undermine it. I do not think that right. The very expression "devolution settlement" suggests that that is something fixed in stone for ever and a day. The Richard report, which we have just received in Wales, has demonstrated that the devolution settlement is unsatisfactory, and that very significant changes have to be made to it. Therefore, no one should be tied to the devolution settlement.
There should be no no-go areas for the Children's Commissioner for Wales. We cannot divide the welfare of a child into devolved and non-devolved matters. The implications of the welfare of that child cross those barriers, which are only temporary and artificial and do not go as far as many of us in Wales want.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, Lord Williams of Mostyn—I always have to call him Gareth Williams—decided that it would be good to give the Welsh commissioner power to look into anything, devolved or non-devolved. The compromise was that, instead of going directly to Ministers in Westminster, anything that had to do with non-devolved matters should be reported by the Welsh commissioner directly to the National Assembly. It would be for it to decide whether to take it up in Whitehall.
Last week, we had some very helpful discussions with the Government, and I pay tribute to them for the fact that they are prepared to be involved in discussions with all of us who are concerned with the Bill and its Welsh side. We were told in those discussions that, in fact, the Welsh commissioner has been able to approach Whitehall ministries directly. It may horrify some people—that, on non-devolved matters, the Welsh commissioner should arrogate to himself powers that the original statute did not give him—but it is the practice.
If that is the practice, and if the Welsh commissioner requires statutory authority to approach Whitehall ministries directly—the Home Office in particular, and the social security ministries, which are concerned very directly with the big problem of child poverty in Wales—that is what the amendments seek to provide. The lines of authority and responsibility should be clearly drawn, and we cannot draw them on the basis of what was the devolution settlement some years ago but may not be the devolution settlement in a few years' time, if the Richard report is accepted.

1073
Consequently, let us forget about what is devolved and not devolved; let us consider what is in the interests of the children. By passing the amendments, let us recognise that children's problems cross all the boundaries. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments. If they do not and the amendments are pressed at a later stage, I assure them that we will support the amendments entirely.
Lord Elton: I have two very short points in support of what has been said. The first is to ask the Minister, when she thinks about the matter, not to look at it from above. She should not look at it from a government point of view of administrative convenience—of the possibility of an overarching power, to which my noble friend Lord Roberts was attracted. I ask her to look at the matter from below, where the children are. They need one point to go to; they do not want a choice of points.
The second matter which I would draw to the Minister's attention is that in setting up the Welsh commissioner, the Government provided for the Welsh Assembly to speak on his behalf on non-devolved matters. Therefore the Government are ready and willing to listen to the Welsh Assembly and to give great weight to what it says. Will the noble Baroness please pay great attention to what it said this afternoon, which is exactly in accordance with the amendment that my noble friend is moving from our Front Bench?
Lord Prys-Davies: May I, from these Benches, support the amendment? In particular, I wish to reiterate some of the points that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Convey and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I believe that the merits of the amendment were first discussed when the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was before Parliament, so the amendment represents a further stage in a long-running campaign to extend the powers of the Welsh commissioner over devolved matters. I hope that that will be acceptable to the Government. Today we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the Welsh Assembly itself has unanimously called for the Welsh commissioner's powers to be extended over devolved matters.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government—who I have supporte—have persistently refused to extend the remit and powers of the Welsh commissioner to over non-devolved areas of policy. At Second Reading I listened carefully to my noble friend the Minister, who asserted as if it were a fact that this is due to what she described as,
"the logic of the devolution settlement".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1210.]
Many of us in Wales do not accept that there is such a logic or that the Government of Wales Act 1998 represents a final settlement that cannot be questioned. Indeed, the Government of Wales Act in no way has affected the power of Parliament to legislate as it sees fit. The principle of the sovereignty of Parliament makes it impossible for Parliament, through one Act, to limit the competence to pass another Act which may be inconsistent with the first
1074
Act. The functions of the Children's Commissioner for Wales should be determined by the children's legislation of today.
I read the evidence of the Welsh commissioner, Mr Peter Clarke, to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, given on 22 April. I shall not quote from the transcript, because it has not been edited, but I have no doubt that he is seriously concerned over whether this model will work. As I understand it, difficulties can arise in two main areas. First, the existence of two different commissioners, with different remits and powers, will cause genuine difficulties in the minds of children and young people. In addition, there may well be a preliminary issue to be settled—to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred—regarding whether an issue arises within an area that has been devolved or has been reserved. This can sometimes be a manifestly difficult question which may take time to resolve. Evidence of that is to be found in the report of the Richard commission.
Unless the amendment is accepted by the Government, the Bill will not work as well as they believe it will. Therefore, I hope that they will give the amendment careful consideration.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As was entirely predictable, it was a debate that carried conviction—and had about it a touch of déjà vu, when we recall the debates that we had in this House on the Welsh commissioner; but it is none the worse for that. It also has the irresistible appeal of allowing a short debate on the devolution settlement, however it is described. I will try to be clear, because the last thing that we would wish for at this stage would be to add to what I perceive is confusion about the role of the respective commissioners, particularly from the point of view of children. I take entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we must see this matter from the point of view of children and not as if we were administering something to them.
Essentially what we are doing is to create an English commissioner with the scope to address non-devolved issues across the UK. He will work on behalf of children across the UK in those respects. I am happy to reiterate that he is the equal, and not the superior, of the other commissioners—he is their partner. However, because he has the scope to work across the UK, he will be able to offer the children of the UK additional access to issues that are now reserved. These are extra powers, extra opportunities, and they are new powers that will ensure that he is the ally and the friend of children, as well as of the other commissioners. He is not a competitor; he is not muscling in. I want to reassure noble Lords that there is nothing in this Bill that will reduce, inhibit or compromise the powers of the existing commissioners.
I want to quote something that has been quoted already—from the evidence that was given to the Select Committee for Welsh Affairs. The Welsh Secretary for Health and Social Services made this absolutely clear when she said—she was pressed very

1075
hard on this point—that the UK commissioner does not take anything away from the role of the Welsh commissioner. She or he will still be able to make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales, including non-devolved matters.
So in relation to the question the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised: yes, he will still be able to take issues to the Assembly, and from the Assembly, with the support of the ally that he has in the Health Minister in Wales, to the Secretary of State for Wales. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who raised the question of his present access to other secretaries of state, I suspect that this is actually an informal arrangement that has grown as the Welsh commissioner has developed his powers. It is extremely important that we are clear that, just as now, he can take up those powers through the Assembly with the Minister's support, but in future he will also be able to call on the UK commissioner, who is there to help him by offering him the extra access to Parliament and across government in terms of non-devolved issues. How much extra benefit that is going to bring, to have formal access to the relevant Secretaries of State. Therefore, as I see it, this is not fragmentation at all. This is bringing extra strength and coherence to what is available for children. I address that point to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
It has been suggested that children might be confused by having two commissioners. We must resist this idea. It is a false argument. Whether children are confused about where they might go will depend a lot on how the commissioners in the devolved countries present the case themselves. They are expert already at communicating and liaising with children. They would not want to confuse the children in Wales and in Scotland by suggesting that there was a competitive, alternative route, unless they had already been able to talk to those children about what extra benefits that might bring.
I sincerely believe that we want clear lines of communication. That will depend a great deal on the commissioners in the three other countries offering a seamless service themselves, working closely with the new commissioner, as we intend—I shall come to that later—so that the service offered to children is seamless. There will be no distinctions drawn. This will be a one-stop shop, as it were. This is work in progress, and the arrangements will have to be worked out, but let us not pre-judge this by suggesting that there will be wilful confusion that will somehow disadvantage children. We do not believe that that will be the case at all.
Let me turn now to the short debate we have had on devolution and the powers of the Welsh commissioner. I take entirely the point noble Lords have made. Indeed, in turning to Amendments Nos. 71 and 71A, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her ingenuity in opening this debate up to the Care Standards Act 2000, which is where it should be.
1076
We want to congratulate Peter Clarke on the start he has made, and on his extremely successful efforts to communicate with children and young people and to establish the profile of the commissioner. He is indeed an effective champion for children, but I should say—and I say it in all sincerity—that this is not the place to reopen the debate on the extent of the commissioner's powers in Wales, because it does mean opening the debate about the devolution settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does not like the term "devolution settlement". Indeed, he is right that the Richard commission is preparing the ground for future debate and that the Welsh Assembly is debating the issue. It is another matter in the development. Let us have that debate, but this is not the context in which to reopen the debate on the powers of the Commissioner for Wales. I took a great deal of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who gave a powerful explanation of why we should not do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will not therefore be surprised to learn that we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 71 and 71A.
It will also not surprise Members of the Committee to learn that we are unable to accept Amendment No. 11 and the related Amendments Nos. 63, 65 and 72 because they seek to limit the scope of the commissioner's role in England. We are intent on extending the ability of children in the other countries to access new areas. The powers we have provided, which the amendments would remove, are important and the alternatives proposed would not fill the gap.
Amendment No. 72 cannot be considered alone—it has to be seen alongside Amendment No. 11 and, to a lesser extent, Amendments Nos. 63 and 65. Amendment No. 72 seeks to create a UK function to replace that which would be removed by the amendment to Clause 2. However, it is not clear whether Members of the Committee moving it want the Children's Commissioner to have a UK-wide role through working with other commissioners or for each to be wholly responsible for his own country. Therefore the amendment is flawed in its wording and, given the scope for confusion, it would not deliver an acceptable alternative. Members of the Committee might therefore want to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 73 presents another form of confusion. We suspect the intention was that the commissioner should not become involved in the affairs of the devolved regions but in practice the amendment has the opposite effect. I will write to noble Lords on the amendment because it is a difficult and technical issue.
I turn to the practical aspects that have been addressed by several noble Lords. How will the commissioners work in relation to each other's responsibilities? We have spoken of a memorandum of understanding—and again it is work in progress. I can assure the Committee that we intend the four commissioners to take part in a shared and equal discussion to draw up appropriate protocols.
It is difficult for us to be drawn into detail because the memorandum of understanding is to be owned by them. It will work if they each sign up to it. They are

1077
independent commissioners and their programmes of work and priorities will grow from what children tell them, just as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would want. Therefore, we do not see it as our job to tell them what to put in the memorandum of understanding, but we will be able to come back to the House as progress is made.
In answer to a specific question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the definition of "children in Scotland" and Ireland is "normally resident" in those countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether children in Wales were consulted about the new English commissioner. Our consultation was essentially through the Welsh Office, the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Commissioner. A lot more consultation remains to be done and children in Wales were obviously involved in the consultation document, Every Child Matters. We shall certainly ensure that Welsh children are fully involved at all future stages.
I want to return to my original theme; the relationship of the UK commissioner to the other devolved commissioners. As I said, we have created an English commissioner with scope across the UK to reflect and assist with issues that are devolved to the other three countries. We believe that they are useful and necessary powers, but I understand from what noble Lords are saying that they may find the language confusing and of concern. We do not believe that it is so, but having listened to the debate we will take it away and see if we could use clearer language to ensure that there is no room for confusion.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: While the Minister is on her feet I wonder if I might probe her a little further on the memorandum of agreement to which she referred. If the English commissioner came to an agreement with the commissioner in Wales and within that memorandum of agreement they wished to have direct lines of communication from Wales to the Home Office, for example, what would be the position with the Bill as it stands?
Baroness Andrews: A memorandum of agreement is essentially an administrative instrument and could not interfere with the distribution of powers and the way in which they were used. I shall take advice on the matter, but I think it is extremely unlikely that that could be done.
Lord Elton: In that case, will the Minister interpret for me and other members what she meant when she said that the Government would come back to the House? At one stage when she was talking about the memoranda of understanding she said that they should grow naturally and she did not doubt that she would be able to come back to the House. Will that be during the passage of the Bill or on some other occasion, and if so, when?
Baroness Andrews: We do not have the timetable of the drawing up of any memorandum of agreement at the moment. It is very much work in progress. All I was
1078
saying is that as the Bill's passage evolves, if there are things within our scope to come back and tell the House about the development, we certainly will do so.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not expect turf wars between the commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, but close co-operation. However, that is not the point. The importance of the commissioners is their ability to be advocates for children with the relevant Ministries; shall we say, the Home Office? Up to now, the Welsh commissioner has informally been able to take up the cases of individual children with the Home Office and obtain replies from that department.
If the English commissioner comes in with no remit to take up individual cases, I postulate a system where there is a youth in a young offender institution in Wales who is being abused, either by fellow inmates or by staff. The Children's Commissioner for Wales could today take up that individual case and pursue it with the Home Office, not because of any statutory powers but because that is the practice that has grown up.
I am sure that the English commissioner would be standing by applauding his efforts if that were to happen, but what would the Home Office reaction be? Would it not say to the Welsh commissioner, "I am sorry, chum, we listened to you before, but now that there is a UK commissioner whose responsibility is for non-devolved matters in Wales, we're going to listen to him. If he doesn't have the power to take up individual cases, tough—we can only look at the situation as a whole"? The individual being abused has thereby lost the championship of the Welsh commissioner and it has not been replaced by the so-called United Kingdom commissioner.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, of whom we are all fond in Wales and in the Committee, what communication has there been with colleagues in her party who are now in government in Cardiff—I have to make the point that the Welsh commissioner came from the co-operation between the Liberal Democrats and Labour in Wales—who are almost the majority party in the Assembly and who voted 50 to nil against the policy that she is putting forward today? Surely they have some influence on the way in which this Government are thinking here. If they do not, if anything undermines the devolution settlement, it is that this Government will not listen to what Members of their own party are saying in the National Assembly.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: I can assure the noble Lord that we have very close contact with our colleagues in Cardiff. I was speaking to Jane Hutt only hours ago about the fact that the Welsh Assembly had given its full support to the Bill as a whole, and we welcome that. We are mindful of the feelings of the Assembly Members. I simply reiterate that Jane Hutt said very firmly in committee that there would be no change and no loss in the powers of the Welsh commissioner. I can do no more than reinforce that point. The commissioner will be able to go to the Secretary of State for Wales via the Minister, as he does now, with

1079
whom he has informal relationships. However, the routes that are taken and the processes that are applied will be worked out between the commissioners.
Although I hesitate to advise patience, I believe that during the course of the Bill we shall become clearer on some of these matters. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we are alive to these issues.
Lord Elton: As a Back Bencher, I am becoming increasingly confused. From what has been said, I am learning that there is a system in Wales which protects children and in which the children's champion has access, informally or formally, to offices with non-devolved functions relating to Wales. I am now told from the Front Bench opposite that, in spite of that, we are to introduce a new element and that the interrelationship of the two is so symbiotic and complicated that we are not to know, while we are legislating for it, what it will be and we must wait to see how it evolves. I do not think that that is the way to legislate. We should make things simpler and not more difficult and more certain and not more uncertain.
Baroness Andrews: I very much hope that our consideration of the Bill is not confused; I do not believe that it is. When we come to debate later clauses, we shall consider the powers of the English commissioner to take up cases. In fact, the English commissioner will not be able to pursue individual cases in the same way as the Welsh commissioner can. That is one difference.
The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, concerned the ability of the Welsh commissioner to continue to do the things that he does at present. I have given assurances that that is absolutely the case and that there will be no change in that respect. The UK commissioner will have some additional scope, in terms of access, to represent issues which are now presently reserved. In that case, the relationships will be complementary and supportive. We shall pursue these issues at various stages of the Bill—perhaps in more detail.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I was also grateful to the Minister when she said that she would look at the wording highlighted by noble Lords to see whether it could be made a little clearer. However, I am sorry that she resisted the thrust of the argument that I and others attempted to put forward.
The Government's route here may be logical but I suggest that it is not the only logic. It depends on your starting point. If your starting point is the logic that flows from the devolution settlement, if I may use that phrase, you will end up with the Bill as it now is. If your starting point is the advocacy arrangements that children are likely to find simpler, more understandable and less confusing, then I believe that you end up roughly where I suggested in the amendments that I tabled. The arguments advanced by the Minister are essentially top-down arguments, and that is what I find unappealing about them.
I do think that there is merit in re-examining the idea of each country having its own commissioner who fully understands the law of that country as well as
1080
its language, culture and demographic characteristics, but the key point is that in each country there should be one person to whom children have easy access and who is in a position to take a holistic view of children's needs. That is the express view of the three current commissioners, who made a joint public statement at the end of March to that effect. The second speech by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was extremely powerful in that context.
I worry a little about the term "UK commissioner" because although the Children's Commissioner is described in the Bill as being responsible for children in the United Kingdom, Clause 5 makes it very clear that he will not be concerned with the views and interests of children who fall under the remit of any of the other three commissioners, in relation to devolved matters, nor may he undertake inquiries into any devolved matters. It is therefore a little hard to see how he can be in the fullest sense a UK commissioner.
But we have explored this subject in some depth. We all have much to reflect on between now and Report and it is time to move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: This might be an advisable time to withdraw, so I suggest that the Committee adjourn until 9.10p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.37 to 9.10 p.m.]
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert "(or who are temporarily abroad as a result of the posting abroad of a parent with Her Majesty's Armed Forces or Diplomatic Services)"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11A, I shall speak also to my other amendments in the group. These amendments have one thing in common, which is they have nothing whatever to do with each other. This is one of those groupings which is put in occasionally to hurry up the progress of the Committee—particularly after any group that involves the Welsh. Perhaps I may take my amendments in order. So far as concerns the other amendments, I will listen and learn from other speeches.
Amendment No. 11A concerns principally our Armed Forces. We currently have 25,000 children abroad with the Armed Services. The responsibility for matters relating to those children flows through the Ministry of Defence. Generally, the Ministry of Defence has other things on its mind, particularly when it comes to budgets; and children's matters rate somewhere below cigar lighters for generals. It commonly takes many years for improvements that we make in this House to children's services in the UK generally to filter through to the children of Armed Services personnel who are abroad on active service.
We should take the opportunity of the Bill to shift that gently in the right direction. I have two amendments on the subject, one at this end of the Bill and the other right at the back end—Amendment No. 247A. Amendment No. 11A would extend the remit of the Children's Commissioner to those children of personnel serving abroad. Obviously, when

1081
they come back to the UK they will be under the commissioner in whose patch they happen to be living. I shall not try to rehearse the arguments of the previous amendment. While the children are abroad they have no one looking after them. We should try and do something about that.
Amendment No. 18 is my second amendment in the group. It is really cheeky of me putting it in because I have absolutely nothing to teach the noble Baroness on the matter. I have long talked about the need for research and evidence-based policies. The noble Baroness has actually done something about it and has begun to bring that sort of attitude into the DfES, for which I am enormously grateful. The amendment merely raises that flag again and says, "When we are trying to put together policies for children, let us gather evidence and produce a solid evidence base for whatever it is that we are proposing to do. And let us allow and encourage the Children's Commissioner to promote and direct such research".
My third amendment in the group is Amendment No. 32. It really just picks up an uncertainty that I had about the way in which the Bill was constructed, in that it is clear that the Children's Commissioner will not be in a position to offer advice to individual children. None the less, a lot of individual children are going to contact him. One gets into problems with data protection rights and child protection and so on.
It is clear to me that whatever we do, it has to be possible for the office of the Children's Commissioner to direct or pass on children who come to him to those who are capable of dealing with individual children. I want to be absolutely sure that he has the powers and rights necessary to effect that passing on. It takes a lot of courage for a child to raise a matter with an adult. If the first time they do that, their voice falls on stony ground, their voice may never be heard again. I want to avoid that if at all possible.
Amendment No. 41, which is my last amendment in this group, comes back to a discussion that we had on Amendment No. 17. Subject to correction, it is my strong recollection that it is the common practice to lay out in primary legislation how a commissioner, or a similar body, might report. It rather sets the relationship between that body and the Minister and the public at large. At the moment, the commissioner has a right to report to the Secretary of State, but he has no right in the Bill to report to the public. The noble Baroness said that there is nothing to stop him doing that; yes, but there is no right for him to do it. I want the Bill to be clear that the commissioner has the right to go public. He does not have to sit and wait for the Secretary of State. He will not be one of those people who puts a report in to the Secretary of State and two years later it is not published. We have entirely too much of that.
This will be a commissioner who has a right to be heard. Although there may, out of courtesy and good practice, normally be some advance notice for the Secretary of State, and he might expect to get things a month or two in advance, he should not dictate the publication date. I advance those arguments with the
1082
object of hearing what the Government have to say on the subject; at this time of night, I certainly haw no intention of dividing the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 16, 21 and 23 in this group, and to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in particular in his Amendment No. 41. I too am in favour of a commissioner who has a right to be heard.
The purpose of my amendments is to probe the scope and functions of the Children's Commissioner and the resources available to her or him. For example, how will the work of the commissioner influence government policy across all departments, their related quangos and other policy-making bodies? Will he or she be able to commission or sponsor other organisations to conduct research on his behalf? How influential will the commissioner be in practice" Where the issue concerns the interests of children, will he or she be formally consulted by bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality, the Learning and Skills Council or the Advertising Standards Authority? How will that work in practice?
Amendment No. 12 would further strengthen the dreaded "R" word—children's rights—by allowing the commissioner to require anyone exercising functions, or engaged in activities, affecting children to take account of their views and interests. It is all very well the commissioner having to take account of children's views and interests, but it would be good if he or she were able to require other people to do the same. Amendment No. 15 would replace the rather weak provision on considering and researching complaints procedures for children, with the altogether more robust duty to review and report on the effectiveness of advice and advocacy services, complaints procedures, inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements, so far as they relate to children. The same sort of thing applies to the Commissioner for Wales.
Amendment No. 16 allows the commissioner to participate in matters affecting children on bodies to which he or she is appointed. It seeks to probe the Government's intentions for the commissioner's influence in relation to quangos and other bodies. It will allow the Minister, if she will, to give further clarification of the resources available to the Children's Commissioner.
If the Government do intend that the commissioner will have influence over the work of such bodies as relate to children, will there be sufficient resources available to make such an involvement manageable? How does the role of the Children's Commissioner in relation to other bodies compare with the functions of other similar bodies such as the General Teaching Council? A key part of its role is to advise government and other education partners on issues affecting the profession, based on teachers' views and expertise.
Amendment No. 21 is very similar to Amendment No.18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That allows the commissioner to sponsor research by other bodies. But there is again the resource implication. The

1083
proposed funding of the Children's Commissioner is minimal. To be effective both the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and mine would need funding. The resources available would have to be substantially increased.
Amendment No. 23 was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, a little earlier and I added the word "all", which relates to "all children". The reason for that was to satisfy the many lobbying groups. We are all very grateful for their help. They wished to insert different kinds of children. When I was presented with such amendments it occurred to me what the Minister was likely to say in reply. I suspected that she would say that the provision would refer to all children and it was not necessary to specify particular groups.
However, without a pro-active statement on equality in the Bill, disabled children, asylum-seeking children, children in custody, the children of ethnic minorities and Travellers' children, may not benefit fully from the work of the Children's Commissioner. Therefore, it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness would look favourably on inserting the word "all" to send out a message to all groups that every child is included in the measures encapsulated in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to all these amendments and in particular to Amendment No. 23.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for including the word "all". As she well knows, I represent those with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. They are included in "all children". I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I would be much happier about Amendment No. 41 if it included at the end "in all accessible formats". That would make it available to people with all manner of learning difficulties and disabilities.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 28. My noble friend Lord Northbourne had to leave early. I shall do my best to make one or two of the points which I am sure he would have made.
The Children's Commissioner is to be concerned particularly in this area with the views and interests of children. Four or five examples are given. There is a real concern here which is why the amendment has been tabled. One area of a child's life which is not even remotely covered is that in the family. Referring to what was said on a previous occasion, I know that a major concern —
A noble Baroness: That amendment is in the next group.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am so sorry. I shall sit down.
Earl Howe: I shall speak in particular to Amendment No.19, which is included in this group. Clause 2(2) of the Bill specifies that one of the functions of the Children's Commissioner is to advise the Secretary of State on the views and interests of children. While that is not an objectionable provision in itself—indeed, quite the contrary—it seems not to
1084
go far enough. Surely, the point of having a commissioner whose job it is to represent the views and interests of children, is that he should be able to do so not only to a single Minister but also, where necessary, across all departments of government.
Any piece of planned-for legislation of any description which looks as though it will impact on the interests of children should be the commissioner's business. He should be consulted on it and have the right to make his views known to whichever department of state happens to be sponsoring it.
I cannot see anything in the Bill that would enable the commissioner to adopt such a role or give him the right to adopt that role, yet it seems to me to be a role that is absolutely crucial. Who other than the commissioner will there be with a mandate to protect children's interests across government as a whole?
I hope the Minister will be receptive to this point because, quite apart from the debates we have had on whether or not the commissioner should be concerned with children's rights, there is no earthly reason why he should not have a duty similar to that of his three counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to make recommendations to government as a whole. That should be not only implicit but also spelt out in the Bill.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 15, perhaps I may ask the Minister for some reassurance on Clause 2(2)(c) which, as she may know, has caused some fluttering in the dovecotes in certain educational circles. The point has been made to me very forcefully that in our schools there are already nationally endorsed procedures in operation for the handling of complaints; on top of those, many procedures exist at school level as well. So we are not therefore looking at a uniform set of arrangements. The power given to the commissioner to review complaints procedures could, if we are not careful, turn into something quite bureaucratic and far reaching. I can quite see why this provision has been included in the Bill, but it is a power that will need to be used with some care if schools are not to find themselves disrupted quite considerably.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The amendments in this group are very important. From Amendment No. 12 onwards they seek to strengthen the role of the commissioner. Amendment No. 15 is particularly important for alleged cases of abuse because it would protect children in a children's home, an area of great concern over recent years.
It is with hesitancy that I seek reassurance that Amendment No. 16 would not undermine the independence of the commissioner, who should be free to go wherever she or he feels appropriate. I am concerned that appointments to bodies might result in a conflict of interest arising at some stage.
I wish also to ask the Minister how, without the power to research, the audit requirements of the commissioner's office under public scrutiny would be met? Without the power to research, I am concerned that there could be an impedance of accurate data

1085
collection and that the processes of inquiry would need to be expanded beyond the date of their workings of the role.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done the Committee a service by giving the number of children belonging to members of the Armed Forces and diplomatic and consular services who are at any one time serving overseas. In doing so he has added strength to the argument that the words "all children" should be in the Bill. I support his Amendment No. 41, which seeks to give the commissioner the right to publish material on his own initiative. This would helpfully strengthen the role of the commissioner for England or for the United Kingdom.
I also support most or all of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Amendment No. 12 seeks to introduce the word "require". It seems to me that that would strengthen the role of the commissioner in a useful and practical way.
Amendment No. 15 relates to independent advocacy. I should mention here a practice that has been going on in Northern Ireland for quite a number of years and to which I have previously spoken, in other contexts, in your Lordships' House. I refer to the provision of independent advocacy services for young people contained for long, short or medium periods in secure establishments. It has worked out very well in practice; the independent lay advocates have been trained by a voluntary organisation in Northern Ireland with which I happen to be connected. I think there is a strong case for learning from that experience in Northern Ireland, and replicating it or introducing it into England and perhaps even other jurisdictions.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I sympathise with much of the thinking that lies behind the amendments in this interesting group. It is very important that the commissioner is effective in promoting the views and interests of children, consulting as widely as possible and having a broad vision of what constitutes their needs and interests. Noble Lords have raised many different concerns about the coverage and nature of that role which is, in a sense, what binds the amendments together.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has raised an important point in Amendment No. 11A, which would ensure that the provision extends to service families overseas. Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would ensure that the commissioner's role covers all children. There is a separate group of amendments on the role of the commissioner in relation to children with particular needs, to which the noble Baroness alluded. We will no doubt discuss the particular needs of those children on another occasion.
I begin by assuring the Committee that the commissioner will indeed be the champion of all children, be they the children of service families living abroad, the children of families seeking asylum in the
1086
UK, children who are looked after or those who go to the local school, nearest to where they were born. The commissioner's role will extend to all children. It is my understanding that the Bill's wording encompasses all children, but I will take that away and see whether inserting "all" adds anything to our deliberations, which I believe the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, want me to say. However, noble Lords can rest assured that the wording of the Bill covers all children. There are no exceptions; noble Lords would not wish it otherwise, and neither would I.
I am also very grateful for the detailed attention that noble Lords have paid to the way in which the commissioner carries out his or her role. Amendment No. 16 states that the commissioner should be able to sit on bodies that affect children—something of concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—and could be a consultee in inquiries or aspects of work carried out by other organisations or bodies.
Amendment No. 21, along with Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, aims to allow the commissioner to support research and pilot projects. Amendment No. 41, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the commissioner can promote discussion and express views across the whole of his or her remit. This relates to Amendment No. 19, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke; it seeks assurance that the commissioner will advise and consult with all government departments on matters relating to children.
I agree with them all. The commissioner should be able to do these things, assuming that this is what children want the commissioner to do. The commissioner's job is to be responsive to and face children in all the work that he or she undertakes. There is nothing to stop the commissioner doing the things that I have identified. I hope that with those reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister sits down, will she confirm that were the commissioner to serve on other bodies in his or her capacity as commissioner representing the interests of children, he or she would not be likely to be compromised in any way in terms of conflict of interests, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff? Will the Minister say whether such attendance would be properly resourced by the Government?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On the second point, it will be for the commissioner to determine how the resources should be spent. It is quite within the remit of the commissioner that, if he felt that it was important to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that he wished to perform a function, resources could be discussed. However, it would be wrong of me to commit the Government at this point. It is up to the commissioner to decide whether he wishes to sit on bodies or take part in other ways, and not up to us to constrain or prescribe. However, if

1087
there is concern about this matter, perhaps we can explore it outside the Committee to see whether I have understood the noble Baroness's concerns.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Perhaps I could add a question? Those who sit on non-departmental bodies and other groups have a primary responsibility towards that group. I would be concerned if the commissioner represented something other than the work of that group. Therefore, I think the matter needs teasing out and thinking through. There could be real conflicts of interest, which, if not thought through, would cause real difficulty, both for the body and for the independence of the commissioner.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is always interesting when an amendment goes in a different direction to the one I presumed. Our view is that the commissioner will make a decision about which bodies to sit on. However, in the light of what has been said, we should either correspond or meet to tease out the issues—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, just said—to be absolutely clear. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.
Under the legislation as it stands, the commissioner can do all those things, including issuing reports on subjects and engaging with all government departments outside of the annual report to Parliament. Rather than put them on the face of the Bill, we feel that it is important for the commissioner to be free to respond to children and young people in deciding what to do. The commissioner is free to do those things. Therefore, I hope that those particular amendments can be withdrawn.
We have already dealt with Amendment No. 43. Turning to Amendment No. 11A, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it is our firm intention that children temporarily living abroad while their parents are on official duty overseas will have access to the commissioner should that be appropriate. Because we have not had time between the tabling of this amendment and this debate, I shall check the legal technicalities of the children's situation. Should it be necessary, the Government will introduce an amendment to ensure that they are properly catered for, as the noble Lord would expect.
Amendment No. 32 gives me a chance to clarify a little more of the commissioner's role. It is to promote awareness of the views and interests of children, and to make children aware of this function and of how they may communicate with the commissioner. Although it is inevitable that children will get in touch about individual problems, as we have made clear in all of our discussions and statements, we do not want the commissioner to be drawn into such inquiries. That is not an appropriate role in this context. There is no reason why the commissioner should not advise on general sources of help available for different kinds of problem, but we would not want him to have a formal referral role. Our understanding is that the commissioner could already offer general advice, but I am double-checking the position to ensure that that is correct. If there is anything in the existing Bill to prevent the commissioner providing such general advice, the
1088
Government will introduce a suitable amendment. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 11 A and 32.
Amendment No. 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would make sure that the commissioner makes a difference to the way in which services take account of children's views. I share that intention, but it has to be for the services themselves to change. Taking account of children's views will be central to being able to deliver effective services and should be part of performance management processes. It would be wrong for the commissioner to act as another formal inspectorate, which is what would happen, albeit that is not entirely what the noble Baroness planned. That is not to say that the commissioner should not comment on how well this is achieved and approach services, inspectorates and the Government with views on what they need to do to improve. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 15 would expand on the particular focus that the commissioner will have on ensuring that complaints procedures are accessible to children and young people. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a particular concern which I hope I will address in the course of my comments.
The intention behind the existing subsection (14)(c) is to reflect the commitment in the Green Paper that complaints processes should be looked at by the commissioner to assess whether they work for all children and young people. Clearly the advice and support available is crucial to this and would be included in what the commissioner would look at in carrying forward this part of the commissioner's remit. There is nothing to stop the commissioner looking at after-services such as statutory advocacy provision; indeed, those might be especially relevant in his specific role in supporting children who have more difficulty in making their voices heard. However, this specific remit is perhaps relevant to particular groups of children. On that basis, we would not wish to see this provision on the face of the Bill.
With those assurances—and, I hope, reassurances to the noble Earl—on the intent behind this part of the function of the commissioner, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not to press their amendments in this group.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given particularly on Amendment No. 11A. I entirely accept what she said on Amendment No. 18. On Amendment No. 41. I shall go away and check my precedents. I will probably not come back on it when I discover that she is right and I am just being argumentative.
I have remaining concerns on Amendment No. 32. When an adult rings up one might say, "Sorry, no; it is not for us. Why don't you try so and so?". An adult is well capable of dealing with that sort of advice and, particularly if they are provided with a telephone number, will pick it up again. I think that children are rather

1089
different, particularly children who have any variety of distress, problem or difficulty. It can require a great deal of bravery to make one of these calls. If the first one happens to be to the Children's Commissioner whereas it should have been to Childline, it is very difficult to say to the Children's Commissioner, "No, you cannot take their telephone number. No, you cannot give it to Childline. All you have to say is, Don't talk to us. There's a list of other people you might talk to on our website"'. I think that that is second best. I know that it is difficult to act as a referral service, and I certainly would not suggest that that be done for adults. However, I think that to drop children back to stage one where they have to summon the courage again and find someone else to approach is not the best we can do.
I shall certainly return to the issue. I very much hope that the Government will have a chance to think through the matter again. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
"() the family;"
The noble Lord said: There is a companion amendment. Amendment No. 26, which does the same thing slightly later in the Bill. Amendment No. 24 tackles Clause 2(3), which lists the things with which the commissioner,
"is to be concerned in particular".
The amendment then provides a list of various matters that we are supposed to care about in relation to children. However, in that list there is absolutely no mention of family.
I have no particular attachment to the wording; I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendments, has done it better than I have. However, it is astonishing to make a list of things that are important to children and not include family. Family modulates so many of the other things that are in here to begin with. Furthermore, it has an enormous importance on its own—how things are going in the family; how relationships are going in the family; how supportive the family is being of a child. Many of the things that go wrong for children are due to difficulties in the family. Many of the other things that can go wrong for children are best dealt with by support given in the family. It is so crucial and central to a child's wellbeing that I am really quite astonished that we should have got to a point where we can list things that are important to a child's wellbeing and leave out family. I very much hope that this will turn out to have been an oversight. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment and, indeed, Amendment No. 28 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne.
It certainly seems fairly odd, if I can put it that way, that this major aspect of a child's life has been left out. Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said on
1090
an earlier amendment, I rather wonder whether it is because we are concerned, as indeed we are, with those who are disadvantaged and whose rights do not exist within their family and so on. But we need to remember that this Bill is not just about those children; it is surely about all children. The vast majority of children have supportive families. Perhaps the need there is for them to be better supported.
We need to remember that most of the important things in life—love, security, encouragement, the boundaries that need to be set—also come from within the home. Therefore, it seems a little odd to ignore the views of children on this very important issue in their lives. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain why this matter has not figured. One begins to wonder whether the right questions were asked if the Government have managed to leave out such an important chunk of the normal child's life. I leave it at that.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I fully appreciate what this amendment is trying to do. Of course, the family is tremendously important in a child's life. However, it raises the question of what is a family. Some children will not be in a family as many of us would possibly define it. I should like to tease this out some more and consider what we mean by the family. For example, there are children in care and children who are in many different kinds of families. Although I fully understand what the proposers are saying, I should like further definition on the amendment.
Baroness Thornton: My problem with this amendment— I may be misunderstanding its meaning—is that the Bill is concerned with taking into account the views and interests of children. It is not that it excludes the family, but it is about children. What concerns me is that we might be tying ourselves into a situation where we have to take account of the views of children and families when what we really need to do is take account of the views of children.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I hope that I may add one very small point. The point that I was trying to make was that it is the children's views of family that seem not to have been included in the things that are relevant to their wellbeing.
Lord Elton: It follows from what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said that the fact of children not being in a family is equally important. Perhaps we have to find a new way of formulating this whole subsection. But one cannot ignore what may be the biggest factor of all in a child's life when setting out the things that should be taken into account.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have some concerns about the amendment because we are again trying to make the commissioner universally responsible for all things. When children in families want help it is because they are experiencing difficulty. They usually want one to leave their family alone in other circumstances. I should like us to be quite clear what we are saying in the amendment, if we suggest

1091
that the commissioner should have responsibility for families as well as all the other aspects relating to the welfare of children. We could be really into the nanny state if we make the commissioner responsible for all family life as well as everything else.
Baroness Walmsley: We on these Benches believe that the best interests of children usually lie within their families. There are a few exceptions to that, which I hope that some measures in the Bill will seek to address. That said, because of the difficulty of referring to "the family", I think that "the welfare of the child", which is referred to in the Bill, might cover the issue. We are all agreed that that welfare lies, on the whole, within the bosom of their family.
Earl Howe: I should like to add my voice in support of the amendments, particularly those in the name of my noble friend. He is absolutely right in all that he said. Growing up in a loving family is one of the most important benefits that a child can receive for his emotional development and general well-being. I find it strange that there is no mention of family anywhere in the clause.
By family, I do not think that we mean only parents, although parents are an integral part of what a family is. We also mean brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins. For those who live in foster families, it is the foster parents and perhaps their relations. We mean a one-parent family in some cases. Any child who grows up not experiencing the security, example, comradeship and love of his own family has missed out on a very great deal in life. It is not enough to look at the aspects of well-being listed in subsection (3) and try to convince ourselves that such things are somehow subsumed under the headings that we find there; they are not. We need to spell out in terms that a child's family life is a vital and irreplaceable part of his happiness and well-being.
It worries me sometimes when certain people talk about the best interests of the child being paramount. They do so in a way that appears to assume that one can define a child's best interests in total isolation from the relationship that he has with his parents and family. I had that worry when we were debating the adoption legislation two years ago, and I have it now.
The public authorities, whose function it is under Clause 6 to improve the well-being of children, should not be allowed to suppose that their objectives can be achieved without reference to a child's place in his or her own family. Everything that they do should be based on the presumption that families do best by being kept together, and that only in extreme circumstances should the removal of a child from his family be contemplated. Only by placing "family" in Clauses 2 and 6 can we be assured that social services, the police, the commissioner and other authorities will be obliged to pay explicit regard to that presumption.
Lord Rix: May I make a rather wild suggestion at this late hour? Clause 2(3), which is on page 2, states:
"The Children's Commissioner is to be concerned in particular under this section with the views and interests of children so far as relating to the following aspects of their well-being".
It then lists those aspects in paragraphs (a) to (e). Could we not add, in a paragraph (f), "their relationship with a family"? That would solve the entire problem.
The Earl of Listowel: I support my noble friend's amendment. As I said earlier, I am concerned that it is simply too easy to isolate children when one speaks of them and to forget that most of the time they are within some caring context—with an adult or parent caring for them. Government policies on parents and supporting a child poverty strategy are very welcome, but when the financial incentive for parents, even of a child under one, is to go to work rather than to look after the child—although, I believe that that is beginning to change—it is easy to slip into isolating children and forgetting what they are in this context.
There is a culture in this country that perpetuates the undervaluing of those who provide care—whether they are parents, social workers or foster carers. Compared with the continent, we simply do not do enough to value the people who provide care for children. That is another reason why I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's response, because we need to build that culture of recognising the vital role that parents and carers play for children. I am worried that if we do not include "family" within that, we might be missing an opportunity to build that consensus for valuing more the support for children that is provided by families and other carers.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I rise briefly to support entirely the intention behind the amendment. I am told that elephants live about as long as we do, but whereas baby elephants, when they are aged four or five, are able to go off into the jungle on their own to fend for themselves, our children are dependent on parents, or whoever is in their place, for three or four, or even, nowadays, five times as long as is the case with elephants.
Indeed, those patterns of dependency for children and young people are being ever more enhanced—and top-up fees will simply add one more force to that, as has been said. Fundamentally, if we are to look at the wellbeing of children, we have to look at the close network of support that society seeks to provide for them, which, in most cases—and ideally—would involve the family. But the term "family", as has been hinted, embraces both the nuclear family, the immediate parents, and that which we have so often lost in our society, the extended family—the wider network of relations. There is an old African proverb that it takes a village to raise a child.
The thrust of the Government's proposals for the Children's Commissioner is to give that person a broad, wide-ranging, co-ordinating and overseeing brief; not to try to over-define or tie down but to give that person something of a free hand to look at the overall experience of children in our society and to

1093
help to formulate proposals. That means that the relationship of children to family must be part of the remit. I have my doubts about whether it should be specified as simply one more on a list, for reasons that have been given. But there is no doubt that from these Benches we can support the fundamental thrust of the amendment.
Lord Hylton: These are important amendments. Of the two approaches, I slightly favour that set out in Amendment No. 28 and I agree with my noble friend Lord Rix that we need to consider family life insofar as it affects the wellbeing of children. That is not only what we need to consider, but what the commission needs to consider in future. I hope that that approach will go some way toward satisfying my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote.
Earlier in our discussions the Minister talked about the commissioner having a strategic or systemic approach to the children who he has to take into account. We can generally agree that that is the right approach, but I would like to see the commissioner considering family life. because it is the principal source of the love and nurturing that children require if they are to develop into satisfactory, reasonable adults.
In order to try to help the Minister's consideration of this question. I will recall what was happening 30 years ago, sometimes slightly more, when I and many others were deeply involved in questions of homelessness, housing aid and advice. We defined homelessness not just for single people but for families, in terms of normal family life. We asked ourselves, "Do a given family's living conditions allow them to enjoy normal family life?". If they did not have sufficient living space, they were deprived of normal life and therefore ought to be considered to be homeless, regardless of whatever the statutory definition of homelessness might have been at that time. I offer that to the noble Baroness the Minister, in the hope that it may be helpful.
10 p.m.
Lord Elton: That was a singularly helpful illustration. Looking at the Bill, it seems to me that the process we are now looking at starts in Clause 2(2)(a). The children's commissioner may, in particular, under this section,
"encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their views and interests".
We are talking about their relationship with their family. The commissioner will presumably have lines to the housing authority as well as to the education authority, the Probation Service and others who impact on the family, and will be able to make them aware of what the effect of their proposals may be on the child, as the child sees it. That could be a very helpful dimension. I think my noble friend's amendment is an exceedingly good one. Whether or not it is finessed in the way the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggests or not, I leave to others to guess.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hesitate to prolong this, but I think we recognise that paragraphs (a) to (e) reflect the consultation process which was engaged in before the Bill, and the views of children as they were expressed then. Nevertheless, regarding the phrase "views and interests" of the children, we have already had a question raised on what the word "interest" means: whether we mean their interest—that is, their wishes or ideas—or the best interests, meaning the things that most reflect well upon the lives of children. That point was also made in relation to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Speaking not in a party political sense but personally, I come to a similar conclusion to that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester; namely, that somewhere in this Bill we need to make it clear—and it may be that it is there already, I can see the Minister looking very speedily through her Bill— that we recognise the enveloping importance of the family and the life of the child.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was looking speedily to make sure that I referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, when I get to that particular section in my notes. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate—not least the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for coming up with an amendment that was promptly supported in the Committee. That goes beyond the manuscript amendment by my reckoning, but it was none the less an important part.
The purpose of these amendments is to add "family or family life" to the description of what we mean in the concept of well-being. It is an important concept in this Bill and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we defined it in terms of the outcomes that children and young people told us they wanted to achieve. Our ambition is that a common understanding of outcomes should underpin the work of the commissioner and be a focus for the co-operation arrangements in Clause 6.
Amendment No. 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment No. 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, fall in Clause 2. Amendment No. 86 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment No. 89 from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, fall in Clause 6. I entirely sympathise with the concerns of Members of the Committee that we acknowledge the primary importance of families, parents and carers to the outcomes achieved by children. I was only sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not mention step-parents. As a step-mother, I take that personally—but I am willing to retract my personal outrage on the basis that I am sure he meant to include them.
However, I do not believe it is appropriate to amend the definition of "well-being" in this way. It is a direct translation of the outcomes which we set out in the Green Paper, Every Child Matters: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and economic well-being. As noble Lords heard me say earlier, that came from the extensive consultation exercise.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 28 also raise the question of whether the commissioner should consider family, family life or support to families to be within his remit. I can assure noble Lords that it can he. The

1095
commissioner will be free to determine the issues in which he takes an interest and this could well include children's views about what should or should not be done to support families and family life. There would be nothing to stop the commissioner from pursuing this as a proper topic for investigation, discussion and debate.
I turn to Clause 6 and Amendments Nos. 86 and 89. The outcomes are used again here to illustrate the scope and range of areas in which agencies will be co-operating to improve well-being. For the reason I have already given, I do not believe that we should alter the definition of "well-being". However, I agree with noble Lords that families and parents are extremely important in the context of the co-operation duties which are designed to improve services for children and young people.
Indeed, as I am sure noble Lords will know better than I, support for families and parents is a particularly good example of the kind of work likely to be done better as a result of better co-operation. In particular, the voluntary sector has real expertise in this field. We have also made it clear that parents and families should have a clear say in the way services are delivered.
We know from our experience with programmes like Sure Start that the involvement of parents and families is critical to the success of much of the innovative work we are taking forward; for example, through our children's centres and extended schools. We will expect local authorities and their partners fully to consult children, young people and their families in developing services. I am happy to confirm that this will be made clear through the guidance associated with Clause 6.
I hope your Lordships will agree that amending the list of outcomes is not the right approach. However—here I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—I agree with the right reverent Prelate and other noble Lords that it would be appropriate to put something on the face of the Bill to reflect the importance which the Government and services should place on parents and families. I undertake that the Government will consider how we can do that. I am sure, too, that we will return to this topic in detail when we debate amendments to Clause 16 in particular. In the mean time, with that reassurance as the way forward on this
1096
set of amendments, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to those who have spoken. I am immensely impressed that we should have had such a varied and wide-ranging debate at ten o'clock at night. For all noble Lords to have stayed for it is impressive and I hope that it has impressed itself on the Minister. I believe that it may have done.
If this Bill leaves this House with the word "family" in it and with real intent in its expression, we will have made a significant improvement. I have no particular affection for sticking it in this list—it is a question of how it lies in the Bill and its overall effect on it.
I must carry out some research and discover what questions children were asked that they should not mention "family" in the list. Perhaps if it is not somewhere obvious, the Minister could drop me a note. We will doubtless return to the matter again in Committee and on Report, but for now I beg leave to go home to bed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities
A message was brought from the Commons, that they concur with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the committee shall report on the draft Bill by 30 September 2004; and have ordered:
That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Charities Bill.
That the committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That the quorum of the committee shall be two.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Traffic Management Bill
  (Fourth Day)
  Tuesday, 4 May 2004.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
  Clause 72 [Power to require authority to apply for civil enforcement powers]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My noble friend Lord Bradshaw gave notice that we intended to oppose the Question that this clause should stand part of the Bill. I should say at this point that that is not because we have any particular problem with the clause, rather that it provides us with an opportunity to raise the issue of a situation that has developed and which could be addressed in the Bill. I refer to the question of the enforcement of emission standards under clean air legislation.
  The current position is that local authority officers, who are usually environmental health officers, are responsible for testing vehicles and enforcing standards, but they do not have the power to stop vehicles. That must be done by the police with regard to the private car, although officers of the relevant vehicle standards unit can stop lorries and buses. We should like to see this anomaly addressed.
  It is certainly the case that, with reduced police availability to undertake this sort of work, the numbers of vehicles being pulled over is quite low. This situation could well get worse once the Bill is enacted. As we move into the civilianisation of certain areas, it is even less likely that the police will be available to stop vehicles they think are guilty of breaking the clean air legislation. Those are the reasons why we oppose the Question.
  Viscount Astor: While I am sympathetic to the idea of emissions testing, I am not sure I am sympathetic to the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. It is my experience that, when an emissions test is undertaken, usually it is sited somewhere most inconvenient for the rest of the traffic. Either it is done during the rush hour or it is set up so that it causes a traffic jam. That happens when the police are there; God knows what would happen if they were not there. The idea seems to be that local authority officials should be able to stop the traffic whenever and wherever they wanted. That would, I think,
  GC 180
  immediately create conflict with the traffic manager and so forth. Strict rules would have to govern the arrangement.
  Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I am in favour of ensuring that the police are responsible for stopping traffic while local authority officers undertake the emissions tests. We shall otherwise end up with even more snarled-up traffic, which is not the purpose of the Bill.
  Lord Berkeley: I am in a muddle over this because I had thought that the Vehicle Inspectorate could not stop lorries; the police have to do so. The noble Baroness has put me right on that point.
  Has my noble friend seen the press reports published over the past few days concerning the police's feat that the Bill may reduce the number of policemen allowed on traffic duties to such an extent that it will affect their ability to stop cars and thereby apprehend criminals? There are problems here which need 10 be addressed. I would have no problem with local authority officials stopping any vehicle if they felt that it was contravening emissions regulations. To be frank, they do not do it at the moment because they cannot do so, and I do not believe that the police do it very much in any case. That is a line that we have taken throughout the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says in response.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The role of civil enforcement officers appointed under Clause 73 will be confined to the enforcement of traffic contraventions that are subject to civil enforcement by virtue of Clause 70. There is no question of them being empowered to stop vehicles. Clause 75(4), which deals with the notification of penalty charges, states that regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles.
  Parliament recently concluded that civilians should be allowed to stop vehicles on the road only in very limited circumstances. The issue was considered in connection with the Police Reform Act 2002. Among other things, this gave chiefs of police the ability to authorise certain officials in the Department for Transport to stop vehicles. These officials are in the department's Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, and they can stop vehicles only for the purposes of checking roadworthiness documentation. In theory, VOSA officials could stop vehicles on behalf of local authorities. However, the practical fact of the matter is that they have their own tasks to perform. There would be limited scope for them to assist authorities. Therefore authorities will have to rely on the police to assist with roadside emissions testing.
  My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised the question of reduced police activity due to the Bill. The Bill should not reduce enforcement of criminal activity by the police. Precise allocation of resources is for chief constables. One of the reasons for civil enforcement is that the police do not have the resources to do this properly.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply but I think that, to some extent, he is putting his head in the sand. In fact, things are moving apace. Consultation is

  GC 181
  going on with the police authorities about the future role of the police. It is quite clear in that—this emanates from the Prime Minister's office—that the role of the police in traffic enforcement is to be severely curtailed and transferred to local authorities.
  I have no wish to see vehicles stopped where they will cause traffic jams, but, despite the misgivings of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, there are now devices available that can tell an environmental health officer which vehicles are causing emissions to rise well above statutory limits and therefore ought to be stopped for a full test to be undertaken while the vehicle is halted. There is no reason to halt the vehicle at a point where there will be a traffic jam. The device that picks out the vehicle could be placed where it is most convenient, and the vehicle could then be stopped further along the road where the test can be done without causing congestion.
  I accept, of course, that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce congestion, and one does not wish to add to it. However, the Government have passed clean air legislation and introduced a Bill—I think it is the London Local Authorities Bill, which is in the list of Bills awaiting Royal Assent—which contained a clause that allowed the stopping of vehicles. That clause was deleted because it was opposed by one Member in the House of Commons, and in order to get the Bill through, the Government left the clause out. Furthermore, in some parts of London chiefs of police are telling local authorities that they will not make police constables available for vehicle testing.
  On the one hand, there is an Act that requires a local authority to have a clean air area and to enforce it, and on the other hand there is a set of circumstances that mean that it is extremely unlikely, but not theoretically impossible, to enforce that. Bearing in mind that local authorities get very little money from enforcing Clean Air Act regulations, I press the Minister to reconsider the matter and tell us on Report how he intends that we should enforce this legislation. My submission to the Committee is that we have unenforceable legislation, and the Government are making no provision for enforcement. Indeed, they are introducing more legislation to take the police further away from this area than they are at present.
  Clause 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Civil enforcement officers]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 118C:
  Page 44, line 2. leave out "guidance" and insert "guidelines"
  The noble Lord said: This government amendment substitutes "guidelines" for "guidance" in Clause 73(3)(a). It provides that enforcing authorities must ensure that civil enforcement officers wear uniforms that accord with guidelines issued by the appropriate national authority.
  Use of the term "guidelines" is intended to reflect the fact that authorities will not have a completely free hand in respect of determining the form of officers' uniforms. The requirements of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as to the form of uniforms will amount to a direction to authorities about the form of uniforms rather than merely
  GC 182
  constituting recommendations. The current requirement is that uniforms should identify officers as parking attendants and the authority for which they are working and that uniforms should have unique serial numbers to identify officers.
  The use of the term "guidelines" ties in with the wording of the government amendments to Schedule 9 tabled in response to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It is felt that "guidelines" conveys the stipulations in Clause 73(3)(a) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 better than the word "guidance", which has the connotation of simple advice. It is a small amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 44, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. I am unclear about how wide is the authority given to a parking attendant by Clause 73(5)(b). The clause refers to,
  "other road traffic contraventions for which they are the enforcement authority".
  It is not clear why that is not covered in paragraph (a). I should like the Minister to elucidate what that means. I beg to move.
  Viscount Goschen: My name—or a version thereof—is attached to the amendment. My noble friend is probing the Government in order to gain a little more information. We are at a serious point in the Bill. The Committee highlighted the wide concern about the role of these officers and the proliferation of uniformed, perhaps pseudo-police, bodies.
  Clause 73 refers to civil enforcement officers, who can enforce the law as described in this part. It appears that the Government intend that the contracted-out traffic officers—parking attendants, as they are at the moment—will be able to issue notices to motorists in connection with offences that they might have committed.
  My concern is, first, that there would be a proliferation of uniformed pseudo-police bodies and that there would be confusion in the public's mind about who has what power. For example, I do not know what the powers are of the community support officers whom we see on our streets and whether they can stop vehicles. The Minister made it clear that he thought that civilians should be able to stop vehicles only in very limited circumstances. I presume that for this purpose parking attendants are civilians, albeit in uniform.
  I am concerned about the operating practices of many civil parking attendants, particularly in London. I am sure that they are very admirable individuals, but the practices with which they are tasked are predatory and a degree of entrapment is involved. I do not think that these bodies have much to do with controlling parking. Such bodies are tasked with revenue generation more than with ensuring that traffic flow is not affected by illegally parked vehicles.

  GC 183
  The Government got themselves into a good deal of hot water about speed cameras, having them placed at points that had little to do with accident black spots and more to do with catching motorists and generating considerable revenue. I am not against contracted-out parking attendants per se; I am against the current low level of control over how officers operate. I fear that, by tasking them to enforce traffic regulations, the Government could open a can of worms that could lead to a diminution of the authority of officers who enforce traffic regulations. I have visions of gangs of attendants on street corners trying to catch motorists turning right where they should not do so, for example. If motorists should not turn right, it is right that those who do should be caught; but if officers are driven to hit targets, I am not sure that motorists will feel fairly treated. We have seen a significant rise in the number of parking tickets issued by such bodies. I am concerned that the same would happen in traffic enforcement and that the authority of the police would be reduced.
  We have been told and given notes to indicate that little discretion should be involved in those offences—that they should be "Yes/No"-type offences. However, the same should apply to parking offences, and we know the enormous amount of correspondence and appeals generated in that field.
  I ask the Minister to give the Committee some comfort that he can see that there is significant concern about the practices operated by parking attendants, particularly in London. I should like to hear how he envisages parking attendants' involvement in issuing penalty charges against motorists who contravene road regulations.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has raised some important points. With as controversial an element in the community as parking attendants, it is hardly surprising that such concerns have not been voiced. Parking attendants do an incredibly difficult job. I believe that most of them, most of the time, do it well. I am a motorist and a pedestrian, and I can see that much controversy arises when individual motorists feel that they have been unfairly dealt with when they have contravened the regulations by only a few minutes. Given that parking attendants have generally done a good job for a fair amount of time, it seems sensible that they should be at least part of the corps of people who will have the wider task of enforcement rather than creating afresh an entirely new corps.
  Viscount Goschen: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Why is a new corps of any description required? Why can not the police continue to undertake that function?
  Lord Borrie: I am sure that the Minister will have a better answer than I do, but I believe that it is on the general ground that such relatively minor matters can be dealt with by people who do not receive the training, get the pay or bear the responsibilities of police officers. There
  GC 184
  is a justification for having an extra corps of people who, at the moment, do the job of a parking attendant but could take on additional tasks.
  The Government and the public are concerned about anti-social behaviour generally. Sadly, we do not often see police officers on the streets, so the presence on our streets of somebody in authority with a uniform on is a good idea. I suppose that the guidance to which the Minister referred in respect of the previous amendment will ensure that the uniform they wear will have a different label on it from that worn by parking attendants because they will have those wider responsibilities—so much the better. If their presence has a deterrent influence on anti-social behaviour, that will be a beneficial outcome.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: The amendment raises some fundamental issues. I must be frank and say that I am struggling to understand the logic of the noble Viscount's argument. I have the highest regard for him, but the logic of his argument defeats me.
  One ought to consider first principles. First, we should consider whether any traffic restrictions anywhere are necessary. I think that we would all agree that we must have restrictions on traffic, whether in the form of parking controls, speed limits, "No right turn" signs or whatever. That brings us to the second point: once we have the restrictions, need we enforce them? Self-evidently, we do; otherwise, people would simply ignore them.
  Once we are agreed on that, the next step is to ask by whom the restrictions should be enforced. One has two choices. There is a wonderful, simple logic in saying that, for the purposes of clarity, there should be one uniformed service that undertakes the whole range of policing tasks, including traffic policing and enforcement. However, the truth is that we do not have enough police officers. They are very skilled, highly trained and cost a lot. There is an argument that it is not a sensible use of highly trained officers' time to use them to enforce "No right turn" signs or parking restrictions. Once we decide that, in the interests of efficiency, such work is not the best use of their time, we must ask ourselves whom we should get to do the job.
  The last point is how such things should be enforced. It is interesting to note that the local authorities who receive most opprobrium for over-zealous enforcement of things such as parking restrictions are, in the main, the most efficient. They were the early outsourcers of services and have developed a market-based approach. I think, for example, of Westminster, which was a pioneer in outsourcing services. It has highly developed systems for subcontracting and uses incentives to get the best value for money for local council tax payers.
  We cannot have it both ways. If we think that that system works for the bins and for cleaning the pavements, we must accept that it will also work for parking. We cannot expect contractors to be highly efficient about pavements and bins but ask them to cut us a bit of slack

  GC 185
  on parking. We cannot have it both ways. We must think carefully, from first principles, while considering the amendment.
  Lord Rotherwick: Does the noble Baroness accept what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said: that a lot of traffic violations are caused by criminals or people who are the most likely to commit criminal offences? Statistics tend to bear that out. So in fact, having a police officer to police menial left and right turns would be most beneficial, because the chances are that they will also pick up on those criminals. Unfortunately, other enforcement officers would be unable to do so.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: The noble Viscount—
  Lord Rotherwick: I am not a Viscount.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I do apologise. The noble Lord is right and I do not disagree with him, but we live in the real world and there simply are not enough police officers to undertake the work that most people want them to do, even without dealing with right turns, whether or not they involve the criminal fraternity. In theory, I accept the noble Lord's point, but in practice it simply will not happen. Those offences will not be enforced.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am sorry to keep butting in, but perhaps the noble Baroness would accept that since 1997 we have lost 12.5 per cent of our traffic officers. Perhaps we should return to the provision that we had in 1997, so that we would be able to do that.
  Lord Berkeley: This is an interesting discussion. I believe that there is a serious shortage of police officers, but I also believe that, as the noble Baroness said, we live in the real world which will not be changed overnight. My noble friend Lord Borrie mentioned anti-social behaviour. Let us not forget that turning right where a sign says that you cannot or stopping in a yellow box is just as anti-social as other such behaviour. If you are caught doing that, you deserve to be apprehended by whoever.
  It is easy to say that motorists are a separate class of people and that we should let them get away with parking and turning right. Everyone is in the same boat here: if you disobey the law, you deserve to get punished.
  Viscount Simon: A few random thoughts occur to me about traffic officers and the reduction in their numbers. I would like to return to the numbers that we had on patrol in 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, the number fell by 50 per cent, which is one hell of a lot. Returning to turning right where you should not, yes, that is an offence; yes, a police officer could deal with it; yes, he could detect whether that person had committed any further criminal offences. Police traffic officers generally have very high arrest rates compared with the total for non-traffic offences. That should never be forgotten.
  GC 186
  Targets, which have already been mentioned, also concern me. I am led to believe that one local authority not far from here gives its traffic wardens, or whatever we call them—parking attendants—a Vauxhall Nova as a prize, one might say, for achieving their targets. I find that incredible. Whether it is true, I do not know, but it has been reported in the newspapers—reputable newspapers at that.
  Civil staff have the power to control turning right, but they have discretion. One point on which I would pick up the noble Viscount concerns speed cameras. If someone is turning right, the civil staff have discretion. The speed camera has no discretion. If you are committing a criminal offence or exceeding the speed limit, it will catch you, full stop.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I have enjoyed listening to the debate; I thought that I might not have to respond. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, wants elucidation and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, wants reassurance. I hope to give both, but would like to say how grateful I was for the contributions from my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I agree with everything that they said.
  Clause 73 enables an enforcement authority to appoint civil enforcement officers to undertake the enforcement of traffic contraventions. A civil enforcement officer may be employed either directly by the authority or by a person undertaking enforcement powers pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the authority—which presumably means a contractor.
  When parking regulations made under the Bill are brought into force in a given area, existing parking attendants become civil enforcement officers for the purpose of enforcing parking contraventions by virtue of subsection (5)(a) of Clause 73. By removing paragraph (b) of subsection (5), Amendment No. 119 would prevent enforcing authorities appointing existing parking attendants as civil enforcement officers in relation to other traffic contraventions for which they are the enforcement authority.
  So an authority would have to make new civil enforcement officer appointments—the nightmare scenario—for the purpose of enforcing other traffic contraventions, rather than being able to draw on its pool of existing enforcement staff. That is not an efficient use of an authority's resources, as I think the Committee would agree. The main task of civil enforcement officers will be to issue penalty charges for parking contraventions. However, we wish to enable civil enforcement officers to be given a role that goes beyond enforcing parking contraventions to the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions that are subject to civil enforcement.
  The best current example of this is found under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. A special team of officers enforces the London night-time and weekend lorry ban. We want to ensure that that can continue when regulations made under the Bill to enforce the London lorry ban replace the 2003 Act powers. Depending on what we learn from the pilots to begin in London next month,

  GC 187
  we would not want to rule out civil enforcement officers having a role in enforcing other moving traffic contraventions.
  I agree that if existing parking attendants are to undertake other enforcement duties, it is important that they are properly trained for the task. Responsibility for ensuring proper training will rest with enforcing authorities. But we should not preclude existing parking attendants from taking on other enforcement duties.
  A number of points were raised in the debate to which I shall attempt to reply. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was worried about the proliferation of police-type bodies rushing around, acting entrepreneurially and trying to raise money for the authority. As I said, civil enforcement officers will not be able to stop vehicles. Government Amendment No. 124F will introduce statutory guidance over civil enforcement. That will include matters of training, supervision and such like, to ensure that parking and other enforcement tasks are carried out fairly and, most important, consistently.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was concerned about the ability of contracted-out civil enforcement officers to issue penalty charges and the low level of control over those officers. Contracted-out parking attendants already issue parking penalty charge notices. Existing parking attendants will not be able automatically to enforce other traffic contraventions without being specifically appointed for that purpose by the enforcing authority.
  As I said, I welcome the comment of my noble friend Lord Borrie that most parking attendants are doing a good job in incredibly difficult circumstances—we shall come to further discussion about parking attendants later. We want to bring the performance of all of them up to the highest possible standard. On uniforms, they will be distinguished from the police. The guidelines will make that absolutely clear.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, is concerned about enforcement by police officers rather than any other type of officer. The Bill does not prevent the police stopping vehicles that are, for example, disobeying a ban on right turns, in the course of which they may pick up some criminals. Why criminals would turn right against a sign I do not know—if I were a smart criminal, I would not.
  4 p.m.
  Viscount Goschen: Before the Minister dismisses the point made by my noble friend, he should note that this is a serious matter. If he were to ask the police about the number of bank robbers who have been picked up because they were driving without their lights on and so forth, they would respond that it is considerable. The Madrid bombers, for example, were picked up by the Spanish police as the result of a motoring offence and it is a great tragedy that they slipped through the net. However, this is an important
  GC 188
  point. Criminals guilty of far more serious crimes have often been caught out by the most minor motoring offences.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I did not know that and I am grateful to the noble Viscount. However, the reality is that the police do not have the resources to undertake all the traffic enforcement that is now necessary, a point explained so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope that, with all the information in my response and our lengthy debate before I rose to speak, this amendment can be withdrawn.
  Viscount Astor: Before I reply to the noble Lord. I have one brief question to put to him. Is it the Government's intention that parking wardens will be able to enforce bus lane restrictions?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am advised that the answer to that question is no and that most of the enforcement of bus lanes will be done by the use of traffic cameras.
  Lord Berkeley: Surely it is only logical that a parking warden walking alongside a bus lane who sees a car parked in it should be able to issue a ticket. If he cannot do so, that is ridiculous. He should be able to contribute to the effort to keep traffic moving, which is the whole point of the exercise.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are distinguishing between moving traffic in bus lanes and parked vehicles. At the moment, traffic wardens can of course issue tickets for parked cars, but cannot issue a ticket to a moving vehicle. However, I think that the traffic camera, which we shall discuss in a later amendment, will be extraordinarily valuable in dealing with the problem of bus lane infringements.
  Lord Berkeley: I am sorry to delay my noble friend. The point reached by a vehicle when half way between moving along and parking is when it has stopped in a bus lane. It may have stopped because the traffic in front has stopped moving. Having done so, he does not then need the police to stop him because he has already stopped moving. Under those circumstances, why should not the warden issue the driver with a ticket?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Perhaps I am a little out of my depth, but if you are illegally in a bus lane and not moving along as the result of a traffic jam, you would not imagine that a traffic warden could leap out and issue a ticket just before you move on. That is because the nature of traffic jams means that cars slow down and then move on. One can imagine traffic wardens running along beside the vehicle while trying to write out a ticket.
  We are positing the idea that a car is either moving or not moving and we feel that we have the necessary legal infrastructure in place to deal with both those possibilities.
  Viscount Astor: I had thought that my question about bus lanes might be a small elephant trap, but I

  GC 189
  did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would run so satisfactorily headfirst into it. If, as I did this morning, you arrive at Paddington station and then sit right at the front on the top of the No. 36 bus, you have rather a good view. While going down Park Lane, it is clear that at all the places where one can legally turn left, one has to enter and cross the bus lane to do so. There are no gaps in the bus lane. A traffic warden could quite easily stand at one of those junctions and issue hundreds of tickets, saying, "You went into the bus lane". Even more simply, should one bring one's car to your Lordships' House and try to enter via Black Rod's Garden, you find that you have to cross a bus lane to do so. So what a joy it would be for traffic wardens. We know that they watch meters until the very end of the time and pounce. We know that they are incentivised by large bonuses. One can see total chaos. The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, does not stand up at all. It would produce utter chaos.
  This group of amendments is just the beginning of my general rant against traffic wardens. Members of the Committee may detect a theme emerging throughout the afternoon. However, the Minister was somewhat helpful. I am concerned about training. At the end of the day, that is the important thing. All of us want the law enforced but we want it enforced fairly and reasonably. One of the problems in London is that it is not enforced fairly and reasonably. If any noble Lord opposite doubts me, I recommend that he read Kate Hoey's article that appeared in the Evening Standard on Friday. It described the situation brilliantly.
  One of the problems that have aggravated the situation is that the appeals mechanism does not work properly. Adjudicators are allowed to adjudicate on only a very narrow set of terms and circumstances and are not allowed to take other matters into consideration. It makes life incredibly difficult. The other day I had the experience of trying to make an appeal, and it was impossible to get information out of the council in order to make the appeal work. One cannot do it. One cannot find out, apart from a number, who the traffic warden was, and there is no way of getting the council to give evidence to an adjudicator. The system does not work.
  If the system is to work it must command the respect of the motorist. That is the most important thing. Justice must be seen to be done. That is what we are all trying to do. The Minister was helpful in his reply but he has just started the process. If we are to involve traffic wardens in "moving traffic contraventions" we must ensure that training and guidance are given. We will return to that matter on a later amendment.
  Viscount Goschen: I get the sense that my noble friend is about to withdraw his amendment, but, before he does that, I have a question to ask the Minister and one comment to make to the noble Baroness. Lady Scott, whose kind words I reciprocate with interest.
  Viscount Astor: I thought that she was referring to me.
  Viscount Goschen: No.
  GC 190
  The noble Baroness might be sore if she were stopped in her car for speeding—I am sure that she speeds regularly, because only about 0.25 per cent of motorists do not—while travelling at 31 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone, by a policeman who was financially incentivised to stop as many people as possible and got £20 for each motorist caught for travelling at over 30 miles per hour. That is my point. Over-aggressive, over-zealous enforcement causes a problem. If civilian officers doing what was previously the work of the police are financially incentivised to catch every person possible, regardless of whether it is a serious matter, it will lead to problems. My question to the Minister flows from that: will such civil enforcement officers be permitted to be financially incentivised to issue penalty notices?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall try to answer two of the questions asked. I gather that there is an essential legal difference between driving across a bus lane and driving down a bus lane. On the question of the incentivisation of parking attendants, I gather that this is a matter for discussion between local authorities and the contractors. That answer suggests to me that they will be incentivised to do their job effectively.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, intercedes again, perhaps I may draw on some practical experience. First, parking attendants employed by my local authority are under the control of a retired police officer. He trains them to police standards. Secondly, when the local authority increased the hours worked by parking attendants to encompass the evening, the number of thefts from cars, which was a very serious number of offences, dropped dramatically. Parking attendants are in touch with a base station by radio that is, in turn, in touch with the police. Any observations of any sort of criminality are reported immediately to the police, who come and take action accordingly.
  So there is not just a downside. There are a lot more pairs of eyes and boots walking around the streets than there were previously, keeping down disorderly behaviour, thefts from motor cars, damage to motor cars and other things that equally irritate the motorist. That shows that this policy is beneficial and necessary at a time when there is a shortage of police officers.
  I am a member of a police authority. It takes a year to train a policeman, with a further two years in which he is abstracted from duty regularly to complete that training. However, we can train a parking attendant in about eight weeks. We also have to recruit people to a high standard of youth and fitness as policemen or policewomen, whereas parking attendants can be much older. They can be physically disabled and

  GC 191
  otherwise useful. I am not saying that they should not conform to a standard, but the doors would be opened to a much wider range of participants.
  Viscount Simon: The noble Lord mentioned eight weeks' training. I understand that in certain areas of the country, training can be for as little as four weeks, but mostly six weeks.
  Lord Bradshaw: It may be.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I do not want this to turn into a question-and-answer session, but I should like to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the British Parking Association is preparing some model contracts, which we hope will prevent those problems. We acknowledge that there are problems of inappropriate financial incentives.
  Viscount Astor: I should bring the debate on this amendment to a close. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says. However, I hope that he will accept also that there are problems, particularly in London. Indeed, those problems have now been admitted by Westminster council, which is to have a period of reassessing and retraining. We will turn to that later.
  The problems are training and flexibility. If we find that traffic wardens are using their powers just to catch people—for example, if there is an argument about whether a driver crossed a bus lane or whether he entered it in order to turn left, and so forth—it will not work. We will then end up in a bigger mess than we are in at the moment. It is very important that we get it right. We shall return to that theme as we get further into this part of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Civil enforcement: setting the level of charges]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 119A:
  Page 82, line 34, leave out "for different contraventions,"
  The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group will put into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that guidance by the appropriate national authority on the level of charges to be set by enforcing authorities outside London should be included in an order. They amend paragraph 8 of Schedule 9. The opportunity has also been taken to tidy up minor drafting to ensure consistent wording between paragraphs 2(2) and 7(2) and the new paragraph 8(2), to be inserted by Amendment No. 119D.
  We are satisfied that a power to make different provision for different contraventions is implied by the power to make different provision for different classes of case. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 119B to 119D:
  Page 82, line 35, leave out "other"
  Page 82, line 39, leave out "accord with guidance given" and insert "(subject to sub-paragraph (3)) accord with guidelines appended to an order made"
  Page 83, line I, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
  "(2) Different guidelines may be given for different cases or classes of case.
  (3) An enforcement authority may, with the permission of the appropriate national authority, depart from any such guidelines."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Notification of penalty charge]:
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 120:
  Page 44, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment to find out the meaning of subsection (2)(c). Noble Lords will see from paragraph (a) that regulations may provide for notification of a penalty charge to be given in respect of a stationary vehicle,
  "by a notice affixed to the vehicle",
  usually on the windscreen. We understand that. Paragraph (b) says that notification may be given to the person in charge of the vehicle. That is fairly simple. However, paragraph (c) says:
  "in such other manner as may be specified by the regulations".
  What examples can the Government give of what they have in mind? Will notification be posted, after the number-plate of the vehicle has been checked out? Is there some other method? What do the Government mean by that paragraph? What things are they considering? I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 provides for parking penalty charge notices to be either fixed to the vehicle or handed to the person appearing to be in charge of it. In that case, the notices are issued by patrolling parking attendants where they find vehicles to be parked unlawfully.
  London authorities have acquired the additional power to serve parking penalty charge notices on the basis of information provided by a camera. That requires the penalty charge notice to be served by post. London authorities have also acquired the power to serve a parking penalty charge notice by post where a parking attendant is prevented from issuing it in accordance with Section 66 of the 1991 Act. We want authorities outside London to have the same powers as the London authorities to serve a parking penalty charge notice by post and to use cameras for the detection of parking contraventions. We will use the regulation-making powers in paragraph (c) to that effect. The removal of paragraph (c) from subsection (2) of Clause 75, as proposed by Amendment No. 120, would prevent us doing that.
  Parking attendants do a difficult job, and we should support them in their task. A UNISON survey of traffic wardens and parking attendants, carried out in 2001, revealed that 90 per cent of the 800 respondents had been

  GC 193
  subject to verbal or physical abuse in the previous 12 months. I am told that, in one case, an authority contemplated issuing its attendants with stab-proof vests. So, it is important that we should do all that we can to help parking attendants who might find themselves in threatening situations. They can, of course, be trained to handle such confrontations, but, in the last analysis, where a parking attendant is seeking to serve a penalty charge notice and is prevented from doing so because of threats, it is helpful to have the ability to issue the penalty charge notice by post.
  That is the reason for the clause, and I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 121:
  After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
  "OBSCURED REGISTRATION MARK
  Where it appears that an offence has been committed under section 43 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) (obscured registration mark) and which inhibits the duties of a civil enforcement officer, the officer may take such steps necessary to identify the vehicle."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks clarification from the Government on an issue that has been brought to our attention; namely, that it is becoming a practice in certain parts of London for motorcyclists, in particular those from delivery firms, deliberately to cover up their number plates, using covers to do so. It appears that wardens, who have the power to issue notices, are unable to do so because they cannot ascertain the vehicle registration number and do not have the necessary powers to remove any covers to the number. Can the Government clarify the position because it is certainly relevant to other parts of the legislation? I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Obscuration of a vehicle registration plate is an offence by virtue of Section 43 of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994. Prosecution is a matter for the police. A fine of up to £1,000 may be imposed on conviction. Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions depends on obtaining the vehicle registration details so that owners can be traced through the DVLA record.
  We are aware of press reports from last year—indeed, I have to say that a friend has done this—of motorcycle couriers in London seeking to avoid parking penalty charges by covering their number plates. We understand from those reports that London authorities had advised parking attendants not to remove covers to determine vehicle registration details, fearing a vehicle owner could bring an action against them for trespass or damage. The most recent information we have is that these London authorities are now taking a more sensible view and parking attendants in London are removing covers to obtain registration details.
  GC 194
  Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said. We would like to consider this matter further, take legal advice, and return to it at a later stage. Given that undertaking, I invite her to withdraw the proposed new clause.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 76 [Immobilisation of vehicle where penalty charge payable]:
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 45, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Viscount said: This is another probing amendment which addresses the issue of clamping. The clause states that regulations may make provision for the fixing of a clamp or other device while it remains in the place it was found. It goes on to state,
  "or … the moving of the vehicle to another place and the fixing of an immobilisation device to it in that other place".
  I understand that cars can be clamped and, sometimes, subsequently lifted and moved. However, why do they need to be clamped once they reach a car pound? Presumably they are being kept in a secure area. Or, in this case, can the car be moved to an area that is not secure? Why is this provision necessary?
  The amendment also gives me an opportunity to ask the Government about their views on unregulated clamping, that which is carried out on so-called private land. As we have seen, motorists have been caught out when parking in, say, a shop car park where no clear sign is displayed stating that the area is not public property. Cars are clamped by the local cowboy clampers and the motorists almost blackmailed with exorbitant charges to have their cars released. Do the Government think that this should happen? Do they believe that when people leave their cars for important reasons, they should suddenly be held hostage as the result of such behaviour? I can think of no other situation in which one's private property is held to ransom, as it were, on rather dubious grounds.
  The problem is that there is no recourse. The long-suffering motorist has to pay and then he has to sue the clamping firm that did it, which turns out to be, as we have read in the press, the kind of outfit that has no known address and no proper directors. The motorist is stuck. I wonder whether this might be an opportunity for the Minister to consider the issue and say what the Government's view is. Although on this side of the House we have not put down an amendment on the subject yet, it is something that we will be considering. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Clause 76 will allow regulations to be made enabling the wheel clamping of vehicles which are unlawfully parked in civil enforcement areas. These powers are not new. Clause 76 replaces existing provisions in Sections 69 and 70 and parts of Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. As well as the

  GC 195
  penalty charge incurred for the parking contravention, the regulations may provide for the payment of a clamp release fee and any other unpaid penalty charges in respect of the vehicle. Clearly in the latter case it will be necessary to establish that the current owner is responsible for any unpaid penalty charges.
  Amendment No. 122 would prevent regulations being made that would enable an unlawfully parked vehicle to he moved from the place where it was found to another place and to be clamped there. I have to say that when I first read the speaking notes my reaction was precisely the same as that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Admittedly this would probably happen on very rare occasions but the power has been included in the Bill for completeness. The power may be used in a situation where clamping a vehicle in the location where it was found would simply cause a continuing obstruction and where there was no pound to which to remove it. The vehicle would be removed to another part of the road, where it did not cause an obstruction, and clamped. I gather that this is a hypothetical case rather than something that is based on the reality of everyday motoring life.
  The regulations will not compel enforcement authorities to immobilise unlawfully parked vehicles. They will provide enforcement authorities with an additional measure to deter unlawful parking, if they decide to use it. Immobilisation is a useful tool for dealing with people who persistently park wrongly or who habitually refuse to pay penalty charges and cannot be traced through the DVLA keeper record.
  The noble Viscount raised the question of clamping on private land. I think that he started by saying, "If somebody with excellent reasons" had to park on private land. It would be interesting to know what those excellent reasons might be.
  Viscount Astor: They might think that it is not private land, that it is a public space—for example, the parking area of a shop.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: In my experience, it is made absolutely clear that it is a private place. If one goes to a supermarket, it is made absolutely clear that the parking facilities there are for people who are using the supermarket. If a member of the public goes in, parks his car, goes off to the beach for the day and comes back and finds that he is clamped, I think that is perfectly reasonable.
  Viscount Goschen: Is the Minister aware that there have been many examples of traps set by people who own a small piece of land near shops where notices saying that cars may be clamped are obscured by a large hedge or other such feature with the deliberate intention of catching vehicles, clamping them and getting exorbitant release fees? It has been very well documented, even if the Minister is not aware of it.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am not aware of that, but I shall brief myself on the matter before Report. I have eight paragraphs on the Government's attitude to clamping on private land. It would probably be best to have a meeting before Report so
  GC 196
  that we could go through them. I hope that I can satisfy the noble Viscount that we have a reasonably enlightened policy.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Perhaps he would be kind enough to outline in writing the essence of the eight paragraphs, as that would help us to have a meaningful meeting. My noble friend Lord Goschen raises an important point. I accept what he says about well-regulated, well-organised supermarkets and such places, but some motorists have parked in places where they clearly thought that parking was permitted and whereupon they have been held to ransom. Cases vary and include young mothers taking their children to the local surgery. There have been some terrible cases, so we must consider the matter carefully.
  I will be able to accept the Minister's response to my amendment if he can give me one assurance. He said that in exceptional circumstances a local authority would have the power to clamp a car for whatever reason it decided, to take it not to a pound but elsewhere in the street or to a side street so that it was not an obstruction, and clamp it again. I understand that. I am not sure why the local authority would not take the vehicle to a pound, but perhaps it would have good reason. If that happened, when the unfortunate motorist returned to the street he would not find his car, because it would have been moved and clamped. Can we be assured in regulations or guidance that, when a motorist rings up a local authority to ask where his car is, it will not say, "I am very sorry, it is not in the pound"? A sensible approach is needed. Will the Minister consider that? Given that the costs mount every time a motorist does not get his car unclamped, a sensible process is needed whereby he can discover where the car is, if it is not in the pound, and can telephone to get it unclamped. I would be grateful to receive an answer now, but will be happy if the Minister wants to write to me before Report.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I have an answer now; whether the noble Viscount will be happy with it is another matter. A car is illegally parked; it is causing an obstruction. The parking attendant, only in liaison with the police, can arrange for the vehicle to be moved to a safer place, where it would not cause an obstruction, and to be clamped. As it is done in association with the police, they will have a record of it for the, in my view not unfortunate, motorist who returns after having parked his or her car on a triple yellow line or wherever. We are talking about parking in a dangerous place, from where the vehicle must be removed to prevent an accident. The returning motorist will have to telephone the police to find out what has happened to his car; he will be told where it is; and, having paid the unclamping fee, he can collect it.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister makes an important point. It is all very well to discuss the situation in the abstract and to say that a car will be moved elsewhere only if it causes a dangerous obstruction. However, as we all know from previous circumstances, once the Bill becomes an Act, everybody will use the maximum power that they have in the minimum of circumstances. That is why it is

  GC 197
  important that Parliament always considers whether there should be checks and balances in how we define our legislation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 122A:
  Page 45, line 49, leave out "if"
  The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) of clause 76 re-enacts Section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which restricts the clamping of vehicles in designated parking places. If a period of less than 15 minutes has elapsed since the expiry of the period of parking paid for, the vehicle may not be clamped.
  It has been drawn to our attention by the Chief Parking Adjudicator for London that there is an anomaly in the present Section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which has been carried through into subsection (5). Sometimes a driver may buy, but fail to display as required, a ticket to show that he has paid to park his vehicle in a pay and display bay. By failing to display the ticket, he incurs a penalty charge and the vehicle may subsequently be clamped. However, if the vehicle is clamped before 15 minutes after the time paid for has elapsed, the clamping is rendered unlawful by the present drafting of Section 70. In authorising the clamping the parking attendant could not have known that less than 15 minutes had elapsed because the ticket was not displayed. Nevertheless, if the driver proves this by subsequently producing the ticket that was not properly displayed, adjudicators have to order the refund of the declamping fee. In effect, the local authority bears the risk of the driver not displaying his ticket as required. That is the purport of the clause as it is now.
  The effect of the amendments is to make clamping lawful when a pay and display ticket is not shown as required, even though less than 15 minutes has not elapsed beyond the period of parking paid for. I hope that that is clear and straightforward. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the Minister and not agree with the amendments. It seems to me that justice should basically mean that one is innocent until proven guilty. These amendments do not do that. There are many streets and squares in London where one can park and be prepared to go and find one's ticket and then find quite a few machines that simply do not work. Either they are broken or they gobble one's money and do not give one a ticket or for some reason one cannot get to them. If we pass the amendment, while one is in the process of looking for a machine, someone may come along and clamp one's car. It seems entirely reasonable that if one parks somewhere, one should not be able to be clamped within 15 minutes. Why should the motorist have to go and prove later on, after all the expense and inconvenience, that it is the fault of the local authority? We know that it is almost impossible ever to get local authorities to agree that they are at fault. In today's Evening Standard there is
  GC 198
  an article that says that in Marylebone one can get booked in 60 seconds. In this case, one will get clamped in 60 seconds. I am not yet persuaded by the legislation, because the onus should be that one is not clamped.
  Clamping is a serious inconvenience to those who suffer it. I accept what the Minister says about strategic roads and dangerous places, and so on. However, he must accept that the majority of clamping takes place where the majority of wardens are most active—at meters, and places like that. To give them such a carte blanche power will simply increase the amount of clamping that goes on. I want parking wardens to deal with important aspects. I support the principle of having them, providing that they are well trained and organised and that they deal with the important routes in London to get the traffic flowing.
  I am not convinced by the amendment. I am happy to have discussions with the Government between now and Report, and perhaps they will be able to convince me. However, it is not an amendment to which I could agree today.
  Viscount Goschen: There may be few, perhaps, but they may be specific circumstances, in which my noble friend's arguments might well apply—for example, if one had to walk a considerable distance to find a machine that worked for pay and display. The article to which he referred showed what can happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, took the opportunity to talk about the real world, and what happens with local authorities and motorists. However, in the real world, people do feel that the clamping and ticketing regime is overly aggressive. I see the circumstances that my noble friend explained, and join him in being reluctant to accept the amendments at this stage. Perhaps the Minister will want to withdraw them and re-present them later.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I have actually been in a position when, having parked my car and gone off to get my ticket, I found two machines that were out of action. Then, having walked for about quarter of a mile, I found that I had a parking ticket when I came back to the car. I phoned the council immediately, told them about the situation and the ticket was withdrawn. The incident was inconvenient in that it required me to make a phone call, but the council was incredibly apologetic about the fact that I was in an area where two out of the three machines were not working.
  We are dealing with cases in which a ticket has been bought but not displayed. When ticket machines are not working, representations can be made to the authority to cancel any penalty or clamping charge. The problem with parking attendants is that we all have our own stories. I have found them very reasonable and helpful. Of course, they have done me when I have parked illegally—but we always remember only the bad cases. The one awful thing that happened to me once, although it was not really awful, was that I was ticketed outside my house in London at

  GC 199
  8.31 a.m. That is one incident that I remember. If my analyst or someone talks to me about traffic wardens, I remember that one case. However, we forget about the enormously important job that they do and the number of times when it is a fair cop, when they have done people for illegal parking.
  The issue is extraordinarily emotive and ultimately, as individuals, we shall have to beg to disagree with each other, while the Government do their best to introduce rational and comprehensible regulations that we can all understand.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister gave a very valid exposition of what happened to him. However, the point is that in those circumstances, when he got a ticket, he had a mobile telephone, was able to ring up and was able to get it cancelled. If this amendment goes through, under those very same circumstances, the car would be clamped. That is the difference. It might be the car of someone who did not have a mobile telephone, it might be the car of someone collecting a child from school, for example. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the car should be clamped immediately, as would happen under the Minister's amendment. That is a theme that I shall follow shortly, under the next amendment. In circumstances such as I described, it is entirely reasonable that the car should not be clamped for 15 minutes.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): Is the Minister seeking to press or to withdraw the amendment?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am seeking to press the amendment, but I undertake to have conversations and discussions—
  Viscount Goschen: The Minister may want to get some guidance on this matter. I know that we do not have Divisions in Grand Committee, but I am not content with his amendment, although I clearly do not want to breach the procedures. I am sure that the Minister will have an opportunity to present his amendments again at a later stage.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is perfectly possible to press the amendment. If, however, there is disagreement, the amendment cannot stand.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It will come as no surprise, then, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 122E and 122C not moved.]
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 122D:
  Page 46, line 7, at end insert——
  "(iv) not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the issue of a parking ticket, or notification of a penalty charge; and"
  The noble Viscount said: This amendment is in a similar vein to our previous discussion, so I can be brief. Again, it concerns clamping. I feel strongly that clamps should not be fitted immediately after a ticket has been issued. That is wrong. That happened to me
  GC 200
  the other day. I got a ticket and, bang, two minutes later, a clamp appeared just as I was going to get the keys of the car to move it. I accept that I should have got the ticket, but it seemed to me that clamping was being done rather gleefully as a money-raising exercise, not to benefit sensible parking policy.
  There are plenty of reasons why people occasionally run just over the time on their meter. In that case, it seems fair that they get a ticket, but the idea of being immediately clamped does not make sense. We are talking about traffic movement. One is often held up in the street by a clamping lorry going past in a residential area. I accept what any Member of the Committee says about clamping in streets that are important thoroughfares, but we must have a sensible policy. My amendment is intended to introduce a degree of sense to the clamping issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: I support my noble friend, Viscount Astor—I say that just in case anyone else gets our names muddled up, as they frequently have. The Evening Standard article headlined, "Booked in 60 seconds", shows clearly that a ticket can be issued—in this case, by a parking warden—within a minute or three, five, nine, 10 or 14 minutes. However, as the Minister pointed out, while doing his best to put a ticket on his car, he had to walk a quarter of a mile. I am sure that he is very fit and probably scampered down the pavement in a few minutes, but if he was not I hope that he would accept that it could have taken him four or five minutes to do that. However, having been ticketed in less than four or five minutes, he could be clamped straight afterwards. I suggest that that is too unfair and that one has to give a little more leeway. Otherwise, without doing anything wrong and while trying their best, people may be clamped.
  Viscount Goschen: Briefly, I support my noble friend. We must consider what clamping is for and whether it makes the problem worse. If we are really concerned about the movement of traffic and if we stick a large metal triangle on the corner of a vehicle, it will not go anywhere very quickly. That is about punishment and raising revenue. I support the amendment.
  Lord Borrie: I add only that it is a deterrent.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Immobilisation is an additional measure over and above the penalty charge used by some enforcing authorities to deter unlawful parking. I underline the words, "unlawful parking". We are not talking about cars that are lawfully parked, but where the driver, unless he is deficient in some way, realises that he is unlawfully parked and is taking a risk in so doing. I have done it and got away with that risk and I am sure that other members of the Committee have done the same but we are talking about unlawful parking. That is the context that we must keep in mind. It is a useful tool to have in places such as central London where parking space is at a premium.
  Clause 76(5) exempts from immobilisation vehicles displaying a current disabled person's badge—a blue badge. It also exempts from immobilisation vehicles

  GC 201
  where a parking charge has been paid and fewer than 15 minutes have elapsed since the end of the period paid for. So, someone who parks in an authorised parking space has 15 minutes' grace. The exemptions effectively re-enact Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
  People who park in a paid-for parking place may overstay their time. Although that is a contravention for which a penalty charge may be issued, it is appropriate to allow a short period of grace before the additional measure of immobilisation is brought into play. It is not possible, for clear reasons, to allow a period of grace where somebody knowingly parks where restrictions are in force. So, someone who has parked in a parking space will have 15 minutes' grace over their parking time. If they have parked illegally, taking a risk or not realising that they were parking on a yellow line, they will not get that period of grace.
  Amendment No. 122D would generally prohibit the immobilisation of a vehicle until 15 minutes after a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention had been issued. The prohibition would apply to overstaying in a paid-for parking place and to other contraventions, such as parking on yellow lines during the hours of restriction. The amendment would override the 15-minute grace period already provided for in subsection (5) in respect of paid-for parking places. If, for example, the penalty charge notice were issued immediately after the initial 15-minute grace period, the grace period would be extended to half an hour. We cannot accept that, nor can we accept that someone should be given a period of grace from having their vehicle immobilised, if they knowingly park unlawfully in the first place.
  I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Astor: I shall read the Minister's argument with care, although I am not sure that I fully accept it. I am not sure that the drafting of my amendment is correct. As the Minister said, it might take away the 15-minute grace period.
  The point of principle that I was trying to establish is important. If someone has overstayed on a parking meter, they might, as the noble Lord said, get a 15-minute grace period, after which they will get a ticket. The Minister said that there should be a short period, but he could not define it. That seems unfair. We do not know whether the period is five minutes, 10 minutes or another quarter of an hour.
  We must make the provision reasonable. A ticket for overstaying on a meter is quite expensive for the average motorist. If he has used up his extra 15 minutes' grace and got a ticket, he will be clamped immediately. That seems wrong. It is unfair enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that it might be a deterrent. We could go as far as we wanted with deterrence; we could take cars off the street or take the wheels off. We could do anything that we wanted, but we must be sensible.
  Lord Borrie: I tried to make my intervention short. I made it entirely because somebody had said that all it was was a punishment. The measure is not intended
  GC 202
  to punish anyone; it is intended to prevent congestion, including congestion caused by illegal parking. It appears as a penalty or punishment in the Bill, but the reason for it is not directly to punish someone for having done something, it is to prevent someone committing the illegality in the first place.
  Viscount Astor: There is always an interesting link between deterrence and punishment. That is a separate debate that we were wise not to get into too fully this afternoon. My point is that it is wrong for someone to be clamped immediately after being issued with a ticket, without having a chance to move. My amendment would allow a reasonable time, ensuring that there was still a deterrent for the motorist, while giving him or her a reasonable opportunity to move the car, if, for whatever reason, they came back late to the meter. Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I wish to intervene because I think that it is important that we go over the process. A car is parked and the time expires. A ticket can be given immediately. The grace period of 15 minutes is between the ticket being issued and the clamping vehicle arriving. There is no 15 minutes' grace between the expiration of the parking meter and the issuing of the ticket, as I think the noble Viscount felt. The ticket can be issued immediately.
  5 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Without going round in too many circles and getting too muddled by too many 15 minutes, the answer is that my amendment is connected with the previous one. I will take up the Minister's kind offer to discuss his amendment and at that time perhaps we may discuss the implications of my amendment to see whether we can reach an understanding on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 122E and 122F not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 76 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Rotherwick: I gave the Minister notice that I wish to raise issues surrounding road humps on the Question of whether the clause stand part of the Bill.
  There is growing evidence that road humps are having a negative impact on response times for emergency services. Emergency vehicles are forced to slow down to a crawl in order to negotiate humps safely and in cases of severe injury they may have to opt for a longer alternative route in order to avoid humps altogether. The head of the London Ambulance Service has called for a review of speed humps, saying that they put patients' lives in danger because emergency response times are effected. The chairman of the London Ambulance Service has stated that:
  "For every life saved through road traffic calming more are lost because of ambulance delays".

  GC 203
  In October 2002, Mark Singleton, team leader of the London Ambulance Service, unequivocally stated that:
  "speed humps slow ambulances down, damage the vehicles, and worsen the ride for patients".
  Research by the Fire Department in Portland, Oregon, USA, showed that a fire engine is delayed by up to 10 seconds per hump. Road humps cause a significant cost in repair bills for emergency vehicles damaged while traversing humps. This is not helped by the apparent lack of consistency across the country in the dimensions of speed humps. Repeatedly traversing humps causes long-term damage to vehicle components.
  Damage to suspension and shock absorbers seriously impacts on a vehicle's stopping distance. Shock absorbers are key in ensuring that vehicles are able to stop efficiently. Safety humps can cause immediate damage to the bodywork of large vehicles with low ground clearance, such as buses.
  A speed hump in Coronation Street, Birmingham, had to be rebuilt after numerous double-decker buses suffered damaged bodywork. Even the suspension on my late father's car collapsed. According to the garage when it repaired the suspension, the collapse was due to speed humps. There can he a lot of damage to vehicles.
  A report published by the London Assembly's Transport Committee on 15 April 2004 stated that speed humps can prove a hazard to vehicles, local residents and emergency services. It revealed that damage worth £7,500 was caused to Metropolitan Police vehicles by going over humps. Emergency services were concerned about the slow response times to incidents that the report revealed. The report said that Transport for London should ensure that emergency services' views are taken into account before money is allocated for humps. It also called for studies on the level of' noise generated by humps, following residents' complaints of noise from vehicles going over them.
  The London Borough of Barnet has embarked upon a policy of removal of all 1,000 road humps. This in turn has prompted Transport for London to withhold £1.5 million in transport grants until it has "investigated the policy further". Can the Minister answer the following two questions? Can he give an assurance that it is within the powers of Transport for London to withhold that money, and on what grounds it is to do so? Will he ask Transport for London when it will reach its decision?
  It is clear that road humps should not be viewed as a panacea to all our road safety problems. Instead, they should be considered as just one of a range of measures to improve road safety. Other options should be explored, such as tackling bottlenecks at junctions and making main roads less congested. In order that motorists do not try to avoid tackling bottlenecks at junctions by rat-running down the local residential
  GC 204
  roads, perhaps the main roads could be improved. Then we could take the bumps out of all those residential roads.
  Lord Bradshaw: Is the issue of road humps anything to do with the clause that we are debating? It does not seem to bear much relation to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, may know better, but I have tabled several amendments and the Public Bill Office has been meticulous in refusing anything that deviates slightly from the title of the Bill.
  Viscount Astor: We had a brief meeting after the last Sitting with the officials in the Public Bill Office and the Minister's officials, when it was agreed that this was a sensible place briefly to discuss the issue.
  Lord Bradshaw: I acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord has had such a discussion. I shall only say that I have been very harshly treated by the Public Bill Office.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Regulation 3 of the 1999 road hump regulations requires highway authorities to consult all the emergency services before the installation of any road hump. The Highways Act 1980 and the regulations made under that Act explicitly require a highway authority to consult the relevant chief officer of police and representatives of the emergency services before reducing road humps.
  Consultation allows the emergency services and highway authorities to work in partnership to ensure safer roads and satisfy the needs of the emergency services. Of course, the views of such bodies should be listened to. However, any suggestion that the emergency services should have a veto on a proposed traffic-calming scheme could undermine an authority's duty of care to all road users in ensuring that vehicle speeds are kept down, especially in urban areas, around schools and on residential estates. The purpose of road humps is to reduce vehicle speeds, so that death and injury are kept to an absolute minimum.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, raised a query about TfL's proposed withholding of a grant to Barnet. TfL has the power to provide grants to London boroughs under Section 159 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. However, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specific case, as it really is a matter for TfL and Barnet. I understand that discussions are continuing between them about the treatment of road humps.
  I hope that, given that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful for all that the Minister has said. He will be glad to know that I am not really going to get in a hump over this. I am also grateful that he was able to answer part of the question that I asked in the latter part of my speech.
  The point that we were getting at was that the emergency services would give approval. We feel that that is quite important. Just being listened to does not mean that the judgment is being made by those who

  GC 205
  know best—because it is their vehicles that are used rather than the authorities'. After all, the chairman of the London Ambulance Service has said:
  "For every life saved through traffic calming, more are lost because of ambulance delays".
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is the noble Lord aware that road safety organisations dispute very bitterly the assertion of the chief of the London Ambulance Service? They point out that there may be a series of reasons for which ambulances are delayed in reaching victims and that road humps may constitute just a small proportion of them. If there were more ambulances serving smaller areas, they would obviously get there more quickly.
  The experience of residents in many streets where road humps have been involved is that traffic is slowed down, resulting in fewer accidents. For example, in my street in south London, where humps have been installed, there are no longer collisions between moving vehicles and parked cars. Previously, when vehicles sped through in the absence of humps, there was at least one collision a week and it was only a matter of time before there was a serious pedestrian injury. Humps save lives, and the evidence does not support the suggestion that lives are being lost because emergency vehicles are slowed down.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall not dispute his point. I am sure that he shall hold the same view when he is in an ambulance being rushed to hospital with a bad back injury.
  Clause 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Representations and appeals]:
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 46, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
  The noble Viscount said: This is about the Lord Chancellor making provision by regulations. In the usual parliamentary language, the Bill states that he,
  "may make provision by regulations".
  My amendment would change "may" to "shall". It is a probing amendment so that the Minister can say that he will make regulations. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The powers in Clause 77, like the regulation-making powers elsewhere in Part 6, are enabling. They are therefore couched in permissive terms: the Lord Chancellor "may" make regulations. The amendment would compel the Lord Chancellor to make such regulations by substituting "shall". We believe that that is unnecessary.
  Enabling representations to he made to enforcement authorities and appeals to independent adjudicators is an essential element of the overall civil enforcement process. Such provision is already made in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and related adjudicating regulations. I can therefore assure the Committee that there is no question of regulations enabling representations and appeals not being made under Clause 77 in bringing into force the powers in Part 6.
  GC 206
  Obviously, the theoretical discretion to make regulations is constrained by requirements of natural justice and human rights, not least the right to ensure the fair determination of a person's civil rights. However, introducing an explicit duty to the legislation produces some awkward, if somewhat theoretical, questions regarding the extent of the duty on the Lord Chancellor and what would happen, for example, if a future administration were to decide against making regulations to enable immobilisation but the Lord Chancellor still had an obligation to make regulations in respect of somebody appealing against having been clamped.
  I hope that the noble Viscount's amendment was probing, and that my explanation answered his questions. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Goschen: Who will undertake the role outlined in Clause 77(1) when the role of Lord Chancellor is abolished?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Judicial Appointments Authority.
  Viscount Astor: Well, there we are. I do not know whether the Minister has just made an important ministerial announcement. I am grateful for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 78 [Adjudicators]:
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 123A:
  Page 47, line 26, after "functions," insert "or if it is proven that he has failed to act in a reasonable manner"
  The noble Viscount said: The amendment covers what I believe to be an important issue. It would insert a test of reasonableness into the actions of an adjudicator as set out in Clause 78. I am not sure whether my amendment is either correctly worded or in the right place, but I want the Minister to address the principle.
  There are two issues behind the amendment. First, there have been many complaints by those who have gone to adjudication that they have not succeeded because of technical reasons. That is neither fair nor appropriate. Indeed, there have now also been complaints from the adjudicators themselves that they have not been able to take certain circumstances into account because of the narrowness of the scope within which they can consider an appeal. So the pressure is coming from both ends.
  It will get worse unless we do something about it because, as we heard earlier this afternoon, the Bill will give wardens much wider powers—they will cover moving vehicles as well as just stationary vehicles. I am sure that there will be as great an emphasis on their handing out as many tickets as they can to get their bonus—the car referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. So it is important that the adjudication system is seen to be fair. At present, there are concerns on both sides.
  If the Minister would like a simple example, at the end of January and the beginning of February, traffic wardens placed notices on cars that had been abandoned because of the snow. They had been abandoned because the police had said that the road was blocked. The local authority had not cleared the road; the road was blocked; so the cars were abandoned. The next morning, before anyone could come to rescue his car, along came the traffic wardens and placed parking tickets on them all.
  Because of the technical points that applied, the adjudicator was not allowed to say that that was unreasonable because it did not fall within his remit. That is clearly unfair. As I said, if we are going to give traffic wardens greater powers over moving vehicles, we must ensure that everything works so that there is some respect in the system and the law is kept. They must be well trained; the provision must be sensibly enacted; and there must be a sensible appeals procedure. The amendment is an attempt to introduce a form of reasonableness. At present, an adjudicator is not allowed to take into consideration matters that would normally be considered in a court system. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: The noble Viscount did not say so specifically, but his amendment would insert those words in a subsection dealing with the grounds on which an adjudicator can be removed. The words in the clause as drafted employ what is a fairly common form in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial appointments: namely, that they can be removed for misconduct or unfitness. On the face of it, although the noble Viscount did not talk to this effect, under the amendment the adjudicator could also be removed if it was proved that he had failed to act in a reasonable manner. If I may say so, that seems quite inappropriate because the whole point of having adjudicators at all—this corresponds with what is required by the European Convention on Human Rights—is but they are independent people, independent of traffic wardens and so on.
  Viscount Astor: I started by saying that I was not sure whether my amendment was in the right place and that it was the principle of the adjudicator acting in a reasonable manner when considering cases about which I was asking the Minister. I of course apologise to the Committee if the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, thinks that it is in the wrong place. I am sure that he is right—I defer to his expert judgment—but I still want an answer from the Government on the principle of how adjudicators can act in a sensible and reasonable manner when dealing with the cases that come before them.
  Lord Borrie: I have no doubt that my noble friend, with the broad advice that he is bound to have received, will be able to deal with the substance of what the noble Viscount said, but I am quite sure that the amendment is in the wrong place and it would be quite
  GC 208
  contrary to the independence of the adjudicator, which is so important, for him to be removed for any other reason than misconduct or unfitness.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for providing a précis of some lengthy speaking notes and making the very point that I wished to make on behalf of the Government.
  The adjudicator's role is to determine the facts of the case. Mitigating circumstances are for local authorities to consider. We will ensure that mitigation is covered in statutory guidance.
  The noble Viscount may be interested in the following points. If an appellant or enforcing authority is not satisfied with the outcome of a review, they may seek judicial review. Here is the killer: in the past 11 years, leave has been given on four occasions for judicial review of parking adjudicators' decisions. In the same period, around 40 million parking penalty charge notices have been issued by local authorities, of which more than 30 million were issued by London authorities. Thai does not suggest to us that adjudicators have been acting unreasonably.
  It is important that adjudicators be properly qualified for the role that they perform. They should also have security of office in order to protect their independence. Clause 78(2) provides that an adjudicator,
  "must have a 5-year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".
  and that,
  "on the expiry of a term of appointment an adjudicator is eligible for re-appointment".
  That reappointment is not subject to anyone's deciding that they have behaved reasonably. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Astor: The only part of the Minister's argument that I found utterly unconvincing were the remarks about judicial review. The idea of someone taking a parking matter to judicial review is ridiculous. Judicial review is outside the scope of 99.9 per cent of people in this country. It is incredibly expensive and very difficult. Indeed, it would be a disaster if such a review happened because it would prove that we had got it wrong.
  The Minister said that he felt that, by and large, the adjudicators had not acted unreasonably. I am sure that that is the case, but it was not the basis of my argument. My concern is the narrowness of the points that must be taken into account when looking at a case. Obviously, I must study the Minister's remarks, but he said that the local authority could show mitigating circumstances. My understanding is that that is fine. However, the local authority is not the problem; it is the individual motorist trying to make the appeal who is unable to put forward sensible and reasonable mitigating circumstances of which the adjudicator is allowed to take account. My point is that adjudicators are not necessarily allowed to look at the full circumstances surrounding the case.

  GC 209
  I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Minister and his officials before Report. I wish, first, to ensure that if we return to the issue, I have taken into account the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and put my amendment in the right place; and, secondly, to make clear the technical point that we need to get at.
  The Minister may be able to satisfy me. I relate to him concerns that have been expressed to me by those who have been involved in the adjudication and those who have had their cases adjudicated. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clauses 79 to 81 agreed to.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clause 82 [Prohibition of double parking etc.]:
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 50, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 82 deals with the issue of double parking, and the prohibition of it. The amendment relates to subsection (5)(a)(i), which refers to an exemption being made for the undertaking of,
  "any building operation, demolition or excavation".
  I seek clarification from the Minister as to what undertaking an operation means. It sounds perfectly obvious on the face of it, but one can imagine that on a bank holiday, for example, operations may cease for a four-day period. Would that count as operations taking place? We are talking about that sort of issue, and the length of time that one can reasonably be said to be undertaking work. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: The amendment would prohibit any vehicle from undertaking any building operation, demolition or excavation while double parking. It seems sensible to me, and I support it. When the vehicle has been used for the day, it seems reasonable that it could be parked off the road somewhere so that it does not add to congestion.
  I point, too, to subsection (4)(c), which refers to the delivery and collection of goods and to other vehicles being loaded in a sensible way, whereby a vehicle that is so parked for those reasons must not be there for more than 20 minutes. Perhaps construction vehicles should come under the same regulation.
  I wish to ask about another matter, which is nothing to do with this amendment. Subsection (3) says that the,
  "second exemption is where the vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes".
  The exemption allows them to double park. Should not that also include a traffic officer?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The clause is an example of extending a civil enforcement power to deal with the problem of double parking currently available in London to authorities outside London. Clause 82 is based on Section 5 of the London Local Authorities
  GC 210
  Act 1995 as amended by Section 6 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000. It takes into account practical considerations and includes a number of exceptions from the prohibition.
  Subsection (5) exempts vehicles engaged in various operations. It includes vehicles being used in connection with the undertaking of any building operation, demolition or excavation. The amendment would remove this particular exemption, which we would find very difficult to accept. Clearly, where vehicles are engaged in building or similar operations, they may need to be able to park immediately adjacent to the site where the works are being carried out. For example, in the case of a mobile crane operation, if another vehicle was already parked adjacent to the site, it might not be possible to park the crane vehicle within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway.
  The exceptions provided for in subsection (5) do not give unlimited licence to double park. I draw the Committee's attention to the caveats in paragraphs (b) and (c). If a vehicle was simply left parked more than 50 centimetres from the edge of the carriageway and none of the activities covered by subsection (5) was apparent, it would be open to an enforcement officer to issue a penalty charge.
  How do we define operations? Operations must happen at the time. It would not cover vehicles parked during a bank holiday while no works were being carried out. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts our argument and concedes that the exceptions that we are offering are legitimate.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I accept absolutely that there are times when double-parking would be necessary. As I made clear to the Committee, I tabled the amendment only for clarification on the question of how exactly it would be determined that operations were going on.
  While I intend to withdraw my amendment, I hope that at the end of proceedings the Minister will consult further with his officials to ensure that the sort of situation where operations cease for a long weekend, and so forth, are covered in the Bill. Otherwise, life might be a little difficult. I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Prohibition of parking at dropped footways]:
  Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 124A:
  Page 51, line 11, leave out "in Greater London"
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 124A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124B to 124E in the group. Subsections (1) and (9) of Clause 83 create a prohibition enforceable as if it were imposed by order under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. It would prohibit parking on the carriageway adjacent to a dropped kerb created for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross the road or to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road across a footway or verge, which I suppose would also include

  GC 211
  a bus lane. However, it is not apparent why it is proposed to limit this power to Greater London. It would be very good if it could be applied nationwide.
  Clause 83 is very important. I shall therefore suggest some improvements to make it even better. I believe that the clause should be extended to cover obstructions at three types of crossings. The first type of crossing that it should cover is a raised crossing, whether provided for just pedestrians or for pedestrians and cyclists as a kind of dual crossing. The second type is gaps that have been left for the passage of cyclists at points where movement on highways has been stopped by other classes of vehicles. I certainly notice that when trying to cycle through those gaps where people park so close, if the handlebars did not have rubber on them, the cars might get scratched; so it would be very nice if cars were not parked there. The third type that should be covered is dropped kerbs provided for joining or leaving cycle tracks.
  I also believe that this section should cover parking within, say, 10 metres of a junction except in an authorised parking space. That would give legal effect to the advice already given under Rule 217 of the Highway Code. This proposal is probably of greater significance to pedestrians than to cyclists. Nevertheless, parking close to junctions obscures the sight lines of pedestrians and other carriageway users. It is therefore a safety hazard to all road users. This group of amendments is designed to improve an already excellent clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am sure that, for once, he will be glad of that. As I have previously pointed out to Members of the Committee, I am in favour of amendments that take greater account of the perils and frustrations that two-wheelers face in our everyday pedalling and motorcycling life. Furthermore, many noble Lords will know that the RNIB strongly welcomes the broad thrust of this clause because of the help that dropped kerbs can provide in making the pavement accessible to the blind and partially-sighted.
  Clause 83(3) states that the,
  "exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway".
  Of course, it would be frustrating and antisocial if one's neighbour, in parking his car, blocked the entrance to one's house. However, if an exception can apply when the owner of a single property gives his consent, surely the same should apply when the occupier of residences that share a driveway both consent to parking on a dropped kerb by their driveway.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We welcome the praise for Clause 83 from my noble friend. It will provide new powers to prohibit parking at dropped footways conferred on London authorities by Section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
  While we do not wish to take away the power that London authorities have so recently gained, our preference is not to extend these new and untested powers to authorities outside London. There could be practical problems in relation to enforcement of
  GC 212
  dropped footways giving access to off-road parking for residents. Therefore, we would not wish to accept Amendment No. 124A.
  Given that it is essentially an untested power, we would be reluctant to amend Clause 83 in the way proposed in Amendments Nos. 124B to 124E. We are particularly concerned about Amendment No. 124E, which would prohibit the parking of a vehicle within 10 metres of a junction with another road. Rule 217 of the Highway Code stipulates that drivers should not park vehicles on a road where they would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. One of the examples given is parking,
  "opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking place".
  That rule has featured in editions of the Highway Code since 1978. It does not have the force of law, but can be introduced by a traffic regulation order which can prohibit parking at a junction and provide for that prohibition to be indicated by yellow lines.
  There are severe parking pressures in some urban residential roads. Parking nearer than 10 metres to a junction may not cause danger, inconvenience or obstruction to pedestrians in such cases. So we are reluctant to have an absolute legal prohibition on parking near all junctions as proposed.
  Our preference would be to leave the judgment on whether a legal ban is required to the local traffic authority, which has the powers to make the necessary traffic regulation order. They are the people best placed to judge the needs and circumstances of particular cases. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to ask him whether he believes that not only are perils faced by two-wheelers—I think those were the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick—but perils are also caused by two-wheelers to pedestrians.
  What is missing from the contribution made by my noble friend and, indeed, in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in favour of cyclists is any admission that pedestrians' lives are put at risk as a result of the antisocial behaviour of cyclists, particularly at pedestrian crossings. There has been an attempt, not 50 yards from where we are sitting today, to enforce the red lights on the pedestrian crossing outside the Palace of Westminster. Every so often, cyclists are stopped, warned and sometimes fined, but the practice has resumed again. One takes one's life in one's hands when crossing the pedestrian crossing when it shows green for pedestrians if cyclists are coming along. They ignore the pedestrians; they ignore the lights; and they expect people to get out of the way. That is unreasonable and dangerous.
  Lord Berkeley: I am genuinely grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for that contribution. We discussed it briefly at a previous sitting of the Committee. I was challenged on whether I thought that cyclists should obey the law. Clearly, they should. I am a cyclist, but I have very nearly been knocked

  GC 213
  down outside the House by cyclists not obeying the red lights. Of course, currently, I do not think that anyone can stop a cyclist except a policeman because he or she is on a moving vehicle. I am sure that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong. Cyclists riding on pavements are also a problem.
  There is in addition a road safety issue. I hear what my noble friend the Minister says about Amendment No. 124E, which might need to be looked at again. As regards being able to get on and off cycle lanes and raised pedestrian or pedestrian and cycle crossings, there is an argument for saying, "Well, at least let us try the system outside London and let us try to make it work in London".
  I shall study carefully what my noble friend has said. I may wish to take it a little further but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 124B to 124E not moved.]
  Clause 83 agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 124F:
  Before Clause 84, insert the following new clause—"
  GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  (1) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.
  (2) In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance."
  The noble Lord said: In bringing forward this new clause we are fulfilling a commitment made in another place. The new clause will place on a statutory basis guidance issued by the appropriate national authority to local authorities exercising civil enforcement functions. In exercising those functions, the clause requires that a local authority must have regard to any such guidance.
  We are concerned with guidance being issued in connection with powers conferred in regulations made under the Bill. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act is a local Act of Parliament that was promoted by the London authorities. One of its provisions enables civil enforcement of a number of moving traffic contraventions. Those provisions will be repealed in due course by London regulations to be made under the provisions of Part 6 of the Bill.
  So far as guidance on enforcement of moving traffic contraventions is concerned, we will he learning from the London experience when the new powers are piloted starting in June. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for this amendment, which follows pressure in another place from my honourable friends. They started to fight back on behalf of the honest British motorist who was being unfairly persecuted. Indeed, it has had some effect. The other day, a body no less than Westminster council admitted that its wardens had been too harsh on motorists: the regime was too strict. The councillor in charge of parking pledged to consider forcing the
  GC 214
  contractor to stop rewarding staff with bonuses and trophies when they issued two more tickets in an hour and to have a sensible policy.
  Of course, one must be tempered when one sees that in the noble Lord's department, the Minister, Kim Howells, has decided to battle the site again. At the weekend, he said that the best way to get drivers to use public transport is to try to tax them out of their cars in the same way as the authorities have tried to tax people off cigarettes. There is not much help for the motorist.
  This is an important amendment. We have all seen things happen that should not have happened. There was the famous case in London when the managing director of the YouGov organisation was involved in an accident. His scooter was wrecked. As he was being carried to the ambulance, a warden came along and plonked a ticket on his scooter. Clearly, that should not happen. But I go back to the problem that it is incredibly difficult to bring proper appeals and to work through the adjudication system.
  The Government have said that they will issue guidance. It is important to ask that we are made clear on that. It would also help me as regards earlier amendments on adjudication. Can the Minister tell us when we will see any draft guidance? What is the Government's timetable on that? When the guidance is issued, in the case of appeals, will the adjudicator he able to refer to the guidance when looking at cases? I presume that that will be the case. I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance. I go back to saying that we are all in favour of getting traffic moving and of sensible, reasonable measures taken by local authorities based on the ideal of interpreting the rule of law and the will of local residents, rather than financially rewarding those who are carrying out the process, often in a rather arbitrary way.
  So I welcome the amendment and hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his welcome for the amendment. Guidance will be developed alongside regulations during the forthcoming 12 months. It will be prepared with consultation, as will many other aspects of the Bill. We hope that the draft regulations will be ready in 2005 for public discussion.
  Viscount Astor: Would the Minister answer my point about adjudication and whether adjudicators will look to the guidance when they interpret a case?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We will be considering what adjudicators can take into account when reaching their decisions.
  Viscount Astor: That is helpful as far as it goes, but only increases my concern that adjudicators should act in a reasonable manner and be able to take the full circumstances into consideration. We will clearly have to consider that on Report.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clause 85 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 124G:
  Page 53, line 9, at end insert—
  "() Regulations under section 77 may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment puts into effect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 77 concerning representations to enforcement authorities and appeals to adjudicators should be the subject of the affirmative procedure. The amendments make appropriate changes to Clause 85, which provides for the making of regulations and orders under Part 6. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 124H:
  Page 53, line 10, at beginning insert "Subject to that,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 85 agreed to.
  Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
  Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 124J:
  Before Clause 90, insert the following new clause—
  "APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME FROM SAFETY CAMERA ENFORCEMENT
  (1) Section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (c. 3) (unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
  "(6) The relevant national authority may make regulations to permit in specified circumstances income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2), over and above that required to cover expenditure on the operation of a scheme, to be used in connection with the provision by the relevant local traffic authority of local transport facilities, including road safety measures.""
  The noble Viscount said: This is a simple amendment that inserts a new clause about surplus income. It might be popular with the motorist if he realised that the surplus income, whether from speed cameras or traffic light enforcement, would go towards improving local road safety. I wonder what the Minister thinks about that issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I support this amendment. Indeed, it is very similar to one that I moved during the passage of the Transport Act. At that time we said that unless revenues were hypothecated to local road safety measures in some way the netting off scheme, under which local authorities and the police can form partnerships and keep surplus income, might be perceived as being done to raise revenue. In a Cassandra-like fashion, which gives me no pleasure—well, just a bit—I feel proved right. I am very happy to support this amendment and,
  GC 216
  with my tongue only slightly in my cheek, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who is a co-signatory to it, whether road safety measures include humps?
  Viscount Goschen: My noble friend Lord Astor has done the Government a great service by tabling this amendment. It will give the Minister an opportunity to make clear the Government's position on revenues raised from safety camera enforcement, if "safety camera", is not over-stressing the term.
  Clearly, there is a significant perception on the roads that, in many cases, these cameras are designed to raise revenue. The Minister needs an opportunity to tell the Committee exactly what happens to those funds and whether they might be used to help road safety schemes. We could also have had similar amendments down about other areas of the Bill where revenue is raised, such as parking attendants issuing fines for road traffic events. There is a real problem there and we need some clarity and transparency front the Government.
  The Earl of Erroll: I support this amendment. I know that PACTS and various people were trying to drive down the numbers killed and seriously injured through safety measures such as speed cameras, but they are beginning to hit the bottom level that can be done by those measures. I understand that most serious accidents happen at a few hundred known accident black spots. A very sensible use of money would be to improve road safety and survivability on certain stretches of road that are known to be bad.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The police, local highway authorities and magistrates courts, working together in safety camera partnerships, are strongly encouraged to use safety cameras where there is an identified problem of speed-related collisions. "Safety cameras" is the term that covers speed cameras and traffic signal cameras. This ensures that the partnerships are not tempted to place cameras simply to raise revenue. It would add little value to road safety to have widespread deployment of cameras for reasons other than identified speeding and accident problems. There has been, and continues to be, a considerable amount of coverage in the media about speed cameras. Much of this is misjudged and unhelpful in the attempt to reduce the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.
  The main charge levelled against speed cameras is that they are deployed in order to raise money for the police, local authorities or the Government. That is wrong on all counts. But it is vital to be sensitive to public concerns in order to maintain respect for the policy and, ultimately, for the law. We must therefore ensure that the legislation that covers what can be done with fines, ensures that there is no incentive for the various public bodies to place cameras for any purpose other than to slow down traffic and reduce road accidents. That is what the present legislation in the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 does. Under this legislation, the Secretary of State may make payments to cover the approved costs, but nothing more, of the police, local highway authorities and magistrates courts engaged in speed and traffic signal camera enforcement as safety camera partnerships.

  GC 217
  Amendment No. 124J would open up the possibility of surplus incomes from fines going to local authorities to spend on local transport and road safety measures. That risks undermining the focussing of safety cameras on reducing accidents and casualties. It should be noted that cameras do not and should not provide a reliable funding stream. The success of cameras is measured on casualty reduction and that can only result from drivers slowing down to the legal limit when passing the camera site. Thus, the best cameras attract no fines.
  I also remind Members of the Committee that there are alternative funding sources available to local authorities to use for other road safety measures or to spend on improving local transport provision. There is no need to alter the existing legislation on camera funding to seek to use those funds.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked for a transparent statement on safety cameras. I hope that he will agree that that is precisely what I have done in the past minute or so. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing therefore to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: The fact is that while there are funds available for road safety schemes, there are insufficient funds available to deal with the traffic road safety issues referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Errol. In fact, most local authorities have a long list of schemes that they can afford, under which they draw a line each year. They are in the position where, having an acknowledged list of road safety schemes, of which there are many, there are insufficient funds to pay for them. Yet, those paying speed fines know, ultimately, if we are honest, that the money goes to the consolidated fund; in other words, to the Treasury—that large maw that is beneath us all.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make the whole system more acceptable to people. That should be the aim. It would be clearly understood by people if the money went towards the removal of accident black spots, of which there are so many. For example, I was on the A303 at the weekend. There must be 100 places on that road alone that need attention, where there are three-lane carriageways which are virtual death traps and are not being attended to. The Government are missing a trick in making funds available to deal with road safety rather than the money just going into the Treasury.
  Viscount Simon: My noble friend briefly referred to people reducing speed when approaching speed cameras. Does that mean that he endorses people breaking the speed limit?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: No, of course I do not. I said that one of the benefits of a speed camera was that a motorist would reduce speed when approaching that camera, which underlines the importance of the camera in keeping road speeds down to the level set by the local
  GC 218
  authority or the national authorities. So it is very beneficial. As I said, the crucial point is that a speed camera that picks up no one speeding is successful.
  Lord Berkeley: With respect to my noble friend, he has not quite answered the question. Of course, if a speed camera does not catch anyone, everyone is travelling at or below the speed limit. If they have slowed down, surely that is an argument for having more speed cameras in different places that are not painted bright yellow so that people do not know when they will get caught. They might stick to the speed limit all the time where it applies and even more lives might be saved.
  Viscount Astor: My small amendment seems to have sparked a brief debate. I have to say that the Minister gave a clear explanation of the Government's policy. I wish that that was reflected in what actually happens; namely, that cameras are placed everywhere they are needed—for example, at accident black spots—and that they are not, as so often happens, placed in areas where they have clearly been placed for revenue generation. We all know of sites where a 50 mile an hour limit suddenly drops to 40 miles per hour and then up to 50 again. You know that the camera is sited to catch the unwary motorist who fails to notice that, along a perfectly normal stretch of road, the speed limit has suddenly altered. Due to public pressure, this is slowly changing, but much more needs to be done, as my noble friend pointed out.
  It is clear that we shall not get much further in terms of the financial provisions, but it has been interesting to listen to the Minister's view of departmental policy on this. I only wish that that policy could be successfully implemented to make it work better than it does. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 124K:
  Before Clause 90, insert the following new clause—
  "MOTORWAYS: MAXIMUM SPEED
  The maximum speed on a motorway shall be 80 mph and in had weather determined by highway controllers with access to the motorway warning signs system."
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to introduce the concept of variable speed limits in response to weather conditions on motorways while raising the maximum speed limit to 80 miles per hour, thereby ensuring the most expeditious, effective and efficient use of our motorway network. I am aware that there are statistics that oppose the raising of speed limits. No doubt powerful and convincing material can be brought to bear on both sides of the argument.
  The aim of the amendment is to achieve a simple and straightforward system of speed limits. It should not be branded as a cavalier approach to road safety when in fact it is quite the opposite. Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, has argued that there should be a review of speed limits and that

  GC 219
  travelling at 80 miles an hour in a modern car on a good road surface at a proper distance from the car in front is perfectly safe.
  We all believe that low speed limits need to be imposed where vulnerable pedestrians are concentrated, such as close to a school, in densely populated residential areas and near the homes of the elderly. It is also sensible to keep the maximum speed limit down to, say, 60 miles per hour in bad weather when rain and ice increase braking distances and visibility is impaired.
  The limit of 70 miles per hour on motorways was introduced at a time when most vehicles had drum brakes and there was an oil crisis. Since then, braking, steering and suspension systems have developed substantially, allowing drivers to brake more rapidly, safely and effectively. Technological advances mean that motorists can travel more safely at higher speeds. Increased engine and aerodynamic efficiency, higher gearing and modern tyre technology allow sustained driving at speeds well above 70 miles per hour. Indeed, in carrying out their duties, the police may well exceed the limit, even doubling it. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, indicated that on a previous day in Committee.
  New developments in car technology allow the average motorist consistently to deploy full stopping abilities while retaining control and steering. Should we not move away from the idea that we need to reduce the speed of cars at all costs to increase safety on our motorways? It is a strange notion, given that at the same time we accept the need to increase the speed of buses, trains, planes and boats. If we accept the safety argument about speed for cars, then should they not travel slower than 70 miles per hour?
  Concerns have been raised about the environmental impact of raising speed limits. The increased emissions resulting from such a small change are not likely to be significant. New cars have improved dramatically in the amount of toxic pollutants released in emission gases. Ambient levels of these pollutants are already well below the WHO guideline levels. At almost all times at practically every monitored site, emissions have been projected to fall by 60 to 80 per cent from their 1990 levels by 2010, despite the growing volume of traffic.
  Traffic contributes to only one-quarter of airborne particulates, most of which are produced by large diesel engines in buses and heavy goods vehicles, which would not be affected by a change in the speed limit. For example, a bus emits 120 times as many particulates as a car. Research from the University of Kyoto has shown that 3-nitrobenzanthrone, a very powerful carcinogen, is emitted from diesel bus exhausts when the engine is under load. Cars are much more polluting when they are jammed bumper to bumper in our cities than they are when travelling expeditiously on motorways. Indeed, the Association of British Drivers has shown that an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour would save approximately 11 million vehicle hours per year for cars and 1.5 million hours for light goods vehicles. This would be a good way of reducing congestion on our roads.
  The notion of variable speed limits on our motorways is not new and has been used in the past on particular stretches of road, such as the M25, due to poor weather conditions or weight of traffic. While the Department for Transport has said that the idea had previously been rejected on road safety grounds, it has also made clear that it will be kept under review. On 13 April the Birmingham Post highlighted the Department for Transport's pilot of a system of variable speed limits on a 10-mile stretch of the M42 south of Birmingham.
  It has been pointed out in another place that an estimated 19 per cent of those who travel on motorways do so at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour, while perhaps 50 per cent exceed 70 miles per hour. The law must be enforced, but it must also enjoy public support. The question is one of achieving a balance. Rather than holding on to the existing 70 miles per hour limit on motorways, which so many see as arbitrary and not worthy of their attention, we should set realistic limits, thus achieving compliance with limits that genuinely matter. The amendment would allow us to stop criminalising drivers who travel on our motorways at safe speeds. I beg to move.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: That was one of the most extraordinary speeches that I have ever heard from a member of the party that claims to be the party of law and order. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has argued that since so many people are breaking the law, rather than enforce it, the law should be changed so as to make the infringement legal. That is an absolutely baffling proposition.
  I agree with certain bits of what he said, such as the remark that in bad weather speed limits should be lowered. There is also a case for saying that speed limits on motorways could be slightly higher, as in France, where the speed limit on motorways is 130 kilometres per hour and thus closer to 80 miles per hour. However, the difference between driving on French motorways and driving on British ones is that, with few exceptions, the majority of drivers in France keep fairly close to the 130 kilometres per hour limit or, in bad weather, a limit of 110 kilometres per hour.
  The difficulty over here is that, because the law is not being enforced, the number of motorists who observe the 70 mile per hour limit is small. Quite frequently I drive between London and Oxford on the M40. Last Saturday I noticed that the number of motorists who passed me while I was travelling at a fairly sedate 71 or 72 miles per hour was very large.
  Viscount Astor: So the noble Lord admits that he was breaking the law as regards the speed limit.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I do not think that the speedometer on my car is accurate enough for such a charge to stick.
  The other point which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has omitted to make is that in countries where raising the speed limit has been tried, such as in the United States of America, it has led to a

  GC 221
  very dramatic and alarming increase in road casualty figures. If we were to follow his advice and increase speed limits, two things would happen.
  Lord Rotherwick: I would be grateful if the noble Lord could give me that information, especially that which gives details of the increase in accidents on motorways and the increase on smaller roads.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am sure that my colleagues at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents will be delighted to provide me with the brief that would allow me to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I shall write to him on that in the next few days.
  As I have said, two things would happen. The first is that there would be more accidents, more deaths and more injuries. Secondly, the number of people who would observe the new higher limit of 80 miles per hour would probably be no greater than the number observing the 70 miles per hour limit. The norm would simply be pushed up. Instead of having people going past at 85 miles per hour, they would travel at 95 miles per hour. I think that this is a very dangerous amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: I certainly support what my noble friend Lord Faulkner has said. A few myths need to be exploded, the first of which is that increasing speed limits would increase road capacity. All traffic engineers know that, on a motorway, the highest capacity is achieved at something between 30 and 50 miles per hour. The faster the speed, the less capacity is available because the distance between cars must be increased. A greater stopping distance must be provided for.
  My noble friend mentioned the speed limits in France. As he said, the limits are enforced and there are lower limits when it rains. The limits are also enforced by checking the time taken to travel between toll booths. If a motorist arrives quicker than the time taken at the legal limit, he is heavily fined on the spot.
  However, my noble friend hit the nail on the head when talking about enforcement. In my experience, which is that of driving on motorways mostly at the weekends, if I am driving as I usually do at 70 miles per hour or less I overtake very few cars, they nearly all overtake me. I do not see any enforcement, except at roadworks, when speed cameras and flashing signs are in evidence.
  We discussed earlier the reduction in the number of traffic police, if we can call them that. Fewer and fewer police are enforcing the rules. If someone is driving at 100 miles per hour, occasionally you see a police car going after them, but apart from that there is very little enforcement, and there will probably be even less in the future as the provisions of this Bill are put in place. I agree with my noble friend that raising the speed limit will encourage people who drive at 90 miles an hour now to drive at over 100 miles per hour.
  GC 222
  The proposal should be met with the strongest opposition. I think that it would be a complete disaster from every aspect, not only as regards capacity, but also in terms of road accidents.
  The Earl of Erroll: I start by pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that if we did not change our laws in line with public thinking, we would still have the same draconian laws of blasphemy that were in force a couple of hundred years ago, along with many other provisions that would look quite silly if they were on the statute book. Life changes, as do people's attitudes. Sometimes the law has to be brought into line with what the public are doing.
  I want to deal with the point made about capacity, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I think that we are talking about motorways that are clear, open and not overloaded with traffic, when a variable speed limit might apply, as is the case on the M25. You are not worried about capacity on a clear, open motorway. The noble Lord's argument about how to pack more cars into the slow-moving traffic queue that is the M25 is perfectly true, but it does not apply to a fast and freely moving motorway.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The point I sought to make was in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who said that one of the reasons for increasing the maximum speed limit is in order to increase capacity. I wanted to make the opposite point.
  The Earl of Erroll: Yes, on a heavily crowded motorway, more cars can travel nose to tail if the speed is reduced. I accept that. But in general, with normal traffic flows and no jam conditions, many cars can travel along at the normal distance of three or four car lengths at a perfectly safe speed, thus getting more cars down the motorway.
  I want to address the road safety aspect. As the killed and seriously injured figures have dropped as a result of action against drink driving, speeding in dangerous circumstances and so forth, something else has been highlighted as a major danger: fatigue. The slower the speeds at which motorists undertake long journeys on motorways, the more fatigued they become and they make more errors, resulting in more accidents. That is a recognised problem. I raised this with a senior police officer at a PACTS meeting. He was very pro speed cameras, but he accepted that there might well be a case for allowing higher speeds on motorways in order to reduce the fatigue factor, although he hedged his opinion with a lot of ifs and buts.
  Motorways are designed to accommodate higher driving speeds in safety. If journey times on longer routes can be reduced, people will be fresher and there will be fewer accidents. While I am a great supporter of the use of electronic communications, we still need to meet each other face to face. It remains essential to drive long distances for business purposes. Trains often do not get you to your destination on time. Although 20 per cent more journeys are being undertaken by train than was the case pre-privatisation, the trouble is that more people are

  GC 223
  trying to travel around the country. That could be because we have fewer factory workers in fixed places and more service industry workers who need to move around. I shall not go into that.
  A large business can afford to say to its workers, "Take the night off because you will be driving for more than four hours. Come back tomorrow". But someone running an SME does not have the budget for that, and people have to drive very long distances. In my business, I know someone who is driving to Truro and back tomorrow.
  Viscount Simon: Where is he starting his journey?
  The Earl of Erroll: He will start in the Reading area and travel all the way to Truro and back. He must do so in order to secure a contract. If that person could knock half an hour off his journey either way, it would make a significant difference to his levels of tiredness. I see this as a safety measure.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: Can I ask the noble Earl a question? I do not know whether his colleague is travelling on business or pleasure, but if he is travelling on business, in future he will have to comply with the working time directive. That would limit the number of hours that he can be at work or drive in one day.
  The Earl of Erroll: It is his own choice. He is a direct or of a company and I am not sure whether the working time directive applies to him. I do not think that he is worried about it. Moreover, small businesses have to survive. Ultimately, small businesses become the growth enterprises of the future, producing the taxpayers who will pay the taxes that allow politicians and civil servants to try to make this country a better place in which they can live and work. Unless such businesses are nurtured and allowed to grow, there will be no taxpayers to pay the politicians.
  I want to make a point about the highway controllers. They must be sensible about signalling. One becomes fed up with driving along a motorway flagging a top speed of 50 miles per hour. Five miles later, the signs still say the same. As long as the signalling is used sensibly, it would be a useful safety measure. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
  Viscount Goschen: This is one of those issues where the moral high ground should be left entirely neutral. We all share the same objective of seeking to ensure that traffic flows more easily while at the same time reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, began by castigating my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. He went on to admit that he regularly breaks the law in his own motorway use, leading no doubt to a headline tomorrow along the lines of, "Safety chief ignores law: admission in House of Lords".
  The simple fact is that the law is in disrepute. People do not obey motorway speed limits. Indeed, I do not think that people see it as an offence to drive at 85 miles per hour. Most traffic in the right-hand lane of a
  GC 224
  reasonably clear motorway will be travelling at 85 miles an hour, or possibly more. So we have a problem because some speed limits are quite rightly enforced very vigorously with the support of speed cameras, such as 30 miles an hour outside schools and so forth. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, speed limits are not enforced on our motorways unless one is travelling at grossly over the limit. There is an acknowledgement between the police and motorists that, in good weather, the speed limit is around 85 miles per hour.
  What we are considering is whether this should he admitted to be the case and the law changed to reflect it, along with better enforcement, or whether there should be better enforcement of the 70 mile an hour limit, if that is really what is desired. I know that the Government tend not to put speed cameras on motorways, whereas they could have gantries of them generating vast numbers of speeding fines. But that is not what happens at the moment. It is an area in which the police use considerable discretion. On the other hand, it would be unsatisfactory in principle to have a law that very few people obeyed. I disagree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord that we should never listen to what the public is doing or adjust the law to reflect public behaviour. That is not the case. Things have changed considerably.
  The technology arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick are valid. A Morris Minor travelling at 70 miles per hour 30 years ago was at the edge of its performance; its braking performance was very poor. A BMW doing 100 miles per hour today can stop very quickly.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Is there a point at which he believes that the law would be enforced? If the limit were increased to 80 miles per hour, would he favour it being rigorously enforced at that level, or would he allow motorists to set a new safe limit for themselves of 90, 95 or 100 miles per hour?
  Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord puts his finger on the exact point that we are arguing about. A rigorously enforced higher limit would create a more satisfactory situation than does a lower limit that everyone, including the noble Lord, ignores. The latter results in a situation where gross amounts of public law breaking are permitted, with the police studiously ignoring hundreds of thousands of offences every day. That is not a satisfactory situation. The noble Lord argues for a "looking the other way" policy, which is not necessarily the best approach.
  Viscount Simon: The noble Viscount is right that technological advances have taken place; we all know the advances that have taken place in recent years. However, one advance that has not taken place is that of the human being, who is still exactly the same. He will still not look at a correct distance from the car in front—
  Lord Rotherwick: Does the noble Lord not know about racing drivers who travel into brick walls at

  GC 225
  120 miles per hour? Technology has developed apace, and I am sure that the noble Lord's new car now has airbags, which would provide considerably greater safety. In the days of old, if a driver crashed a Morris Minor the engine went straight through the compartment and the steering wheel straight through the driver. We have moved on from those days.
  Viscount Simon: I agree with the noble Lord that there are airbags and other safety measures. However, if a driver crashed into a brick wall at 70 miles per hour, he would be killed full stop, irrespective of what he was driving.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am sorry. I ask the noble Viscount to reflect on cars on racetracks. They travel into brick walls at 120 miles per hour and the driver survives.
  Viscount Simon: They are constructed completely differently from cars on the road. I reiterate that if a driver crashed his car into a brick wall at 70 miles per hour, he would be killed in about seventh-tenths of a second, so far as I remember. You would not know much about it. If a driver does not look at the correct braking distance or the traffic conditions far ahead, he will not see when vehicles half a mile ahead on the motorway brake and he will suddenly have to brake very rapidly. I do not agree with the proposal to increase the speed limit to 80 miles per hour. As has been said, everyone already drives at 85 or 90 miles per hour. or whatever it happens to be. Consequently, the speed limit of 70 miles per hour should stay.
  The amendment also refers to warning signs, which can be altered to give an advisory speed limit. They are only advisory speed limits. I agree that it would be a very good idea to make them mandatory. Oddly enough, I have thought about the matter in the past. Warning signs have two flashing lights on the top and two on the bottom to indicate the advisory speed limit. If the lights were changed to blue to make the speed limit mandatory, it would work.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The first line of my speaking note says that the issue of whether to raise the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour has been the subject of much debate. Emotionally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester about the issue. I drove back from Oxford on Friday, and the traffic stream was going at 80 miles per hour. When I pointed that out to the officials, they made the obvious argument that, if the limit were changed to 80 miles per hour, everybody would go at 90. I take the point that the crucial thing is not the car or the technology but the driver—or, perhaps, a combination of both.
  Motorways have a good safety record and compare favourably with other types of road, as I shall demonstrate. Any increase in the speed limit could jeopardise that already good record. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said that there was evidence to support both sides of the argument, but the evidence that we have from America shows that there was an increase of up to 38 per cent in the fatal accident rate following an increase in speed limits on motorways.
  GC 226
  In 2002—the most recent year for which we have UK figures—there were 224 fatalities on our motorways. That equates to 6.5 per cent of the deaths on our roads. We would prefer there to be no deaths, but that figure is low in comparison with built-up roads—39.9 per cent—and non-built-up rural roads, where 53.6 per cent of the total of 3,431 people were killed in 2002. That is an extraordinary statistic. In a way, it pushes my attention away from motorways onto the real problem that we have on rural roads. That is why the Government's road safety strategy includes a commitment to improving rural road safety through better speed management and driver information on rural roads. We have already introduced guidance to local highway authorities on introducing vehicle-activated warning signs and the introduction of 30 mph speed limits in villages.
  The motorway speed limit, introduced in 1965, has been the subject of review on more than one occasion. The last review was carried out in 2001. The review looked at the possible effects of increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph. It concluded that raising the motorway speed limit would create too great a risk of increasing accidents and casualties.
  The Earl of Erroll: I do not understand how just raising the legal limit to the speed that people actually drive at will cause any increase in casualties. People already drive at that speed or more. Why, if it were made legal to drive at that speed, would the number of casualties increase? Do people suddenly go mad, once they are driving inside the speed limit?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: If it is established that 70 miles per hour is the optimum speed for minimising casualties—
  The Earl of Erroll: That would be the 90th percentile, in which case, as various road safety studies have established, the limit should be 85 miles per hour.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: If the noble Earl would kindly allow me to answer his question, he could come back to me. The argument that the Government make would, I think, be made by any reasonable person. Currently, there is a 70 miles per hour speed limit on a motorway, and everybody—everybody apart from my noble frien—drives at 80 or 85 mph. The contention is that, if we raise the speed limit to 80 miles per hour, people will drive not at 80 miles per hour—there is no evidence that they would—but at 90 or 95 miles per hour. Need I say that the chances are that someone driving at 95 miles per hour will be involved in an accident? They would he travelling at one hell of a speed.
  Viscount Astor: If one accepts the Minister's argument about people driving at 90 mph, the obvious answer is to use the speed cameras that have been introduced on motorways. That would be easy, and we would ensure that all those who currently drive at 80 miles per hour could do so legally—they would not be doing anything that they had not been doing for a long time—and that anybody driving faster than that would be caught on the camera. That way, most people

  GC 227
  would be obeying the law, as opposed to the current position, in which they are disobeying the law. That would be an improvement to road safety.
  I am getting confused. The Opposition have been arguing that there are too many speed cameras out to produce revenue but are now arguing that they want many more.
  6.30 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: On the motorway.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The point about motorways is that they are working. The casualty figure that I gave compared to that for rural roads is devastatingly good. As I said, the Government's attention ought to be directed there. The last review of the motorway speed limit concluded that to raise the motorway limit would risk increasing accidents and casualties; result in higher emissions of CO2 and oxides of nitrogen; and generate more noise.
  There is already a power for the Secretary of State to bring regulations before Parliament for debate to change the speed limits on our roads. That power is contained in Section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Also, Sections 17 and 84 of that Act provide for orders to be made so that speed limit changes can be made in circumstances detailed in such orders. To date, the power to introduce variable speed limits has been used only on the M25, although we intend to use it in a new scheme on the M42.
  However, the fact that existing legislation provides that flexibility does not necessarily mean that it is sensible to use it. Also, the necessary infrastructure is not in place to cover the complete motorway network if variable speed limit controls were to be applied nationally. That returns us to the point about the development of new technology. As it develops, variable speed limit controls may become a real possibility.
  Reducing speed limits during bad weather may have its attractions. However, a number of issues would need to be resolved before we could give it serious consideration. Defining what is bad weather and determining the appropriate speed limit needs more consideration and there may not be a simple solution. For example, what lower limit would be appropriate and for what conditions? That is not a practical proposition now and does not require new legislation. I concede that it may be something that we would want to review in future under existing legislation.
  We have had a full debate. We are not going to agree, but I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Rotherwick: First, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am grateful that he sees it as a subject to be reviewed later. I was sad not to hear from the Liberal Democrats. In the other place, their Front Bench spokesman seemed warmly to welcome the idea. He said that he saw nothing wrong in principle with the possibility of raising speed limits to 80 miles an hour. It was a pity that we did not hear that argument here.
  GC 228
  I am sorry that this emotive subject got the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Faulkner and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, up and running. I can only say that I view them somewhat as the red flag brigade. They were probably better off behind a red flag when motor cars only went at five miles an hour and no one wanted to raise the speed limit. I have to tell them that things have moved on since then.
  I also venture to point out that Germany has much higher speed limits. If we consider the populations of France and Germany compared to ours—
  Lord Bradshaw: If the noble Lord considers accident figures in Germany, he will see that they are immensely worse than ours. That is partly due to the excessive speeds at which people drive. I was quite convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. Our spokesman in the other place, whom I would not want to denigrate, represents a constituency in the north of Scotland where the population on the road is rather less than it is on roads such as the M40, the M5 and the M4, with which we are much more familiar. In my experience, I see no argument whatever for raising the speed limit.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am so glad that at long last we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. It is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats to say one thing at one end of the Corridor and another at the other. It may be that this is another Midlothian question that we should be considering.
  In Germany, where the speed limit is 150 kilometres per hour, we do not find all the cars driving at more than 150 kilometres an hour. In fact, the majority of them drive more slowly. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, says, the USA comparison shows that raising speed limits increases accident rates by 38 per cent, maybe we should reduce our limit to 60 miles an hour on the expectation that people will drive at only 70 and lives will be saved.
  To return to capacity, what the noble Lord says about it is interesting, but the whole point of raising speed limits is that it would save 11 million vehicle hours per year for cars alone. That would mean that there would be fewer cars on the motorway at any one time. Conversely, every time one, unfortunately, drives past a crash, the speed of cars is reduced from a freely moving column of cars and the traffic comes virtually to a grinding halt. After the crash site, cars go back up to their previous speeds and the motorway returns to a freely flowing highway. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 124M:
  Before Clause 90, insert the following new clause—
  "BUS LANES: USE BY OTHER VEHICLES
  All bus lanes where buses are moving in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent or vehicle lane shall be open to use by cycles. motorcycles, licensed taxis and invalid vehicles."
  The noble Lord said: I hope that this will not be such an emotive subject; I would not want there to be any serious injuries or heart attacks in the Grand Committee, but, boldly, I shall continue.
  The amendment would allow us to strike a better balance than we currently achieve and to maximise bus lane capacity without hindering public transport. Sadly, it has become somewhat of a familiar sight to see a third of the road space in one direction taken up by an empty bus lane with the other lanes rammed and heaving with cars and multi-person transport. In another place, the Government argued that this is a centralising measure that damages local autonomy and limits the flexibility of local authorities. It is certainly not. However, we want to redress the balance.
  Currently, the guidance seems to dissuade local authorities from embracing such a scheme. Page 15 of the local transport note, Keeping Buses Moving, suggests that there can be no general case for allowing high-occupancy vehicles to use bus lanes other than in special situations. The first bus lanes were introduced in this country several decades ago and have not served to tackle congestion as they were envisaged to do. Although local authorities must be free to develop their own anti-congestion strategies, including the idea of high-occupancy bus lanes in the Bill would provide an important addition to the array of policies to maximise existing road use.
  The policy of allowing motorcycles in bus lanes—I am sure that every Member of the Committee expected me to address this point—has been piloted successfully in nine cities across the country, including Bristol, Reading, Swindon, Bath and Birmingham, so why not London? Even the Government recognises the advantages of the lower environmental impact of motorcycles for single use transport. Allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes will not hinder the passage of buses. Why do we not allow motorcycles in bus lanes in London, but do allow it on the M4? Allowing those vehicles to use bus lanes would be a cost-effective way of maximising road use, tackling congestion and empowering road users with the choice of using safer bus lanes, without denigrating public transport.
  Importantly, it would allow the poor motorcyclist to use a safer, non-congested part of the road. We have already heard about the vulnerability of motorcyclists, who are 30 times more likely to be killed than car users. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I have no problem with allowing motorcycles or taxis to use bus lanes. In London and presumably elsewhere, taxis already do so. I am not nearly so happy with the idea of pedal cycles or invalid vehicles using them, if by invalid vehicles is meant the low-powered sort that are not much more powerful than a motorised wheelchair.
  GC 230
  Normally, in London—I speak only from London experience with regard to bus lanes—the drivers of taxis and buses that have been held up in traffic jams take advantage of reaching a bus lane to put their foot down and make up for lost time, travelling at or very near the maximum speed allowed, which is 30 miles per hour. It is not a good idea, in principle or practice, to mix vehicles travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour with those travelling at 10 or 15 miles per hour. I know that a 27-gear bicycle may go a little faster than 15 miles per hour, but it would still not go as fast as a bus or taxi. It is dangerous to have people travelling at such different speeds competing for a narrow, limited road space.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am a little surprised at the proposal to include motorcyclists in bus lanes in cities. The one effect of doing that would be to terrify the life out of cyclists, who at present are allowed to use the inside of bus lanes. If they had motorcyclists coming up on their inside or outside, my suspicion is that the life of a cyclist in a bus lane would be very endangered.
  I see no evidence that motorcyclists are held up by traffic congestion. They are already very good at getting through traffic; indeed, it is one of the great selling points of motorised two-wheeled transport that it can get through congestion. I cannot see the benefit of bringing them into bus lanes, but I can see the disadvantage in terms of what would happen to cyclists.
  Viscount Goschen: The benefit is that there might be fewer motorcyclists killed—
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: And more cyclists.
  Viscount Goschen: I would be interested in the noble Lord's statistics of motorcycle accidents compared to bicycle accidents, if he has them, because he has based his argument on that comparison. My personal experience as a motorcyclist is that motorcyclists and cyclists share the brotherhood of the two wheels and get on very well. If I were a cyclist, I would much rather have a small and nimble motorcyclist come alongside than a bus, which is eight feet wide.
  I do not understand why motorcycles are not allowed to use bus lanes; I believe that it would be a good thing. There may be some extremely strong reasons why they should not, but I have not heard any, although the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has raised the issue once or twice at Question Time over the years. I hear what my noble friend said about the fact that motorcyclists are allowed to use the bus lane on the M4. That seems to work perfectly satisfactorily, so I do not see why the same principle should not be applied in the cities.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I start by stating the obvious: the purpose of designating bus lanes is to give priority to buses over other classes of traffic. The more that other motorised vehicles are allowed to use them as a statutory right, the more their purpose becomes devalued.

  GC 231
  Proposed new Clause 6 is unnecessary in relation to cyclists, as they already have a right to use with-flow bus lanes—that is to say, bus lanes such as the one outside this House—where buses are going in the same direction as other traffic. The Secretary of State's consent would be required if a local authority wished to exclude cycles, but that is rarely requested and so rarely given. A small number of bus lanes may exclude cycles for safety reasons—for example, where cyclists are encouraged to use a parallel cycle track rather than a narrow bus lane.
  As for motorcycles, taxis and invalid carriages, local authorities have powers to allow other vehicles to use bus lanes if they consider that it would be desirable. We believe, however, that it should be left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether any other classes of motorised traffic should be allowed to use any of their bus lanes, taking into account their local transport plans and the specific objectives in creating particular bus lanes. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be delighted to hear that that cannot be done effectively by central government.
  Guidance on bus lanes is contained in Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, which acknowledges that there are circumstances where it will be appropriate and desirable to allow other vehicles to use bus lanes and gives guidance on assessing the effects on buses and other road users. In conclusion, this amendment is not necessary in relation to cyclists and would undermine the effectiveness of bus lanes by removing the right of local authorities to decide which other vehicles, if any, should be allowed to use bus lanes.
  The question of motorcycles in the M4 bus lanes was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. The concern about motorcycles in bus lanes is the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. There are no cyclists—and, I hope, no pedestrians—on the M4 corridor. That is why motorcyclists are allowed to use it.
  With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson: Will the Minister clarify a matter regarding pedal cyclists? I was not aware that they were allowed to use bus lanes, and I have very rarely seen them use them. So many bus lanes are narrow and do not really have room for a pedal cycle and a bus side by side; although not all of them fall into that category, most do. Are pedal cyclists allowed by statute to use all bus lanes everywhere in the country?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Generally, they are allowed to use bus lanes. However, as I said, if the bus lanes are very narrow, the local authority has the right to exclude them; if a cycle track runs parallel, they can exclude them.
  Lord Rotherwick: Thank you for that exciting debate. I thank the Minister for what he said, which we shall read and consider, although we shall probably return to the amendment. I thank the noble Lord,
  GC 232
  Lord Monson, for his kind support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for expressing the fears that cyclists have about motorcyclists in bus lanes.
  A Noble Lord: Faulkner!
  Lord Rotherwick: I beg your pardon, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, I think that lie misses the point. We do have motorcyclists already in the traffic, but it is a dangerous area—that is perhaps why we have 30 times more accidents. The whole point of our proposal is to try to take motorcyclists to a less vulnerable area, into the bus lane. Perhaps he will join me one morning coming along the Embankment, where he would find numerous motorcyclists overtaking bicyclists. I have yet to see a cyclist jump out of his seat with fright at a motorcycle going past. Equally, I have travelled along the Embankment on both a cycle and a motorcycle, and I have the feeling that we do not frighten each other.
  I would be grateful if the noble Lord would look out for the statistics on the number of motorcycle accidents with bicyclists in London, to see whether there really is a confrontation and whether motorcyclists really only have accidents with cars. If that were the case, it would strengthen my argument. In the mean time, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 90 [Power to inspect blue badges]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 124N:
  Page 56, line 1, at end insert—
  "() In section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (wrongful use of disabled person's badge), in subsection (1)(a) after "badge" there is inserted "purporting to be"."
  The noble Lord said: This is a technical drafting amendment. Clause 90 amends Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide parking enforcement authorities with a power to require disabled persons' parking badges to be produced for inspection. Unreasonable refusal to produce a badge for inspection will he an offence.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to achieve consistency between the wording to be inserted into the 1970 Act in relation to the form of the badge and that used in Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 117 currently provides for wrongful use of a blue badge to be an offence. Accordingly, Section 117 of the 1984 Act needs to be amended so that reference is made to badges "purporting to be" of a form prescribed under that section. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 91 [Application of surplus income from parking places]:
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 56, line 24, at end insert—
  "() the purposes of improving road safety and reducing road casualties in the local authority's area;""
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the catalogue of items on which surplus income from parking places can be spent. It gives the opportunity to spend some of that surplus income on road safety schemes, as well as road improvements, environmental improvements and the other items in Clause 91. Its purpose is to secure more funding for road safety, to prevent conflicts with other local authority budget areas and to make clear that road safety is an important priority. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Gulling: Clause 91 gives effect to commitments we made in our local government White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. It will allow authorities to spend surplus parking fine income on environmental improvements and enable high performing authorities to be given total freedom on how to spend such surpluses. It does this by amending Section 55(4)(d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. At present, once the need for off-street parking has been considered, spending of any surplus is restricted to the funding of highway improvements or the provision of public passenger transport services. The new paragraph (iv) inserted by Clause 91 will enable surplus income to be spent on environmental improvements. The new paragraph (v) will allow regulations to be made prescribing authorities complete freedom to spend surpluses for any purposes for which they may lawfully incur expenditure.
  The amendment would add improvement of road safety and reduction of road casualties to the purposes for which surplus parking income may be used. We believe this to be unnecessary. Our reason for taking that view is that we consider that safety improvements are already covered by highway improvements. Section 55(4A) of the 1984 Act defines a highway improvement project as meaning a project connected with the carrying out of any operation which constitutes an improvement within the Highways Act 1980. Section 329 of that Act defines "improvement" as meaning anything done under powers conferred by Part V of the Act. This enables an authority to carry out any work for the improvement of a road. There are specific provisions in Part V that enable construction of cycle tracks; provision of footpaths, safety rails and barriers to safeguard persons using a road; provision of refuges to protect pedestrians crossing a road and construction of subways under, or footbridges over, roads. Part V also covers alteration of widths and levels of roads, prevention of obstruction of view at corners, installation of road humps and construction of traffic calming works.
  In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that what he seeks by his amendment is already covered by the ability of authorities to spend surplus parking income on highway improvements. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: That sounds a pretty convincing answer to me and I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 91 agreed to.
  Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 91:
  After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
  "CONTROLLING TRAFFIC ON UNCLASSIFIED ROADS ETC. IN NATIONAL PARKS
  In section 121A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (definition of local traffic authority), after subsection (5) there is inserted—
  "(5A) Under sections 1, 9, 14 and 22, the relevant National Parks Authority or officially appointed warden of the local authority shall be the local traffic authority for the purposes of controlling traffic by way of a traffic regulation order on any unclassified county road and any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway within the relevant National Park.""
  The noble Lord said: This amendment was drafted after some discussion with the Public Bill Office. I am sure that it is not correctly drafted but it had to be tabled in time. The object of moving it is to draw from the Minister some indication of the attitude of the Government. The use of what are, in effect, paths or rights of way within national parks, or national trails or footpaths, bridleways and byways open to all traffic, is a matter of great contention between those who enjoy the peace and tranquillity of the countryside and those who use four-wheel drive vehicles, two-wheelers and quadbikes. This amendment seeks to make officers of a local authority civil enforcement officers in respect of traffic regulation orders that have been obtained by a local authority. I know very well that at present these orders are being sought on a seasonal basis between October and May to stop the worst damage that is being incurred by country paths and rights of way. The whole issue appears to turn on whether these paths are roads within the meaning of various acts. Those Acts include various Road Traffic Acts, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and other Acts. If they are roads, they come within the scope of the Bill and if traffic regulation orders are promoted by local authorities then the question of the enforcement of those traffic regulation orders becomes a matter for the Bill.
  The off-roaders, motorcyclists and people who ride quadbikes argue that they are roads and they base the claims that they are putting forward for consideration under the CROW Act on the basis that they are roads. Enforcement, as we have heard in other cases that we have discussed today, depends on the police, although they will almost certainly not be available to carry out the enforcement required. Therefore my amendment provides that the local authority— I accept that this would have to apply to places that were within a special parking area—could designate certain civilian enforcement officers, who were in fact countryside wardens, to impose fixed penalty fines on vehicles breaching the traffic regulation orders on these rights of way.
  I draw attention to the fact that the national parks are not traffic authorities able to promote traffic regulation orders. There is some overlap between the national park authority and the local authority. Even so, if the local authority promoted the traffic regulation orders within the national park, they would need to be enforced. The local authority or the local chief of police could designate the people employed by the national parks authority as civil enforcement

  GC 235
  officers within the scope of the Bill. Within the past year, we have strengthened considerably the hand of the Secretary of State in the enforcement of rights of way, but we have not gone far in so doing. To the extent that we rely on the police, we shall wait a very long time. My object in moving this amendment is to probe the Government on how they intend to enforce traffic regulation orders and whether there is a case for the extension of civil enforcement to these officers. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Part 2 of Schedule 8 provides for the designation of civil enforcement areas outside Greater London. The enforcement authority in the case of parking places is the local authority responsible for their provision or designation. The enforcement authority for other parking contraventions and for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions is the local authority in whose area the contravention is committed, that is the county council, unitary council or metropolitan district council, which are also the highway and traffic authorities. So enforcement within the areas of national parks will be the responsibility of the relevant local authority. Provided that an area of a park has been designated as a civil enforcement area for the particular class of contravention, such enforcement can be carried out in the park. For example, if it has been designated as a civil enforcement area for moving traffic contraventions, the authority will be able to enforce vehicle prohibitions and weight limits on minor unclassified roads.
  It is not the purpose of Part 6 to change the definition of highway or traffic authority, which is what the new clause seems to be aimed at. Nor is Part 6 intended to provide a vehicle for revising the systems for making traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
  The 2002 review of national park authorities recommended that further consideration be given to whether they should become statutorily responsible for rights of way and sought further views. In the light of responses to the review, Ministers concluded that they did not see a change in legal responsibilities as necessary or helpful.
  The Government continue to believe that it is not necessary for the national park authorities to have statutory responsibilities for rights of way. We believe that the current arrangements work reasonably well. National park authorities can already have informal delegation arrangements with the agreement of the local highway authorities.
  GC 236
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raises the question of what are roads. Footpaths, bridleways and restricted bridleways are roads, so traffic regulation orders can be made to limit or restrict the use of those ways. They can be subject to civil enforcement provided for in the Bill. The noble Lord also asked whether it was possible for national park authority wardens to enforce traffic regulation orders. There is no reason why a local authority could not appoint a warden as a civil enforcement officer to act on its behalf.
  In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As I understand the answer, the way is open, if a local authority has special parking area status, to appoint civil enforcement officers—we knew that. In addition, however, those people could enforce traffic regulation orders in a national park or elsewhere in the authority's area, and the authority could appoint as a civil enforcement officer the warden employed by a national park authority, if it so wished. On that understanding, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 127A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 92 agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Financial provision]:
  [Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
  Clause 93 agreed to.
  Clause 94 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 [Repeals]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 89, column 2, leave out line 14.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
  Title agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Accidental Dwelling Fires
  Northern Ireland: Accidental Dwelling Fires
  Northern Ireland: Languages
  Northern Ireland: Languages
  Iraq: Car Bombs
  Iraq: Car Bombs
  Defence Spending
  Defence Spending
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  Reservists
  Reservists
  NATO: Ground Surveillance System
  NATO: Ground Surveillance System
  Airborne Stand-off Radar Programme
  Airborne Stand-off Radar Programme
  Watchkeeper
  Watchkeeper
  Iraq: Civilian Deaths
  Iraq: Civilian Deaths
  Education: Targets
  Education: Targets
  Pensions Bill: Limited Price Indexation
  Pensions Bill: Limited Price Indexation
  Pensions Bill: Pension Protection Fund
  Pensions Bill: Pension Protection Fund
  Domestic Violence: Emergency Accommodation
  Domestic Violence: Emergency Accommodation
  Local Authorities: Conduct of Candidates
  Local Authorities: Conduct of Candidates
  Ofcom: Radio Spectrum
  Ofcom: Radio Spectrum
  Civil Partnerships: Inheritance Provisions
  Civil Partnerships: Inheritance Provisions
  Asylum Seekers: Return to Country of Origin
  Asylum Seekers: Return to Country of Origin
  Asylum Seekers: Readmission to Third Countries
  Asylum Seekers: Readmission to Third Countries
  Overseas Post-graduate Students: Visa Fees
  Overseas Post-graduate Students: Visa Fees
  Community Punishments
  Community Punishments
  Prisoners: Literacy
  Prisoners: Literacy
  Asylum Seekers from Zimbabwe
  Asylum Seekers from Zimbabwe
  UK Frontiers: Security against Organised Crime and Illegal Immigration
  UK Frontiers: Security against Organised Crime and Illegal Immigration
  EU Enlargement: Roma Migrants
  EU Enlargement: Roma Migrants
  Passports
  Passports
  HMP Maghaberry: Immigration Act Detainees
  HMP Maghaberry: Immigration Act Detainees
  Asylum Seekers: Gender Issues
  Asylum Seekers: Gender Issues
  Afghanistan: Reconstruction
  Afghanistan: Reconstruction
  Iraq: Amnesty International Report
  Iraq: Amnesty International Report
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  North Korea
  North Korea
  Vietnam: Montagnard Christians
  Vietnam: Montagnard Christians
  Iraq: Alleged Punitive House Demolitions
  Iraq: Alleged Punitive House Demolitions
  Iraqi Special Tribunal
  Iraqi Special Tribunal
  Rural Delivery Review
  Rural Delivery Review

  Northern Ireland Prison Service: Corporate and Business Plan 2004–07
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's corporate and business plan for 2004–07 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The corporate and business plan contains key performance targets I have set for the service for 2004–05. These are:

  1. No escape for top and high-risk prisoners.

  2. No more than three escapes per 1,000 medium and low-risk prisoners.

  3. The number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of five per 100 prisoners.

  4. The number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of six per 100 prisoners.

  5. An average of at least 18 hours' constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner.

  6. An average of at least nine hours' constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner.

  7. To ensure 82.5 per cent of prisoners serving six months or more are working to a resettlement plan and that 95 per cent of lifers work to a resettlement plan, including preparation of the plan, in the first six months from sentence.

  8. Deliver at least 85 percent of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities.

  9. Reduce the rate of absenteeism to an annual average of no more than 19 days per head.

  10. Lay the annual report and audited accounts before Parliament prior to the summer Recess.

  11. Ensure the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed the target to be agreed with HM Treasury.

  The Government have committed substantial resource to implementing the Steele report, so that staff remain in full control. This does not mean any reduction in the need to tackle the other costs which make for an excessively high cost per prisoner place.

  Also, in light of developments following the Steele report, and to support the development of partnerships with a wider range of statutory and voluntary agencies beyond the criminal justice system, I have agreed some adjustments to the service's statement of purpose, which now reads as follows:
  "The Northern Ireland Prison Service, through our staff, serves the community by keeping in secure, safe and humane custody those committed by the courts; by working with prisoners and with other organisations seeks to reduce the risk of reoffending; and in so doing aims to protect the public and to contribute to peace and stability in Northern Ireland."

  House of Lords: Peers' Mileage and Bicycle Allowances
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
  The resolution of the House of 20 July 1994 provided for the rate of motor mileage allowance to be uprated annually on 1 April in line with the increase in the retail prices index over the previous 12 months to March.

  Accordingly, with effect from 1 April 2004, the rate of motor mileage allowance was increased from 56.1 pence to 57.6 pence for the first 20,000 miles for the period to 31 March 2005. Further mileage in this period is now payable at the rate of 26.6 pence per mile (increased from 25.9 pence per mile).

  The resolution of the House of 20 May 1998 provided for the rate of the bicycle allowance to be uprated annually on 1 April in line with the increase in the retail prices index over the previous 12 months to March.

  Accordingly, with effect from 1 April 2004, the rate of the bicycle allowance was increased from 7.2 pence to 7.4 pence per mile.

  Armed Forces: Individual Training and Education
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Our Armed Forces have an enviable reputation throughout the world for their professional delivery of operational military capability in a vast spectrum of roles. These range from war fighting to the complex and often subtle requirements of peace support operations and counter-terrorism; besides turning their hand, as they have done in recent years, to providing support to the civil community assisting with firefighting, flood relief and the foot and mouth outbreak. Most who come across Service personnel acknowledge that they have sound essential military skills and operate within an ethos that differs from that generally found within the sphere of civilian employment. Yet those who join the Services are not fundamentally different from the rest of society. What turns a young man or woman into a Service person, capable of taking on successfully the variety of challenging roles which our country demands of them, is the training and education undertaken by Servicemen and women throughout their careers.

  The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest providers of training and education to the 16-plus age group in the UK. The initial training delivered to new recruits is geared to provide them with the essential skills and knowledge to be capable of operating effectively in often unpredictable, violent, dangerous and stressful environments from the outset of their careers. The MoD seeks to develop each individual to his or her maximum potential. Service personnel are given training and education to improve upon their latent ability. Some who join may lack basic skills while others have graduate qualifications. The scope

  WS 47
  and scale of the training and education provision is considerable, and spans the whole length of a career in the Armed Forces. Not only does this help to recruit and retain people, but, equally importantly, when Service personnel return to civilian employment, they take with them skills of value to society.

  I am therefore pleased to announce that today I have placed in the Library of the House a policy paper, entitled Individual Training and Education in the Armed Forces. The paper provides information on the MoD's wide spectrum of training and education and explains the skills agenda to which this operates. At its core lies the fundamental requirement to prepare Servicemen and women to deliver operational capability. It includes insights into the key stages of initial training and the training environment, and highlights the MoD's determination to remain at the forefront of developing skills for the 21st century.

  Defence Dental Agency: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Dental Agency (DDA) for the financial year 2004–05:

  Key Target 1: Meeting Operational Manpower Requirements

  To meet 100 per cent of the Commander in Chief's requirements for DDA manpower to support operations.

  Key Target 2: Dental Risk

  To achieve 90 per cent of all Service personnel in dental risk categories A and B by 31 March 2005.

  Key Target 3: Treatment Needs

  To reduce the treatment needs index for each Service to the following: RN at or below 375; Army at or below 600; RAF at or below 375 by 31 March 2005.

  Key Target 4: Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent of all DDA personnel, whose medical category permits, achieve their Service's annual mandatory individual military training.

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Annual Report 2004
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  On Friday, my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I are pleased to present to Parliament the annual report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for 2004. It sets out the achievements of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  WS 48
  The aim of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to create sustainable communities—places where people want to live. It is about revitalising communities, delivering sustainable economic growth, revitalising areas of neglect, improving the quality of local environment and protecting the countryside.

  This, our second annual report, details an impressive array of achievements in every area of our work. We are driving up the quality and supply of housing, speeding up the planning system, reducing the incidence of rough sleeping and the number of homeless families in B&B accommodation, improving our public spaces and giving people a bigger say in what happens in their regions. We are delivering strong, effective local government services and devolving power to local neighbourhoods. We are also renewing and regenerating neighbourhoods particularly in our most deprived areas and reducing social exclusion.

  But we must not be complacent and we know that more remains to be done. We will therefore continue to work hard to deliver our aim of creating sustainable communities that provide a better quality of life, now and in future generations.

  Homeless Households: Temporary Accommodation
  Lord Rooker
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce today the significant achievement against the Government's bed and breakfast reduction target that, by March 2004, local authorities should ensure that no homeless family with children should have to live in a bed and breakfast hotel except in an emergency, and even then for no longer than six weeks.

  Figures collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister show a 99.3 per cent reduction in the number of homeless families with children living in bed and breakfast hotels for longer than six weeks, and who were placed there by a local housing authority as a discharge of a homelessness duty, over the two years since March 2002 when the target was set. Local authorities reported a total of only 26 families with children in B&B in excess of six weeks as of 31 March compared to an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 homeless families with children placed long-term in bed and breakfast hotels in March 2002. This reduction reflects the excellent achievement of local authorities working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A total of 328, or 95 per cent, of local authorities met the bed and breakfast target.

  In London, where the highest concentrations of homelessness exist and where the highest number of families had been accommodated in bed and breakfast hotels, there were no homeless families who had been in B&B for longer than six weeks on 31 March.

  Figures collected also show that the total number of homeless families with children in B&B was reduced by 88 per cent from an estimated 6,730 in March 2002

  WS 49
  to 780 in March 2004. This is the first sustained reduction in total use of bed and breakfast to house homeless families for over a decade.

  The table below shows the breakdown of bed and breakfast figures for March 2004 for the sixteen local authorities that failed to meet the target. A table showing the breakdown for all local authorities is available in the Libraries of the House. Further information is also

  Local Authority

  Region

  No. of FWC in B&B

  No. in B&B 6 weeks

  Comments

  1.

  Waveney

  Eastern

  17

  7

  It is disappointing that Waveney predicted a lower number of FWC in B&B for longer than six weeks but was then unable to match the success of other authorities facing similar conditions.

  5 FWC moved out of B&B by 19 April

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 29 April

  1 FWC due to move out of B&B on 5 May

  2.

  Gloucester

  South West

  10

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 5 April

  1 FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 26 April

  3.

  Arun

  South East

  5

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 7 April

  1 FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 28 April

  4.

  Sleuth Somerset

  South West

  6

  2

  Both FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April

  5.

  Erewash

  East Midlands

  10

  2

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April

  1 FWC moved out of B&B on 2 April

  6.

  Crawley

  South East

  11

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 1 April

  7.

  Swale

  South East

  7

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 22 April

  8.

  North Dorset

  South West

  1

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 16 April

  9.

  North Wiltshire

  South West

  3

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 22 April

  10.

  Purbeck

  South West

  1

  1

  Large FWC, identifying suitable large property has delayed rehousing. Provisional date of 7 May for move out of B&B

  11.

  Rushcliffe

  East Midlands

  2

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 8 April

  12.

  Harrogate

  Yorkshire & Humber

  1

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 2 April

  13.

  North Shropshire

  West Midlands

  3

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome then moved out of B&B on 5 April

  14.

  Surrey Heath

  South East

  2

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 8 April

  15.

  Torridge

  South West

  1

  1

  FWC housed pending review outcome, re housing plan depends on review decision.

  FWC still in B&B

  16.

  Vale Royal

  North West

  3

  1

  FWC moved out of B&B on 12 April

  The table shows the 31 March 2004 monthly monitoring figures for homeless families with children (FWC) in B&B accommodation for the 16 authorities that failed to meet the target.

  All local authorities that failed to meet the target provided details of the families concerned. A number of families are described as "housed pending review outcome". In these cases the families have submitted an appeal against the authority's decision on their homelessness application. In such instances the local authority can choose to continue to house the family under discretionary powers.

  BBC: New Services Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport WS 50
  available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website (www.odpm.gov.uk).

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to work with local authorities, voluntary sector organisations and other stakeholders to sustain this target and our successful reductions in rough sleeping. We will also continue to work with stakeholders on tackling and preventing wider homelessness problems more effectively.

  Numbers of families with children in B&B accommodation on 31 March 2004

  (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today announced the start of the independent reviews of the BBC's new digital radio and television services along with the names of the two individuals who will conduct these studies.

  The services concerned are: BBC Three; BBC Four; Cbeebies; CBBC; 1Xtra; BBC Asian Network; BBC Five Live Sports Extra; BBC 6 Music; and BBC 7. I have also published today the BBC's submission on these services, an electronic copy of which is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have announced previously my intention to appoint one reviewer for the digital television channels and one for the digital radio channels. I am pleased to be able to confirm the appointment of Patrick Barwise to the former position and Tim Gardam to the latter.
  WS 51
  The reviews will begin immediately and will run concurrently. In accordance with the conditions that I laid down when giving my approval for the BBC to develop these new digital services, both reviews will include both a period of public consultation and a market impact study. I have asked both reviewers to submit their reports to me by the end of August 2004.

  Business Link Website
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has transformed its services to businesses by listening to the needs and priorities of business people.

  I am today launching a one-stop website for business. Businesslink.gov.uk will act as a gateway for information and support from across government.

  The new DTI-sponsored site removes the confusing array of advice about government services that up to now has confronted businesses—particularly small businesses. Businesslink.gov is the result of a successful collaboration involving a wide range of government departments and agencies: the DTI, HM Treasury, the Office of the e-Envoy, the Small Business Service, the Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Education and Skills, the Environment Agency, ACAS and Companies House.

  For the first time ever one site provides quick and easy online access for firms needing information about funding and services provided by departments and agencies, including advice on starting up a business, taxation, employing people and health and safety.

  Services include opportunities for businesses to register for e-filing with Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and Companies House in one go as
  WS 52
  well as a filter to help users to identify which licences they need to trade.

  Advice is provided in clear language on issues which businesses have identified as important and relevant to their needs. It is supported by practical tools to achieve results and therefore reduce the time that businesses have to spend on regulations and other matters.

  Work has now largely been completed on the radical restructuring of the DTI's business support to create products that promote enterprise innovation and best practice to meet customer need for a streamlined range of products that are easy to access.

  Four of these new products were released in 2003: grant for research and development, knowledge transfer partnerships, grant for investigating an innovative idea and the small firms loan guarantee.

  Five new support products became available to businesses during April this year. These are: collaborative research and development, knowledge transfer networks, access to best business practice, support to implement best business practice and selective finance for investment in England.

  Small and medium-sized businesses will be able to access these products through Business Link. Larger corporates and business organisations can access them through the DTI while the regional development agencies will deliver products which deal with specific regional issues. Detailed information about all these products is available to businesses through the business support directory available on Businesslink.gov.

  In the development of these products I have been advised by an expert investment committee that includes and is chaired by independent business members. The committee will ensure that the impact of DTI products is thoroughly evaluated and that there is a clear economic rationale for the support we provide.

  The closure of business support schemes that the DTI has funded in the past is progressing as quickly as possible but at a pace which meets outstanding commitments.